To convince me...
-
To convince me that the Dharma is actually benefitial for me, you'll first have to convince me that...
1) 'Rebirth' exist.
Whether or not 'rebirth' really does exist or not brings much implication. For one, if death is indeed the absolute end of one's journey in this world, I can simply go and kill, rape, rob, bully, commit genocide, and do all kinds of evil deeds I want, as long as I am able to avoid the hands of the law.
But I wouldn't do such thing. I can see how hatred, anger and jealousy can bring suffering to oneself and all around me even in this life alone.
So I'll just be a good guy. I'll be kind towards all humans and animals, plants and properties. I do not question why others are more better off than me, I do not hold grudges. I avoid evil deed. I die a peaceful death.
Of course, there's another thread here which mentions that even if we may be happy now, it surely does not mean that this happiness and peacefulness will last forever. In a world where impermanance is the obvious law, we cannot guarantee eternal happiness.
Then there's where 'positive thinking' comes in. I'll just take everything in my stride. Even in times of happiness, I prepare myself mentally for any eventualities of misfortune. In times of sufferings, I maintain a optimistic view that I can change my situation. The law of impermanance says that I can change. In short, no doubt suffering may befall on my physical body. But I can just keep my mind free.
You may argue that 'positive thinking' in itself is a form of dharma. I agree. In fact, it's Buddhism that teaches me how to remain optimistic. But in spite of this, I do not see a need for a 'complete liberation'. You'll first have to convince me that I'll have a life after this life.
Besides, if there's no such thing as 'rebirth', then all the talk about Karma is basically very much bullshit. I can kill a hundred people. But if I can escape the law and die a peaceful death...well, you know.
2) That the six realms exist
Simple enough. If there's no such thing as 'hell realm' or 'hungry ghost realm', the appeal for liberation is weakened. Better still, if 'eternal heaven' exist, I'll give up trying to understand Buddhism straight away.
But obviously, I do not believe in an 'eternal heaven'.
3) That desire cannot exist without attachment
The way I see it, desires and attachments are two very much distinct elements. I am sure desires can exist without having attachments.
Just an analogy. I desire for the latest handphone. But when a better handphone comes out onto the market, I'll find my current handphone obsolete and desire for that newer handphone. In a way, this is a never-ending desire for newer and better stuff.
But I don't see why a desire for better stuff should be equated to having an attachment for better goods.
If one day, I should somehow loose the ability to get the newest and best handphone in the market (i.e. no money), so be it. I'll just let it go. I'll buy that handphone when I regain my ability to, and if I'll sadly never regain that ability, then I shall just not buy it.
I will not cry or get depressed over it, I will not kill or rob for it, I will not beg and get sleepless nights over it.
I desire for that handphone. But I'm not attached to it.
4) That it is possible to get rid of suffering. And that it is the dharma that will make this possible.
The reason why I brought up 'positive thinking' or 'optimisim' is that I feel that many things are beyond our ability to control. And since they are beyond our control, we might as well remain positive. But is it ever possible to remove suffering?
As said, I may be a good guy, but that does not mean that I'll be free from suffering.
For one, I could just be minding my own business walking on the street when suddenly, an atom bomb drops on our neighbouring country, thereby killing me not instantly, but slowly by sending me a painful dose of radiation.
One thing about learning history in school is that it made me realise that world events are most of the time, influence not by people power, but by the few elites who decides the fate of his fellow mankind.
Getting rid of our suffering permanently sounds appealing. Developing compassion and helping others get rid of their suffering sounds even more attractive. Practicing and preaching the dharma is the key, you all say.
But let's not forget that 2,500 years ago, someone tried doing this. 2,500 years and numerous wars, famines and disasters later, the state of this Earth is for all of us to see.
As you might have guessed, I'm not totally unconvinced that Buddhism is good. I would not deny that perhaps practicing one-third of the Buddhist teachings I've come across has a great positive impact on my life. And out of so many religious doctrines out there, Buddhism sounds the most logical to me.
But so long as no religion can convince me why I can and should remove the so-called 'roots' of my desire, convince me why I am actually not as happy as I think I am, convince me how I can remove other people's suffering, convince me that death is not game over, I'm very sure I'll forever remain an athetist trying to make my life as blissful as I can before I die a peaceful death.
I've been attending buddhist study classes for a huge part of my 18-years life. But here I am, still, with the above texts.
I may not respond for some time as, if you do not know, I'm actually half-way through taking my A'levels... ...
Last but not least, please treat me as someone who have absolutely no basic understanding of Buddhism at all. Simply worded response with no deep philosophy containing turn-off technical terms such as 'emptiness' or 'duality'.
Just pretend that I'm an absolute beginner. -
Originally posted by mahawarrior:
Sorry, boss, I am taking my masters but as far as I know, the above questions you posed are one and the same I have and I know whatever Buddhist theory being posted on this forum has to be taken in good faith.
To convince me that the Dharma is actually benefitial for me, you'll first have to convince me that...
[b]1) 'Rebirth' exist.
Whether or not 'rebirth' really does exist or not brings much implication. For one, if death is indeed the absolute end of one's journey in this world, I can simply go and kill, rape, rob, bully, commit genocide, and do all kinds of evil deeds I want, as long as I am able to avoid the hands of the law.
But I wouldn't do such thing. I can see how hatred, anger and jealousy can bring suffering to oneself and all around me even in this life alone.
So I'll just be a good guy. I'll be kind towards all humans and animals, plants and properties. I do not question why others are more better off than me, I do not hold grudges. I avoid evil deed. I die a peaceful death.
Of course, there's another thread here which mentions that even if we may be happy now, it surely does not mean that this happiness and peacefulness will last forever. In a world where impermanance is the obvious law, we cannot guarantee eternal happiness.
Then there's where 'positive thinking' comes in. I'll just take everything in my stride. Even in times of happiness, I prepare myself mentally for any eventualities of misfortune. In times of sufferings, I maintain a optimistic view that I can change my situation. The law of impermanance says that I can change. In short, no doubt suffering may befall on my physical body. But I can just keep my mind free.
You may argue that 'positive thinking' in itself is a form of dharma. I agree. In fact, it's Buddhism that teaches me how to remain optimistic. But in spite of this, I do not see a need for a 'complete liberation'. You'll first have to convince me that I'll have a life after this life.
Besides, if there's no such thing as 'rebirth', then all the talk about Karma is basically very much bullshit. I can kill a hundred people. But if I can escape the law and die a peaceful death...well, you know.
2) That the six realms exist
Simple enough. If there's no such thing as 'hell realm' or 'hungry ghost realm', the appeal for liberation is weakened. Better still, if 'eternal heaven' exist, I'll give up trying to understand Buddhism straight away.
But obviously, I do not believe in an 'eternal heaven'.
3) That desire cannot exist without attachment
The way I see it, desires and attachments are two very much distinct elements. I am sure desires can exist without having attachments.
Just an analogy. I desire for the latest handphone. But when a better handphone comes out onto the market, I'll find my current handphone obsolete and desire for that newer handphone. In a way, this is a never-ending desire for newer and better stuff.
But I don't see why a desire for better stuff should be equated to having an attachment for better goods.
If one day, I should somehow loose the ability to get the newest and best handphone in the market (i.e. no money), so be it. I'll just let it go. I'll buy that handphone when I regain my ability to, and if I'll sadly never regain that ability, then I shall just not buy it.
I will not cry or get depressed over it, I will not kill or rob for it, I will not beg and get sleepless nights over it.
I desire for that handphone. But I'm not attached to it.
4) That it is possible to get rid of suffering. And that it is the dharma that will make this possible.
The reason why I brought up 'positive thinking' or 'optimisim' is that I feel that many things are beyond our ability to control. And since they are beyond our control, we might as well remain positive. But is it ever possible to remove suffering?
As said, I may be a good guy, but that does not mean that I'll be free from suffering.
For one, I could just be minding my own business walking on the street when suddenly, an atom bomb drops on our neighbouring country, thereby killing me not instantly, but slowly by sending me a painful dose of radiation.
One thing about learning history in school is that it made me realise that world events are most of the time, influence not by people power, but by the few elites who decides the fate of his fellow mankind.
Getting rid of our suffering permanently sounds appealing. Developing compassion and helping others get rid of their suffering sounds even more attractive. Practicing and preaching the dharma is the key, you all say.
But let's not forget that 2,500 years ago, someone tried doing this. 2,500 years and numerous wars, famines and disasters later, the state of this Earth is for all of us to see.
As you might have guessed, I'm not totally unconvinced that Buddhism is good. I would not deny that perhaps practicing one-third of the Buddhist teachings I've come across has a great positive impact on my life. And out of so many religious doctrines out there, Buddhism sounds the most logical to me.
But so long as no religion can convince me why I can and should remove the so-called 'roots' of my desire, convince me why I am actually not as happy as I think I am, convince me how I can remove other people's suffering, convince me that death is not game over, I'm very sure I'll forever remain an athetist trying to make my life as blissful as I can before I die a peaceful death.
I've been attending buddhist study classes for a huge part of my 18-years life. But here I am, still, with the above texts.
I may not respond for some time as, if you do not know, I'm actually half-way through taking my A'levels... ...
Last but not least, please treat me as someone who have absolutely no basic understanding of Buddhism at all. Simply worded response with no deep philosophy containing turn-off technical terms such as 'emptiness' or 'duality'.
Just pretend that I'm an absolute beginner.[/b] -
to each his own.
-
Originally posted by mahawarrior:
No amount of positive thinking can make you be liberated at all times. Liberation comes from seeing our true nature. Even if you are a person with a v care-free, take-it-easy kind of perspective, you cannot thereby be freed from all distresses and the pain of sickness, death, etc.
[b] Of course, there's another thread here which mentions that even if we may be happy now, it surely does not mean that this happiness and peacefulness will last forever. In a world where impermanance is the obvious law, we cannot guarantee eternal happiness.
Then there's where 'positive thinking' comes in. I'll just take everything in my stride. Even in times of happiness, I prepare myself mentally for any eventualities of misfortune. In times of sufferings, I maintain a optimistic view that I can change my situation. The law of impermanance says that I can change. In short, no doubt suffering may befall on my physical body. But I can just keep my mind free.
You may argue that 'positive thinking' in itself is a form of dharma. I agree. In fact, it's Buddhism that teaches me how to remain optimistic. But in spite of this, I do not see a need for a 'complete liberation'.
In Buddhism, there are 8 kinds of distresses that we go through. See http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol4no1a.htm
The fundamental point here is that, without liberating from the basic dualistic assumption of subject-object, you will always be trapped in tanha (desire), and the 2nd noble truth states that tanha (desire) causes suffering (such as lack, fear, anxiety, and dissatisfaction, etc).
What kinds of desires? There are three kinds. Desire for sense pleasure (kama tanha), desire to become (bhava tanha) and desire to get rid of (vibhava tanha).
The problem is that when we desire something, lets say sense pleasure, the more we seek, the wider we split the subject and the object (and as you know there really is no subject apart from object), the more painful and dissatisfactory it is. We then become discontent with life as it is, we cannot see that what is arising now is already self-perfected as it is, we cannot see that all there is is simply conditioned arising -- and a perfect expression of our primordial nature, our Buddha Nature.
Similarly, if something unpleasurable arises, we try to widen the gap between subject and object, we try to shut off, manipulate, get rid of the undesired object from a phantom subject (you) which will not work because there is really no such thing as a subject-object split. And because it can never be done, the more you try to avert it, the more suffering and dissatisfaction you experience.
In reality, there only is the universe manifesting as it is in itself, conditioned arising, a mere happening that happens to no-one. Whatever arises at that moment, is as it is. If pain arises, it is not 'your pain' from 'your body'. The universe is pain and it is happening to no one because there is no self apart from manifestation.
And the problem of clinging to a desired object then becomes that it is ultimately impermanent, and there is no way that a 'subject' (which never existed) can grasp onto the 'object', since it is empty and ungraspable (utterly transient and ephemeral), being merely only conditioned arising, the aggregation of causes and conditions, and having no reality apart from it.
If you see a colourful flower and a dog and an insect too sees it, you and the dog and the ant are not going to see the same things. The dog is only going to see black and white. Why? Because the nature of the flower is Empty -- there is no graspable 'Essence of Flower' or the 'Flowerness of the Flower' -- Flower is empty of any inherent existence, being only conditioned arising, merely the aggregation of causes and conditions, and having no reality apart from it!
Whatever arises is the whole universe manifesting as that moment. Know that the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. All conditions and causes are just right for the birth a moment of manifestation. When this is understood, the 'conditioned arising' is really unconditioned, all spontaneously arise.
If we can understand the the nature of the object we are seeking is in essence empty of any inherent existence, being merely conditioned arising, and that the subject-object relationship is false, there will be complete resting and contentment in the moment of arising. You will not fall under the false dualistic relationship of a 'subject' trying to manipulate the 'external universe', trying to get away from or stop/manipulate what is presently arising, trying to get something better than what is here, trying to shut off yourself from the world, etc.
It is seen that all there is is conditioned arising -- that what you are is simply the scenery, sound of bird chirping, sound of keyboard typing, words appearing on the screen.. there is no observer apart from the observed. As Buddha said, in seeing, only the seen, no seer. In hearing, only the heard, no hearer. (this goes for all other six senses including thinking) And the seen, the heard, the felt, the thought, the taste, all are simply conditioned arising that is empty of any fixed forms, shapes, attributes, etc. Emptiness that has a luminous heart giving rise to infinite potentiality. And that is your nature.
So Buddha Nature is not one! There is no 'The Absolute' but all moments are a reality/'absolute' in itself! (just like there is no 'Essence of Flower', only conditioned manifestation according to causes and conditions) Because Buddha Nature really is the manifold -- the whole universe, everything, as conditioned arising that is empty and never fixed, everchanging. Yet it is not many either! Because all that is inseparable in One Taste, being all the manifestation of our pristine awareness, and being an inseparable wholeness, also known as One Reality or One Mind but really it does not have a single nor multiple realities because its nature is empty. (See the recent topic, the last few posts, A nightmare)
There are lots of various descriptions of our Buddha Nature -- all pervading, brighter than a thousand suns, mirror-like, indestructible. And all conditioned arising is an expression of the unconditioned Buddha Nature. All that is arising is the Buddha. They are all your pristine awareness at that moment with its nature empty -- never the same and never remain (having no existence and reality apart from conditioned arising), nothing apart from the crystal clear manifestation of appearances. Completely and fully real and gone.
A bird is chirping happily outside... just that sound. The whole universe is just that sound. Completely real, but never staying... gone as it arises. Merely a conditioned manifestation that is empty.
Just like patterns of clouds appearing in the sky -- they are all conditioned arising.
...We call it weather, but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding and wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amid darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So—what is weather other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever-changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No real entity weather exists anywhere except in thinking and talking about it....
...Now, is there such an entity as me or I? Or is it just like the weather—an ongoing, ever-changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creation and destruction, that thought keeps calling I, me, Toni, and thereby solidifying what is evanescent?...
...How are we to come upon the truth if separateness is taken so much for granted, feels so commonsense?
The difficulty is not insurmountable. Wholeness, our true being, is here all the time, like the sun behind the clouds. Light is here in spite of cloud cover.
What makes up the clouds?... (see Emptiness and No-Self) -
(continued from previous post)
All gain and loss is also simply that -- conditioned arising. The sense of a 'controller' is let go of, no 'self' is in control. This does not mean we must not exert effort to get good exam results (we must exert our fullest effort), it just means that gain and loss must be seen as conditioned arising.
Practice is about losing oneself and all merely happens as if 'you' never existed. One must eventually undergo a complete psychological death, and be completely dead in the living. As the saying goes -- die before you die. At that moment, deep dreamless sleep where the self completely subsides, is no longer different from conscious state. There is no more attachment, no more unwillingness and grasping to the need to 'exist' consciously. One requires fearlessness to dissolve this habit of 'self-preservation'... and when that is done, samatha and insight becomes one.To convince me that the Dharma is actually benefitial for me, you'll first have to convince me that...1) 'Rebirth' exist.
Whether or not 'rebirth' really does exist or not brings much implication. For one, if death is indeed the absolute end of one's journey in this world, I can simply go and kill, rape, rob, bully, commit genocide, and do all kinds of evil deeds I want, as long as I am able to avoid the hands of the law.
But I wouldn't do such thing. I can see how hatred, anger and jealousy can bring suffering to oneself and all around me even in this life alone.
So I'll just be a good guy. I'll be kind towards all humans and animals, plants and properties. I do not question why others are more better off than me, I do not hold grudges. I avoid evil deed. I die a peaceful death.[/quote]
&You'll first have to convince me that I'll have a life after this life.
There certainly is rebirth. There are many topics in this forum in the past discussing about rebirth. Here are some of them you might want to refer to:
Besides, if there's no such thing as 'rebirth', then all the talk about Karma is basically very much bullshit. I can kill a hundred people. But if I can escape the law and die a peaceful death...well, you know.
Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors
why do people believe in past lives?
buddhism is alright but still faulty.....
what is buddhism evidence of reincarnation?
The Boy Who Lived Before (interesting video!!)
and many many more, you may do a search.
You should know that not only is there scientific proof of rebirth, (check Dr Ian Stevenson), there are uncountable number of people who have past life memories. Some of them are children, some of them gained their past life memories through other means such as meditation.
There are also quite a few people in our forum who could remember their past lives. One of them is Longchen (who is also a highly experienced and enlightened meditator/practitioner), who has shared many accounts of several of his previous lifetimes. Not only that -- he was able to trace happenings in this lifetime to a karmic cause in his previous lifetime. He is able to know who his wife, and the people he met, were in his past lives.
Go read the links I provided, you might be able to find *some* info (I wrote quite little, longchen told me much more than that and many more interesting things when I met him personally)
Not only karmic causes for some unpleasant happenings, he was also able to trace interest, talent, and spiritual background all the way back to many (separate) lifetimes ago.
And he is not alone. Many Buddhist practitioners are also able to do this... You can too.
Buddhism and Science
[quote]Originally posted by concerned_man:
Come and See for Yourself
If you had just one person who had been confirmed as medically dead who could describe to the doctors, as soon as they were revived, what had been said, and done during that period of death, wouldn't that be pretty convincing? When I was doing elementary particle physics there was a theory that required for its proof the existence of what was called the 'W' particle. At the cyclotron in Geneva, CERN funded a huge research project, smashing atoms together with an enormous particle accelerator, to try and find one of these 'W' particles. They spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on this project. They found one, just one 'W' particle. I don't think they have found another since. But once they found one 'W' particle, the researchers involved in that project were given Nobel prizes for physics. They had proved the theory by just finding the one 'W' particle. That's good science. Just one is enough to prove the theory.
When it comes to things we don't like to believe, they call just one experience, one clear factual undeniable experience, an anomaly. Anomaly is a word in science for disconcerting evidence that we can put in the back of a filing cabinet and not look at again, because it's threatens our worldview. It undermines what we want to believe. It is threatening to our dogma. However, an essential part of the scientific method is that theories have to be abandoned in favour of the evidence, in respect of the facts. The point is that the evidence for a mind independent of the brain is there. But once we admit that evidence, and follow the scientific method, then many cherished theories, what we call 'sacred cows' will have to be abandoned.
When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change the theory to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism. All the Dhamma of the Buddha, everything that he taught, if it does not fit the experience, then we should not accept it. We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly stated in the Kālāma Sutta. (AN III, 65) The Buddha said do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it. Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or because it's comforting to you. Make sure it fits your experience. The existence of mind, independent of the brain, fits experience. The facts are there.
Sometimes, however, we cannot trust the experts. You cannot trust Ajahn Brahm. You cannot trust the scientific journals. Because people are often biased. Buddhism gives you a scientific method for your practice. Buddhism says, do the experiment and find out for your self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out your experience. For example, develop the method to test the truth of past lives, rebirth and reincarnation. Don't just believe it with faith, find out for yourself. The Buddha has given a scientific experiment that you can repeat.
Until you understand the law of kamma, which is part of Buddhism, kamma is just a theory. Do you believe that there is a God 'up there' who decides when you can be happy or unhappy? Or is everything that happens to you just chance? Your happiness and your suffering in life, your joy, your pain and disappointments, are they deserved? Are you responsible or is it someone else's fault? Is it mere chance that we are rich or poor? Is it bad luck when we are sick and die at a young age? Why? You can find the true answer for yourself. You can experience the law of kamma through deep meditation. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, the two knowledge's he realized just before his Enlightenment were the knowledge from experience of the truth of rebirth, and the knowledge from experience of the Law of kamma. This was not theory, not just more thinking, not something worked out from discussions around the coffee table this was realization from deep experience of the nature of mind. You too can have that same experience. -
More on the website itself...Originally posted by concerned_man:All religions in the world except Buddhism maintain the existence of a soul. They affirm a real 'self', an 'essence of all being', a 'person', a 'me'. Buddhism says there is no self! Who is right? What is this 'ghost in the machine'? Is it a soul, is it a being, or is it a process? What is it? When the Buddha said that there is no one in here, he never meant that to be just believed, he meant that to be experienced. The Buddha said, as a scientific fact, that there is no 'self'. But like any scientific fact, it has to be experienced each one for themselves, paccattam veditabbo viññūhī. Many of you chant those Pāli words every day. It is basic scientific Buddhism. You have to keep an open mind. You don't believe there is 'no self', you don't believe there is a 'self' both beliefs are dogmatism. Keep an open mind until you complete the experiment. The experiment is the practice of sila, samādhi and pañña, (virtue, meditation and insight). The experiment is Buddhist practice. Do the same experimental procedures that the Buddha did under the Bodhi tree. Repeat it and see if you get the same results. The result is called Enlightenment.
Men and women have repeated that experiment many times over the centuries. It is in the laboratory of Buddhist practice that the Enlightened Ones, the Arahants, arise. The Arahants are the ones who have done the experiment and found the result. That's why Buddhism always has been the scientific way. It is the way of finding out for your self the truth of Enlightenment.
Buddhism is also the scientific way of discovering the truth about happiness, what most people are interested in. What is happiness? Some students from our local Islamic school came to visit our monastery a short while ago. I performed a little party trick for them, which was also an illuminating way to demonstrate the existence of the mind. I was trying to explain Buddhism, so I asked them:
"Are you happy? Put your hands up if you are happy now".
At first there was no response. Then one person responded and raised their hand.
"Oh! You're all miserable?" I said "Only one person, come on! Are you happy or not?"
More students put there hands up.
"Okay, all those people who put their hands up saying they are happy, with your index finger can you now point to that happiness? Can you give it coordinates in space?" They couldn't locate that happiness.
It's hard to locate happiness, isn't it? Have you ever been depressed? Next time you are depressed, try to point to that feeling with your index finger! You will find that you cannot locate depression, or happiness, in space. You cannot give it coordinates, because these things reside in the mind, not in the body, not in space. The mind is not located in space. That's why after a person dies, if they become a ghost they can appear all over the world immediately. People sometimes ask me, "How can that happen?" How can a person who dies, say in New York, appear immediately in Perth? It is because the mind is not located in space, that's why. This is why you cannot point to happiness, you cannot point to depression, but they are real. Are you imagining the happiness? Do you imagine the depression? It's real. You all know that. But you cannot locate it in three dimensional space. Happiness, depression, and many other real things, all live in mind-space.
The mind is not in the brain, it's not in the heart. We have seen that you could have no brain but still have a mind. You could take out your heart, and have a bionic heart, or a heart transplant, and you would still be you. This understanding of the mind is why Buddhists have no objection at all to cloning. You want to clone me, go for it! But don't think that if you clone Ajahn Brahm that you'll be able to have one Ajahn Brahm who goes to Singapore this evening, another one who stays in Perth for next Friday night's talk, plus one who can stay in Bodhinyana monastery, one who can go to Sydney, and one who can go to Melbourne. If you clone me, the person who looks like me will be completely different in personality, knowledge, inclination, and everything else. People clone Toyota cars in the same way. They look exactly the same but the performance really depends on the driver inside the car. That's all cloning is, it's just a replicating a body. Sure it looks the same, but is the body all that a person is? Haven't you seen identical twins? Are identical twins the same personality? Have they got the same intelligence? Have they got the identical inclinations? Do they even like the same food? The answer is usually no.
Why do people have this problem about cloning? Clone as much as you want. You are just creating more bodies for streams of consciousness to come into. Those streams of consciousness come from past lives. What's the problem? You would never be able to predict the result. Suppose you took Einstien's brain, extracted some of his DNA, and cloned a new Einstien. He might look the same, but I guarantee he won't be half as clever.
If people want to proceed with stem cell research, which is going to help humanity, then why not? In stem cell research there is no 'being' involved. The 'being' hasn't come in yet. In Buddhism, it is understood that the 'being' descends into the mother's womb at any time from conception until birth. Sometimes it doesn't even go into the womb at all and the foetus is stillborn. The objections to stem cell research are dogmatic, unscientific, and uncompassionate. They're foolish as far as I'm concerned. I think sometimes that I would tear my hair out if I weren't a monk.
If you want to look at the scientific evidence for rebirth, check out Professor Ian Stevenson. He spent his whole life researching rebirth on a solid scientific basis at the University of Virginia.[4] Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, (encouraged by his wife) offered funds for an endowed chair at the University to enabled Professor Stevenson to devote himself full-time to such research. If it weren't for the fact that people do not want to believe in rebirth, Dr. Ian Stevenson would be a world famous scientist now. He even spent a couple of years as a visiting fellow of Magdalene College in Oxford, so you can see that this is not just some weird professor; he has all of the credentials of a respected Western academic.
Dr. Stevenson has over 3000 cases on his files. One interesting example was the very clear case of a man who remembered many details from his past life, with no way of gaining that information from any other source. That person died only a few weeks before he was reborn! Which raises the question, for all those months that the foetus was in the womb, who was it? As far as Buddhism is concerned, the mother kept that foetus going with her own stream of consciousness. But when another stream of consciousness entered, then the foetus became the new person. That is one case where the stream of consciousness entered the mother's womb when the foetus was almost fully developed. That can happen. That was understood by Buddhism twenty five centuries ago. If the stream of consciousness doesn't enter the mother's womb, the child is a stillborn. There is a heap of evidence supporting that. -
Originally posted by mahawarrior:
Similarly, many people are able to remember their past lives in other realms, and some are able to VISIT these realms themselves! It is not easy to convince you right now without seeing for yourself, but just to let you know, that many people have seen it... just as the Buddha has seen it and spoke from experience. He remembered 96 aeons of lifetime, so what he is speaking is not his belief or theory, but out of experience. His disciples were also able to do likewise.... even many practitioners now.
2) That the six realms exist
Simple enough. If there's no such thing as 'hell realm' or 'hungry ghost realm', the appeal for liberation is weakened. Better still, if 'eternal heaven' exist, I'll give up trying to understand Buddhism straight away.
But obviously, I do not believe in an 'eternal heaven'.[/b]3) That desire cannot exist without attachment
Desire can exist without attachment. Please read the previous posting, and my new posting in the "How to get rid of lust effectively?" topic.
The way I see it, desires and attachments are two very much distinct elements. I am sure desires can exist without having attachments.
Just an analogy. I desire for the latest handphone. But when a better handphone comes out onto the market, I'll find my current handphone obsolete and desire for that newer handphone. In a way, this is a never-ending desire for newer and better stuff.
But I don't see why a desire for better stuff should be equated to having an attachment for better goods.
If one day, I should somehow loose the ability to get the newest and best handphone in the market (i.e. no money), so be it. I'll just let it go. I'll buy that handphone when I regain my ability to, and if I'll sadly never regain that ability, then I shall just not buy it.
I will not cry or get depressed over it, I will not kill or rob for it, I will not beg and get sleepless nights over it.
I desire for that handphone. But I'm not attached to it.
But desire without attachment is only possible when you are able to see through the solidity of subject-object duality. At that point, there is no attachment to the object of desire, and no feeling that 'I' must 'get that'. There is simply a wish that arises, and maybe working towards that wish, but during the process of working towards it there is no reducing this moment as being merely a means to an end. There is completely no sense of lack and discontentment with 'what is'. There is no investing a sense of self with 'unfulfilled desires'. There is also NO attachment to gain and loss.
So, even if you didn't 'get that', you will not suffer, because there is no attachment to getting that desired object in the first place, no subject-object split. There is a seeing that all there is is conditioned arising that is empty. And even if you lose it (inevitably it will since transiency is its nature), that's fine too. Even if the universe destroys itself, that is self-liberating, too.4) That it is possible to get rid of suffering. And that it is the dharma that will make this possible.
Why is there an assumption that there must be suffering if an atom bomb drops, famine comes, people die?
The reason why I brought up 'positive thinking' or 'optimisim' is that I feel that many things are beyond our ability to control. And since they are beyond our control, we might as well remain positive. But is it ever possible to remove suffering?
As said, I may be a good guy, but that does not mean that I'll be free from suffering.
For one, I could just be minding my own business walking on the street when suddenly, an atom bomb drops on our neighbouring country, thereby killing me not instantly, but slowly by sending me a painful dose of radiation.
One thing about learning history in school is that it made me realise that world events are most of the time, influence not by people power, but by the few elites who decides the fate of his fellow mankind.
Getting rid of our suffering permanently sounds appealing. Developing compassion and helping others get rid of their suffering sounds even more attractive. Practicing and preaching the dharma is the key, you all say.
But let's not forget that 2,500 years ago, someone tried doing this. 2,500 years and numerous wars, famines and disasters later, the state of this Earth is for all of us to see.
As you might have guessed, I'm not totally unconvinced that Buddhism is good. I would not deny that perhaps practicing one-third of the Buddhist teachings I've come across has a great positive impact on my life. And out of so many religious doctrines out there, Buddhism sounds the most logical to me.
But so long as no religion can convince me why I can and should remove the so-called 'roots' of my desire, convince me why I am actually not as happy as I think I am, convince me how I can remove other people's suffering, convince me that death is not game over, I'm very sure I'll forever remain an athetist trying to make my life as blissful as I can before I die a peaceful death.
I've been attending buddhist study classes for a huge part of my 18-years life. But here I am, still, with the above texts.
I may not respond for some time as, if you do not know, I'm actually half-way through taking my A'levels... ...
Last but not least, please treat me as someone who have absolutely no basic understanding of Buddhism at all. Simply worded response with no deep philosophy containing turn-off technical terms such as 'emptiness' or 'duality'.
Just pretend that I'm an absolute beginner.[/b]
They are all conditioned arising that is empty, self-perfected and self-liberating. You only suffer when you are attached dualistically to them. Pain is inevitably, but suffering is optional.
Good luck on your A levels
-
"...And with that, the entire world self-liberates, because there is simply no "me" to expect anything of it, to make demands of it, to claim to know how any of it works. Freed from the stranglehold of thought, freed from the burden of "me and all my problems", there is a great ease which permeates everything. Freed from goals and meanings, every moment is a goal in itself, everything is intrinsically meaningful, because every moment is all there is, or ever was. Freed from self-consciousness, everything is permissible and sconsequences are not even possible. And there may still be pain and anger and sadness, but this happens for nobody, and so it doesn't matter anymore (since there's simply nobody here to whom it could possibly matter!). There's pain and anger and sadness, but they don't belong to anyone. And so, since nobody is claiming them, they just dissolve of their own accord, in their own time.
And everything being talked about here is already the case, for all of us (and yes, that includes "you", of course!). Already, there is liberation. Already, there is freedom from it all. Truly, right now, there is nothing more to attain. Thoughts arise, sounds arise, sights arise, feelings in the body arise, but they always already arise for nobody.
And this may be noticed, or it may not; it really doesn't make a blind bit of difference. There's nobody there to notice it, anyway. And nobody would "get" anything from noticing this, even if they could...
~ Jeff Foster (do check his site, http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/)
--------------
"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising."
~ our forummer, Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)
"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
~ Thusness
--------------
From a pure insight practice point of view, you can’t ever fundamentally “let go” of anything, so I sometimes wish the popularity of this misleading and indifference-producing admonition would decline, or at least be properly explained. However, if you simply investigate the truth of the Three Characteristics of the sensations that seemed to be a solid thing, you will come to the wondrous realization that reality is continually “letting go” of itself! Thus, “let it go” at its best actually means, “don’t give a bunch of transient sensations an excessive sense of solidity.” It does not mean, “stop feeling or caring,” nor does it mean, “pretend that the noise in your mind is not there.”
~ Theravadin teacher, Dharma Dan
--------------
...The particular method of Dzogchen is called the Path of Self-Liberation, and to apply it nothing need be renounced, purified, or transformed. Whatever arises as one's karmic vision is used as the path. The great master Pha Tampa Sangye [South Indian Yogin of the 11 century (ed.)] once said: It is not the circumstances which arise as one's karmic vision that condition a person into the dualistic state; it is a person's own attachment that enables what arises to condition him. If this attachment is to be cut through in the most rapid and effective way, the mind's spontaneous capacity to self-liberate must be brought into play. The term self-liberation should not, however, be taken as implying that there is some 'self' or ego there to be liberated. It is a fundamental assumption...at the Dzogchen level, that all phenomena are void of self-nature. 'Self -Liberation', in the Dzogchen sense, means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself. Practicing in this way the seeds of the poison tree of dualistic vision never even get a chance to sprout, much less to take root and grow.(p33)
So the practitioner lives his or her life in an ordinary way, without needing any rules other than one's own awareness, always remaining in the primordial state through integrating that state with whatever arises as part of experience -- with absolutely nothing to be seen outwardly to show that one is practicing. This is what is meant by self-liberation, this is what is meant by the name Dzogchen - which means Great Perfection - and this is what is meant by non-dual contemplation, or simply contemplation....
~ Dzogchen teacher, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche -
And so, as Charlotte Joko Beck, an American Zen teacher and author of 'Everyday Zen' would say:Originally posted by mahawarrior:The reason why I brought up 'positive thinking' or 'optimisim' is that I feel that many things are beyond our ability to control. And since they are beyond our control, we might as well remain positive. But is it ever possible to remove suffering?
"And to substitute one conditioning for another is to miss the point of practice. The point is not that a positive emotion is better than a negative one, but that all thoughts and emotions are impermanent, changing, or (in Buddhist terms) empty. They have no reality whatsoever. Our only freedom is in knowing, from years of observation and experiencing, that all personally centered thoughts and emotions (and the actions born of them) are empty. They are empty; but if they are not seen as empty they can be harmful. When we realize this we can abandon them. When we do, very naturally we enter the space of wonder.
This space of wonder - entering into heaven - opens when we are no longer caught up in ourselves: when no longer "It is I," but "It is Thou." I am all things when there is no barrier."
(see more quotes by her in The nature of the separate self, duality)
And to get back to your question in the other topic, of getting rid of lust. (http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=286746&page=1)
Ultimately speaking you CANNOT even 'let go' of lust!! Even if you manage to 'let go' of lust, or 'curb lust', you will still be grasping on the 'letting go of lust' and the 'curbing of lust'!
To illustrate this point... well.. actually, the post immediately before this post already explained it perfectly well! Read it carefully.
Here's an excerpt, this one by Thusness:
"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising."
"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
That said, there are actually many dharma practices aimed to transform one's thinking and emotions... which is also very useful. But as long as self-liberation is not seen... there is no liberation yet. -
Faith is needed, but not blind faith.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Sorry, boss, I am taking my masters but as far as I know, the above questions you posed are one and the same I have and I know whatever Buddhist theory being posted on this forum has to be taken in good faith.
See recent topic by cheskiz: Did buhdda want us to believe in him ???
As well as
Faith in Belief Systems -
Hi AEN, really a good read here..
Thanks.. -
Haha thanks.. the first post is inspired by a discussion with Thusness as well as a lunch chat with Longchen on FridayOriginally posted by Isis:Hi AEN, really a good read here..
Thanks..
-
Isis brought up a good point that I think I should mention here too.
The complete realisation of self-liberation is quite beyond most of us right now.. so how do we start liberating ourselves?
Here's my reply, in: How do one enjoy anything with bliss and wisdom? -
Invalid proof.
-
Of what?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Invalid proof. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:"
right, the letting go of letting go, from the p.o.v. of non-duality. deep indeed.
...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
~ Thusness
--------------
From a pure insight practice point of view, you can’t ever fundamentally “let go” of anything, so I sometimes wish the popularity of this misleading and indifference-producing admonition would decline, or at least be properly explained. However, if you simply investigate the truth of the Three Characteristics of the sensations that seemed to be a solid thing, you will come to the wondrous realization that reality is continually “letting go” of itself! Thus, “let it go” at its best actually means, “don’t give a bunch of transient sensations an excessive sense of solidity.” It does not mean, “stop feeling or caring,” nor does it mean, “pretend that the noise in your mind is not there.”
~ Theravadin teacher, Dharma Dan
i'll say since letting go is the practical side of insight, insight help improve letting go(practice) and letting go(practice) help improve insight.
without insight, practice become ignorance and;
without practice, insight become wrong view.
/\ -
Allow me to quote this from 'The Triple Gem and The Way to Social Harmony' by Venerable Pyinnyathiha.
Did the Buddha preach on all subjects?
..People have a desire to know about the beginning of human life; if there is anything after death; how the soul transfers to the next life, if there is rebirth; whether the same soul is reborn in every life or not, etc.
In regard to this, there is a great deal of research work and statements , but people do not accept them uniformly because the statements, even on the beginning of human, are vague. There are still abiding questions about this.
It is human nature: a questioner is not satisfied, and derides the person who cannot give an acceptable answer to what he wants to know.
The Buddha did not give any solutions to some problems, therefore some people felt resentment against him.
Spnw's own summary for easier read:
During the Buddha's time, there was a bhikkhu named Malukyaputta. He was very eager to press the Buddha for exact answers on whether the world is eternal or not, whether life is dependent on the body or not, whether beings will be different after dying or not, etc. Thus he made a decision"I will continue to practise his teachings if he explains these matters to me; if not, I will disrobe and reject his teachings."
He went to the Buddha with his questions and said further, "If you have no knowledge of these matters, you should be absolutely honest enough to say 'I do not know about them'; if you do know, bring these matters to light so I can practise your teachings."
The Buddha said to Malukyaputta, "Well, did I ever say to you: 'Come, Malukyaputta, practise my teachings; I will explain these matters to you'?"
"No, you did not", said Malukyaputta.
The Buddha said again, "Did you ever say to me: 'I will practise your teachings, if you explain thse matters to me'."
"No, I did not", the bhikkhu answered again.
"Neither you nor I said that, so why do you come to me, and speak like that? If a person disavows my teachings until he knows these matters, he might pass away without practising my beneficial teachings. I will never preach about these matters", the Buddha said. -
More like if there is no picking up, where got letting go?Originally posted by sinweiy:right, the letting go of letting go, from the p.o.v. of non-duality. deep indeed.
Letting go is intrinsically linked with picking up. If we use intention to let go, then we are still attached to another extreme of 'letting go'. We are still seeking a state, that is 'absent of conditions', which is just another extreme.
We must be able to see letting go, picking up, etc, as all part of the process. And that it happens spontaneously, conditioned arising. And therefore, the whole process is self-liberating.
When self-liberation is seen, all things come and go of their own accord. It is natural, Thus, 'zi ru'. There is nothing that needs to be done -- everything is left as it is without attachment and judging, and everything just self-liberates in itself.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
more on the previous posts on this topic:
From the 'notes' section of The Crystal and the Way of Light by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:
[b]"This is the self-liberation totally free from both action and reaction (rang-grol), which takes place in the very moment that any experience arises: whatever arises liberates itself as it arises, in the same way that a drawing made on water immediately disappears of its own accord. Neither an intentional action of the subject (as in Cherdrol), nor a spontaneous reaction of the subject (as in Shadrol), is required here.
Whatever arises liberates itself of itself, without the need for anyone to do anything to liberate it. The string never begins to be tied up; voidness and appearances manifest coincidently. The practitioner is like the mirror which can freely reflect whatever presents itself, without the reflections in it either sticking to it or leaving any trace in it; the reflected image liberates in the very moment that it appears.
Since there is no longer a mental subject that can be harmed by whatever manifests, it is said that at this stage the passions and whatever may arise are like a thief in an empty house.
When one manifests this ultimate capacity for self-liberation, this is the realization of the Tregchod (khregs-chod). This mode of capacity of liberation, illustrated with the image of a 'thief in an empty house', is indicated in many Dzogchen texts by the words 'namtok penme nomedu drolwa' (rnam-rtog phan-med gnod-med-du grol-ba)"[/b]
...means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself... -
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water...Originally posted by mahawarrior:To convince me that the Dharma is actually benefitial for me, you'll first have to convince me that...
I've been attending buddhist study classes for a huge part of my 18-years life. But here I am, still, with the above texts.
I may not respond for some time as, if you do not know, I'm actually half-way through taking my A'levels... ...
Last but not least, please treat me as someone who have absolutely no basic understanding of Buddhism at all. Simply worded response with no deep philosophy containing turn-off technical terms such as 'emptiness' or 'duality'.
Just pretend that I'm an absolute beginner.
Are they still Buddhists without Karma and other fantastics? [page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] -
Originally posted by mahawarrior:
Sorry to say this but, no offence really, wf ur above texts, it shows that same as me, u r still a absolute beginner.
To convince me that the Dharma is actually benefitial for me, you'll first have to convince me that...
[b]4) That it is possible to get rid of suffering. And that it is the dharma that will make this possible.
I've been attending buddhist study classes for a huge part of my 18-years life. But here I am, still, with the above texts.
Just pretend that I'm an absolute beginner.[/b] -
But knowing what to pick up is another matter in entirely.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:more on the previous posts on this topic:
...means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself... -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
i see, ban3 lai2 wu2 yi4 wu1 the ultimate truth of Master Hui Neng...
More like if there is no picking up, where got letting go?
mirror in itself is originally clean. the cleaning process is an add-on.
at that level, there's no more practicing. all is natural.
like ancient Master gave the analogy of a wine bottle, emptied of the wine. and it only take time for the smell of the wine to disappeared naturally.
very deep indeed, for the top top rooted.
i also posted "the enlightenment of no enlightenment" in esangha.
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=55921
i was then again listening to HHDL's talk on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom. His Holiness discusses the Two Truths, conventional and ultimate truth.
In his discussion of emptiness, Nagarjuna challenges his opponents. He says their presentation of emptiness does not fulfil its purpose, which is to eliminate the afflictive emotions. He accuses them of foisting faults on him that arise from their own misconceptions. However, the range of different views, such as the Middle Way and Mind Only schools derive from the teaching of the compassionate Buddha who taught, skilfully addressing his listenersÂ’ different aptitudes.
http://www.dalailama.com/page.176.htm
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Nagarjuna said without form, there's no dharma of emptiness what so ever. or
without conventional truth, there's no ultimate truth.
Nagarjuna is the founder of Middle way. yet all sudden or gradual method are the teachings of compassionate Buddha.
/\ -
Choosing does not have to go with mental grasping.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But knowing what to pick up is another matter in entirely. -
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Yes... that is wu wei fa, and there is no need to 'xiu'... though, we may use you wei technique first (i.e meditation, chanting, visualisation, etc)
i see, ban3 lai2 wu2 yi4 wu1 the ultimate truth of Master Hui Neng...
mirror in itself is originally clean. the cleaning process is an add-on.
at that level, there's no more practicing. all is natural.
like ancient Master gave the analogy of a wine bottle, emptied of the wine. and it only take time for the smell of the wine to disappeared naturally.
very deep indeed, for the top top rooted.
i also posted "the enlightenment of no enlightenment" in esangha.
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=55921
i was then again listening to HHDL's talk on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom. His Holiness discusses the Two Truths, conventional and ultimate truth.
In his discussion of emptiness, Nagarjuna challenges his opponents. He says their presentation of emptiness does not fulfil its purpose, which is to eliminate the afflictive emotions. He accuses them of foisting faults on him that arise from their own misconceptions. However, the range of different views, such as the Middle Way and Mind Only schools derive from the teaching of the compassionate Buddha who taught, skilfully addressing his listenersÂ’ different aptitudes.
http://www.dalailama.com/page.176.htm
[b]That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Nagarjuna said without form, there's no dharma of emptiness what so ever. or
without conventional truth, there's no ultimate truth.
Nagarjuna is the founder of Middle way. yet all sudden or gradual method are the teachings of compassionate Buddha.
/\
[/b]
However, there is 'chi2', practice here is simply remaining in effortless nondual contemplation.
Then in the last few bhumis or the 10th bhumi which are the stages of 'nonmeditation', whereby no more further practice is needed and all demarcation of activities and meditation is gone. A maha bodhisattva and a Buddha never leaves his meditative state even within activities.
p.s. my dharma teacher wrote something on this, in the second post: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=242880 -
nice..Originally posted by An Eternal Now:More like if there is no picking up, where got letting go?
Letting go is intrinsically linked with picking up. If we use intention to let go, then we are still attached to another extreme of 'letting go'. We are still seeking a state, that is 'absent of conditions', which is just another extreme.
We must be able to see letting go, picking up, etc, as all part of the process. And that it happens spontaneously, conditioned arising. And therefore, the whole process is self-liberating.
When self-liberation is seen, all things come and go of their own accord. It is natural, Thus, 'zi ru'. There is nothing that needs to be done -- everything is left as it is without attachment and judging, and everything just self-liberates in itself.
...means that whatever manifests in the field of experience of the practitioner is allowed to arise just as it is, without judgement of it as good or bad, beautiful or ugly. And in that same moment, if there is no clinging, or attachment, without effort, or even volition, whatever it is that arises, whether as a thought or as a seemingly external event, automatically liberates itself, by itself, and of itself...
I must practice meditation to improve my concentration to catch all this subtle things in my insight meditation.