2 more questions for Matthieu Ricard, Tibetan monk

Continuing with my series of questions for the Tibetan monk, Matthieu Ricard:

1.) Ricard is very clear that the ultimate future for all sentient beings (i.e., all individual streams of consciousness) is to become purified and thus enlightened. The clear implication is thus: that the "goal" of each individual and particular steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self") is to become enlightened. This is the denouement of an infinite number of lives we have lived, so says Ricard and many schools of Buddhism as a whole.

According to Ricard, and many schools of Bhuddhism, our individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self")* never had a beginning. The incarnations that this individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a self) have had are unlimited and infinite.

So, my question is this: How can you have a goal within infinity?

This may not seem like an incompatible scenario, but if you truly analyze this you will see that it is absurd and illogical.

What many Buddhists may not realize, is that when you eliminate a beginning, you eliminate an end. Not just an end in the usual sense of a termination of experience, but also an "end" in the sense of a goal, destination, denouement, climax, etc.

I don't have a problem with a beginningless existence. This is not what I am contesting.

If you never set off on your journey, then you have no ultimate destination. You can have relative goals but never an ultimate goal/event, in a string of events that has no beginning and has no end.

Since enlightenment depends on whether one darkens or purifies their individual stream-of-consciousness (don't you care call it a "self") and that this darkening/purification happens in the context of time-bound incarnations, what you have is tantamount to an ultimate temporal goal/event (temporal= of or related to time) in the midst of timelessness. This is a logical contradiction- a sheer contradiction in terms.

With enlightenment, you have the breaking of the chain of samsara- the cycle of death and birth, according to Buddhism.

Once again, if this process of incarnation via birth and death never began, it CANNOT end. A process can only end if it had a beginning.

Theoretically, Buddhism says that ALL sentient beings will eventually become enlightened and freed from suffering. The term "eventually" is once again a temporal reference. The natural question that might follow such a postulate is: when?

Each individual steam-of-consciousness (don't you dare call it a "self"), supposedly on its journey toward enlightenment, never actually began the journey. Or more precisely, they have ALWAYS been journeying. So far, it's been eternity. Actually the phrase "so far" doesn't even have any meaning in terms of eternity. Neither does the question "when?"

Time, in terms of an infinity of lives or an eternal flow of consciousness, has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Eternity has no reference points.

The concept of sentient beings eventually becoming elightened, not to mention the ultimate goal event or end-state of enlightenment itself, is completely absurd and preposterous.

* Sorry if my "don't you dare call it a "self" notes became redundant. That, actually, was the point. That is how I felt reading many of his passages where he would seem to restate this in a hundred different ways.


2.) Matthieu Ricard said that all non-human sentient beings will eventually become enlightened, but that ultimately enlightenment can only come to fruition during a human incarnation. Aside from the blatant anthropocentrism, this entails a very serious problem and one that I have never seen examined in buddhist literature past or present.

Aside from the nonsensical "time" when that might occur (see question above) this would obviously mean with the enlightenment of ALL sentient beings, there would be no more animals.

And since all life forms are interconnected and interdependent, as Buddhism rightly observes, then there would no longer be a diversity of lifeforms and thus no biological life as we know it.

Matthieu Ricard says also that the number of individual streams-of-consciousness (don't you dare call them "selves") that exist (i.e. sentient beings) is without end. It too, interesting enough, is infinite.

So, once again how can you have ALL being enlightened when there is an infinite number of them, all supposedly in varying stages of purification.
"All" or any references to numbers or quantities have equally no meaning in terms of infinity just as references to time have no relevant meaning in terms of eternity.

[skyblue]

there is a lot of stuff you will never be able to fathom with your mind.
Look at the universe. Do you think if you got into a space ship that could travel a billions times faster than the speed of light and you aimed that ship in one direction in space and floored the gas pedal, do you think you would ever get to the end of space?
The stuff you are talking about isn't worth worrying about. There are plenty of things you can experience in this life that are beyond explanation.
The human mind is not there to explain the mysteries of the universe to you. And it is very easy to get excited and confused when you read material like the stuff you quoted in your post.
Is there any point trying to figure out stuff that you don't understand?
Is there a way to figure out stuff that you don't understand?
Is understanding the same thing as thinking?
Is consciousness the same thing as thinking?
If people like the guy you quoted are saying these things. They are either
a -lying
b-confused
c-telling their version of the truth
d-God
e-something above God

you live what you see and you see what you understand. Don't confuse understanding with thinking.
When you were young, you had to burn yourself a couple of times to realize that fire is hot.
You now understand without thinking about it, that fire is hot.

The people that are interesting are the people that explain how to understand the stuff you don't yet understand.
Anyone can make all sorts of interesting claims about the nature of reality.
Language can be somewhat restrictive.


a few thoughts I thought I'd let you think about....

[Samana]

Hi Life,

You're thinking too much if you don't mind me saying so. Please read this before getting too weighed dowm with concepts:

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...nd_Rebirth.pdf


You should also get to the roots of what the Buddha actually taught and have a look at the suttas in the Pali Canon at the Access to Insight website.

Kind wishes,

Samana