Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-02-2018, 05:55 PM
Raziel Raziel is offline
Master
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: England
Posts: 1,077
  Raziel's Avatar
I have said this elsewhere that the initial set up is a trap.

When using specific wording the OP purposely boxes themselves & others into a corner as a way of "proving" something.

It's like saying "since Muslims believe that through martyrdom they will receive 72 virgins ..." - the truth is that nobody speaks for Muslims so you cannot generalise. There are multiple branches & interpretations of texts etc .. but if the aim of the statement is to "be correct" then ultimately the OP fails anyway.
__________________
.


"I am your creation.
Now, as before - you criticise your own work."


- Legacy Of Kain
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-02-2018, 11:41 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,290
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
To me that takes away from what he said. It seems to separate the ever changing individuality from the mind or body for that fact.
His words say to me that while everything is impermanent, that impermanence is eternal.

If we think eternity is way of enduring time forever, then no, because no substance endures from one moment to the next. What we call an individual is based on a volitional entity, but in Buddhist philosophy, volition 'constructs' the entity in a process of re-birth, which is different to Christian philosophy which posits an eternal volitional entity.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-02-2018, 04:35 AM
SaturninePluto SaturninePluto is offline
Master
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: North East united States
Posts: 1,074
  SaturninePluto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
To me that takes away from what he said. It seems to separate the ever changing individuality from the mind or body for that fact.
His words say to me that while everything is impermanent, that impermanence is eternal.

Originally posted by Gem
If we think eternity is way of enduring time forever, then no, because no substance endures from one moment to the next. What we call an individual is based on a volitional entity, but in Buddhist philosophy, volition 'constructs' the entity in a process of re-birth, which is different to Christian philosophy which posits an eternal volitional entity.

Hi.

Please do not mind me here too much folks as I really know not much of Buddhism, I am just dropping in to say hi and add a thought or two here and perhaps ask a question if no one minds.

Particularly I find this discussion here between members willing to learn and participate and yes disagree respectfully truly inspiring, and if anything did come of this thread at all, to me it really is evident that something great has come of it, and it is this here, a discussion of Buddhism where there appears a contradiction- I say not that it actually is- where members are able to communicate openly, and perhaps disagree and retain (in all hopefulness) a high level of dignified and respectful speech and behavior.

Those are my thoughts on discussion in within the context of the quoted messages.

In honesty my true thoughts on the way in which this thread was originally posted is that it is entirely disrespectful, and without too much speculation on the thread starters intent, yes I do think the behavior was intentional.

As for my particular questions. Gem could you please if you have the time inform myself of the meaning of the word volitional? I have come across it in, a work entitled shobogenzo, and can not fathom the idea as per my non understanding of this word.

Also could you if you have time and are rested only, explain how the entity goes through the process of rebirth yet is not eternal? Perhaps I have missed it. I mean no disrespect here, I simply wish to understand better, where I feel currently I can not.

Thank you all for listening.
__________________
The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.

Yours In Retrospect, The Universe.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-02-2018, 06:06 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,290
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaturninePluto
Hi.

Please do not mind me here too much folks as I really know not much of Buddhism, I am just dropping in to say hi and add a thought or two here and perhaps ask a question if no one minds.

Particularly I find this discussion here between members willing to learn and participate and yes disagree respectfully truly inspiring, and if anything did come of this thread at all, to me it really is evident that something great has come of it, and it is this here, a discussion of Buddhism where there appears a contradiction- I say not that it actually is- where members are able to communicate openly, and perhaps disagree and retain (in all hopefulness) a high level of dignified and respectful speech and behavior.

The contradiction occurs when we assume there is soul which is reincarnated, as this contradicts the actual Buddhist teachings on 'anata' which roughly translates as no-self.

In Buddhism what we think of as an individual is called the 'santana', which could think of as a mind/body for any practical purpose. The santana is thought of as a transformation which is eternal in its own right - but it has no 'identity', so is still anata.

'Rebirth' is a complicated concept, because it refers to the santana in a sense, but mainly only when identity is attached to it, which is grasping, clinging, craving etc. These latter qualities are called 'the volition', and this is what perpetuates rebirth.

'Volition' can be thought of as any urge to move the mind, and it is also categorised into good-will and ill-will, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to this topic, so maybe it'll come up later on. It's just because volition is the cause, or the creation of potentials which manifest in lived experience at such time when the conditions for it to arise are right. Hence they say good-will produces potentials for good outcomes, and the opposite is true of ill-will.

What they call 'liberation' is the cessation of volition, but for many Buddhists this isn't considered full enlightenment because some potentials created by past volitions have not yet arisen, as they must, as lived experience. No new potentials are created but the old potentials generated by past volitions still continue to arise to conscious experience and dissolve away. The expiration of the potentials without generating new ones is how the 'purification' functions.

When all the old potentials have all expired, then there is 'full enlightenment'. Some maintain that this can only happen when the physical body dies.

So to sum up, the volition doesn't operate, and the potentials have all expired, so there no rebirth. Thus the cycle of birth and death ceases.

In the deeper philosophy, there never was anyone born or dying. That was only a delusion perpetuated in ignorance - and this would lead us to the teachings on 'dependent arisings' (the first of which is 'ignorance').

Quote:
Those are my thoughts on discussion in within the context of the quoted messages.

In honesty my true thoughts on the way in which this thread was originally posted is that it is entirely disrespectful, and without too much speculation on the thread starters intent, yes I do think the behavior was intentional.

As for my particular questions. Gem could you please if you have the time inform myself of the meaning of the word volitional? I have come across it in, a work entitled shobogenzo, and can not fathom the idea as per my non understanding of this word.

Its a very subtle meaning and I doubt anyone really understands it, but I think it is best thought of as any urge to move the mind. We could say it's completely delusional in essense, because the mind is always still until it goes into reactivity. Then we do a very deep analysis of the body sensation and the mind's reactions in aversion to discomfort and desires for pleasure. This is to say, if one ceases the psychological reactivity, the mind is still and quiet. So, in this sense, the cessation of reactivity is also the cessation of volition.

Quote:
Also could you if you have time and are rested only, explain how the entity goes through the process of rebirth yet is not eternal? Perhaps I have missed it. I mean no disrespect here, I simply wish to understand better, where I feel currently I can not.

Thank you all for listening.

I think there is a good explanation here.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-02-2018, 07:19 AM
sky123 sky123 is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,345
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
The contradiction occurs when we assume there is soul which is reincarnated, as this contradicts the actual Buddhist teachings on 'anata' which roughly translates as no-self.

In Buddhism what we think of as an individual is called the 'santana', which could think of as a mind/body for any practical purpose. The santana is thought of as a transformation which is eternal in its own right - but it has no 'identity', so is still anata.

'Rebirth' is a complicated concept, because it refers to the santana in a sense, but mainly only when identity is attached to it, which is grasping, clinging, craving etc. These latter qualities are called 'the volition', and this is what perpetuates rebirth.

'Volition' can be thought of as any urge to move the mind, and it is also categorised into good-will and ill-will, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to this topic, so maybe it'll come up later on. It's just because volition is the cause, or the creation of potentials which manifest in lived experience at such time when the conditions for it to arise are right. Hence they say good-will produces potentials for good outcomes, and the opposite is true of ill-will.

What they call 'liberation' is the cessation of volition, but for many Buddhists this isn't considered full enlightenment because some potentials created by past volitions have not yet arisen, as they must, as lived experience. No new potentials are created but the old potentials generated by past volitions still continue to arise to conscious experience and dissolve away. The expiration of the potentials without generating new ones is how the 'purification' functions.

When all the old potentials have all expired, then there is 'full enlightenment'. Some maintain that this can only happen when the physical body dies.

So to sum up, the volition doesn't operate, and the potentials have all expired, so there no rebirth. Thus the cycle of birth and death ceases.

In the deeper philosophy, there never was anyone born or dying. That was only a delusion perpetuated in ignorance - and this would lead us to the teachings on 'dependent arisings' (the first of which is 'ignorance').


Its a very subtle meaning and I doubt anyone really understands it, but I think it is best thought of as any urge to move the mind. We could say it's completely delusional in essense, because the mind is always still until it goes into reactivity. Then we do a very deep analysis of the body sensation and the mind's reactions in aversion to discomfort and desires for pleasure. This is to say, if one ceases the psychological reactivity, the mind is still and quiet. So, in this sense, the cessation of reactivity is also the cessation of volition.


I think there is a good explanation here.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm







' the actual Buddhist teachings on 'anata' which roughly translates as no-self '

Anatta is ' not self or non self ' rather than no self Gem.Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death, "the True Self" or Buddha Nature....
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-02-2018, 07:29 AM
sky123 sky123 is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,345
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaturninePluto
Hi.

Please do not mind me here too much folks as I really know not much of Buddhism, I am just dropping in to say hi and add a thought or two here and perhaps ask a question if no one minds.

Particularly I find this discussion here between members willing to learn and participate and yes disagree respectfully truly inspiring, and if anything did come of this thread at all, to me it really is evident that something great has come of it, and it is this here, a discussion of Buddhism where there appears a contradiction- I say not that it actually is- where members are able to communicate openly, and perhaps disagree and retain (in all hopefulness) a high level of dignified and respectful speech and behavior.

Those are my thoughts on discussion in within the context of the quoted messages.

In honesty my true thoughts on the way in which this thread was originally posted is that it is entirely disrespectful, and without too much speculation on the thread starters intent, yes I do think the behavior was intentional.

As for my particular questions. Gem could you please if you have the time inform myself of the meaning of the word volitional? I have come across it in, a work entitled shobogenzo, and can not fathom the idea as per my non understanding of this word.

Also could you if you have time and are rested only, explain how the entity goes through the process of rebirth yet is not eternal? Perhaps I have missed it. I mean no disrespect here, I simply wish to understand better, where I feel currently I can not.

Thank you all for listening.





' explain how the entity goes through the process of rebirth yet is not eternal? '


All conditioned things are impermanent.

All that arises will eventually cease
All that is created will eventually be destroyed
All that is compounded will eventually undergo dissolution
All that is formed will eventually undergo breakup of that formation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-02-2018, 08:32 AM
sky123 sky123 is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,345
 
ďAll beings are also like this. Each one of them has the Tathāgata-dhātu, but, through having recourse to evil acquaintances, they give rise to attachment, hatred and stupidity and fall into the three miserable states ¬… , adopting various kinds of bodies throughout the twenty-five modes of existence. The precious jewel that is the Tathagata-dhātu is buried within the wound of the kleśas of attachment, hatred and stupidity, so that they are unaware of its presence there. Engaging in the notion that there is no Self with regard to the mundane self, they do not understand the skilful words of implicit intent of the Tathāgata ¬… They have the notion that there is no Self and are unable to know the True Self. Regarding this, the Tathāgata ¬… utilises skilful means: he causes them to extinguish the raging fires of countless kleśas, revealing and elucidating the Tathāgata-dhātu to them ¬….
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-02-2018, 10:48 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,290
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky123
' the actual Buddhist teachings on 'anata' which roughly translates as no-self '

Anatta is ' not self or non self ' rather than no self Gem.Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death, "the True Self" or Buddha Nature....

Not splitting straws on semantics, so no-self or non-self are both fine. The meaning is made within the context of the fuller explanation I gave.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-02-2018, 12:08 PM
sky123 sky123 is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,345
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
Not splitting straws on semantics, so no-self or non-self are both fine. The meaning is made within the context of the fuller explanation I gave.


They are both fine for you and mybe others but to understand Buddha's teachings regarding True Self/Buddha Nature ' No self ' doesn't fit....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-02-2018, 05:55 PM
dream jo dream jo is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: sea dream u cud say
Posts: 18,721
  dream jo's Avatar
snow mans wz comalinss he wz coz all his snow ballss wz frezzin thy wear
__________________
dream jo


i dream dreams all dreams
🌟🌟🌙🌙☔☔🌆🌆🌁😈😎😒💋💑💑💑💌🍨🍩🍔🌟🌟🌟✴🍩🍔
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums