Samsaric Sources Of Refuge

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
WARNING: This article contains some Buddhist exclusivism and should not be taken as a disparagement of the "Hindu" esotericism, though it's criticisms of the Abrahamic notions I consider to be basically valid.

Buddhism is unique among the major world religions and spiritual teachings in that it is not based on the idea of a creator or ultimate being. It is experiential and practical, a path to walk rather than an idea to believe in. Many people believe that Buddhists “accept all religions”, believe in “many paths up the same mountain”, and this is to an extent true, it is clear to any sane observer that they all contain some kind of positive force. Yet we cannot ignore that there are negative aspects also, and in fact as Buddhists we are warned against relying on “Samsaric sources of refuge”, whether these be Hindu gods and gurujis or evangelists with their trinity. Why? Because it is considered that such teachings either do not lead to Enlightenment, or perhaps lead to it by a painful and circuitous road. Here then we will discuss the relation between Buddhism and other teachings, other views, and look at how other spiritual paths are interpreted from a Buddhist perspective.

Buddhism has the notion of the Six Realms of Samsara. That is to say; Hell Beings, Pretas, Animals, Humans, Asuras and Devas, the last meaning ‘gods’. These gods dwell in various realms, from those somewhat like the human world but with much greater pleasure, up to states of meditative absorption, “cosmic consciousness”. It is quite easy to see the parallel between the state of these gods and the various notions of paradise found in the Abrahamic religions (and even some forms of Hinduism), these being considered states of some kind of blissful individual existence.

One would think, therefore, that this might be what Buddhists strive for. This is not the case. Buddha taught that everything is impermanent, without exception, including heavens and hells. The Devas can live for immeasurably long times, even millions of years, but nonetheless they eventually die, and on doing so may fall into the hell realms, preta realm, animal realm. When we consider the suffering of death for a human being, imagine how immeasurably great would be the suffering of those in the Deva realm! Their long life makes them feel like they are immortal, and the pleasures of life being so much more intense, how much harder it would be to finally separate from them!

Being in such great states of bliss during their lives, the Devas have no strong motivation to practise Dharma. Buddhism begins with the truth of Dukkha, which means that “life is suffering”, or perhaps better said, dissatisfaction. We as human beings experience a lot of suffering, especially the suffering of change, being confronted with something pleasurable at one moment and something unpleasant the next. Our practical experience of life is constantly confronting us with this truth of dissatisfaction, and thus if we have the fortune to discover some teaching about liberation and understand it, we have the motivation to practise it. For this reason it is said that the human realm is the best realm to be born in, the realm which is most conducive to liberation and becoming a Bodhisattva.

Among the Devas is a being named “MahaBrahma”. He was born alone, and being unaware of how he was created, not seeing any limit to his lifespan, he comes to believe that it is in fact he who created the universe, Samsara. It is said that the Devas can see into the lower realms, so he has some awareness that there is existence in other realms than his, but his belief that he is any way responsible for their creation is false, the creation of his own karmic confusion. In fact Samsara has no beginning, but MahaBrahma does not know this. Over time different beings are born as attendants to him and are also convinced that he is the ultimate being responsible for creating the universe. When these beings take rebirth in the human realm, they go about spreading stories of this “Great Brahma”, remembering in some faint way or bearing the karmic imprints of the blissful state of rebirth they had in his realm, and still convinced about the notion of a self-created-creator-of-all.

This is of course a myth like other myths. Whether it is literally true, who knows. However it does fit quite well with the facts about many non-Buddhist religious teachings. Most of these include some notion about a paradise, a place of ‘eternal’ peace and bliss, somewhat similar to the Deva realms. Now, some would say that the Buddhist “Nirvana” is quite the same thing, however according to the highest philosophy of Buddhism, the Middle Way School, Nirvana is simply Samsara experienced by a being without “adventitious stains”. That is to say, Samsara is Nirvana when Samsara is perceived as it actually is, without grasping at appearances or selfhood. Hence Buddhism speaks of “Enlightenment”, which is a state of being, rather than “Paradise”. Enlightenment is not a state of coming from Samsara and going to Nirvana, not being in the presence of something or being in the presence of something, rather it is the ultimate nature of all sentient beings, beyond obscurations of delusion, ignorance, confusion, beyond “adventitious stains”. It is not even a state of meditative bliss, which is just another attachment we eventually have to shed.

Buddha said: “test my words as a goldsmith tests gold in the fire”. There really is no requirement of blind faith in Buddhism as there is in those religions which speak of “believers”. It is an experiential doctrine, based on developing stillness and insight through practise. There are devotional elements, and it is sure that among the Buddhists of the world there are those who were simply raised into this kind of devotional environment and practise devotion to Buddha without any understanding of the philosophical foundations. This is unfortunate because the philosophical aspects of Buddhism are truly the core of the doctrine, they are not only of great beauty but actually possess an incredible logic and coherency, far ahead of the confused notions of many western philosophers. Anyway, those who practise Buddhism solely as a devotional religion may have had the fortune to be born in some circumstance where they have a connection with Buddha, perhaps they are making progress, but their blind faith is not only partial, it could even be considered to be antithetical to the spirit of inquiry and investigation of deeper Buddhist practise.

The crux of the matter is, Buddhism is really the only religion which does not seek a paradise. There are “Pure Lands”, but these are considered to be places where people go in order to practise Dharma, not places with no suffering, and they are not so important in most schools of the Mahayana or Vajrayana. Everybody wants peace, everyone wants to go to some place where all is ease and there is no pain, everyone desires to be happy and this is natural. However from the Buddhist perspective, in order to find true peace we need to uproot all negative emotion and develop insight into reality. We may be able to escape temporarily to the peace of the Deva realms, but we can never escape from what we are, and it is what we are which contains all the causes of suffering or happiness for us. As Buddha said:

“All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.

All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a peaceful mind,
And happiness follows
Like a never-departing shadow.”

This is perhaps a rather simplistic presentation, but it gets to the essential point that it is mind which creates suffering, it is our own mind’s non-virtue and ignorant grasping which leads us on this endless tiring journey through illusion and suffering, not any external god or demon. There is no saviour as such, certainly no “free gift of salvation”, there is no easy way out, there is only facing up to what we are and overcoming ignorance about the true nature of things. There is no paradise to be sought, nor hell to be avoided – if we want to avoid hell, it would only be because it isn’t a good place to practise Dharma.

So effectively all of these religions seeking paradise are only seeking the shell of happiness, the Deva realms. True happiness is something internal, a state of perfect equanimity whether external phenomena are good or bad. It is good that the various religions practise some renunciation, that they stop people from getting too deeply enmeshed in the web of illusion through accumulating strong karmas of passionate attachment and negative deeds. But at the same time these “tirthika” teachings fail to confront the causes of suffering even of the individual, and certainly don’t generate the altruistic mind seeking to become enlightened not for one’s own benefit but for all sentient beings, which is the foundation of the Mahayana and Vajrayana.

If people want to seek a state of peaceful and easy existence without the difficulties and pains of life on earth, this is quite their own choice, though they would do better to at least comprehend that it is temporary. In fact the Devas are said to practise Dharma sometimes, though it is not an ideal rebirth for this generally speaking. Perhaps if the person is sincere in the religion they are practising, their sincerity will bring about causes to encounter the Buddhadharma later on, though perhaps reaching this stage will involve a passage through the hell or hungry ghost realms. Yet if we can accept the rather terrifying truth that all is impermanent, then we can go beyond this longing for paradise and start to simply accept and embrace things for what they are, trying to develop non-deluded perception unobscured by ignorance.

This is a process which requires ethics, abandoning longing for a paradise and opening up to the reality of things is not a license just to do as one pleases and ignore ethical conduct, quite the opposite - Buddhism is not a nihilistic doctrine. Indeed nihilism is even more problematic than the eternalism of seeking refuge in Samsaric gods, it prevents any real spiritual progress. Coming to experience reality as it is requires not only developing insight into the true nature of things, but also Merit, good deeds and strivings. Though there have been practitioners of the Dharma known for their “crazy wisdom”, this is not something that normal people should attempt. Indeed in order to take Refuge in the Buddha, we must avoid alcohol, killing etc., and without following such regulations it is difficult to make progress on the path. Quite simply we must develop equanimity as a foundation for overcoming ignorance about the true nature of things, acting under the influence of strong passionate attachments and aversions is destructive of this.

In short, so long as we seek paradise as a place or even as a psychological state of bliss, real happiness is far from us. As already mentioned, the psychological state of bliss brought about by meditation is not the purpose, it may be a step on the way to perception of reality as it is however it is not something we should become attached to. Such attachment will only lead to rebirth in the formless deva realms as an all-pervasive consciousness, these realms also are temporary. Really we have to accept that there may be facets of reality which are ugly, and we should not be repulsed by them. We must go beyond continually fleeing from what we perceive as negative towards what we perceive as positive, both are conditioned reactions.

Impermanence is scary, frightening, so people seek refuge in comforting doctrines, in the notion that there is some permanence behind it all. This is not a totally crazy impulse. Buddhism also involves seeking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, but from the Mahayana perspective this is not for ourselves, rather for all sentient beings. Anyway, in the end the Buddhist practise of Refuge isn’t about seeking something permanent behind becoming, hiding in eternity to escape the terrible reality of impermanence, rather it is simply seeking to overcome our ignorance, our deluded perceptions or projections, with the help of the Buddhas and the positive force they radiate.

All of this is without even going into the question of the theistic attitude and it’s (lack of) compatibility with Buddhist philosophy, particularly in relation to the doctrine of Shunyata. Really the deeper philosophical foundations of Buddhism, particularly Tibetan Buddhism, require previous comprehension of the simpler doctrines like the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve Links of Dependent Arising, otherwise they will simply be causes of confusion, perhaps causing the development of nihilism which will surely lead us away from the path. Nonetheless, in order to illustrate the quite profound differences between Buddhist teachings and theistic approaches (differences which remain, though in less extreme form, with Advaita etc.), I include here THE HEART SUTRA, with the caveat that it should really be understood in the context of Buddhist teaching as a whole, with its emphasis on ethics, the overcoming of negative emotion, altruistic motivation, and dependent arising.

To emphasise, in relation to the last, dependent arising, though it is taught that ultimately reality lacks inherent existence this does not in any way negate the truth of cause and effect – create negative causes and suffering follows, positive causes and happiness follows. Even the Buddha, who has fully realised ultimate reality, teaches in accordance with cause and effect, and in no way ever teaches any kind of nihilism.

THE HEART SUTRA

The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering.

Here then,
Form is no other than emptiness,
Emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness,
Emptiness only form.

Feeling, thought, and choice,
Consciousness itself,
Are the same as this.

All things are by nature void
They are not born or destroyed
Nor are they stained or pure
Nor do they
wax or wane

So, in emptiness, no form,
No feeling, thought, or choice,
Nor is there consciousness.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind;
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch,
Or what the mind takes hold of,
Nor even act of sensing.

No ignorance or
end of it,
Nor all that comes of ignorance;
No withering, no death,
No end of them.

Nor is there pain, or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain;
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is emptiness.

So know that the Bodhisattva
Holding to nothing whatever,
But dwelling in Prajna wisdom,
Is freed of delusive hindrance,
Rid of the fear bred by it,
And reaches clearest Nirvana.

All Buddhas of past and present,
Buddhas of future time,
Using this Prajna wisdom,
Come to full
and perfect vision.

Hear then the great dharani,
The radiant peerless mantra,
The Prajnaparamita
Whose words allay all pain;
Hear and believe its truth!
GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
 
Last edited:

Sen

Established
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
153
Everything is impermanent = Becoming/Changing

Dukkha= Life of the 3rd dimensional world which is veiled by the illusion. Once we born to this world, we forget everything including our past lives and Karma. Therefore, we tend to repeat the same mistakes instead of learning the lessons and go forward. By opening third eye, one can penetrate through the veil which creates the illusion (breaking the space/time) and witness all the past lives(entering the time/space) and the many great lessons they skipped. Through that one comes to the greatest understanding/nirvana/ realizing the truth and cease existing in the third dimensional realm (Earth). Therefore, Dukkha is the life in third dimensional world. It is not necessarily just "suffering". It is mortality.

Maha Brahma = This is the Hindu interpretation of One Infinite Creator or Abrahamics called/personified as God. This idea of personifying the Great Source or the one infinite creator came to Abrahamic religions through Hinduism. This is more than 12000 years old teaching. In actuality, Maha Brahma is the source which formed what we call as the universe. One can call it the great central sun, it's a energy field or a The Source field because it is the source of everything/nothing.

Buddhism isn't a religion = It is a philosophy. Buddha never wanted to create a religion. He was a great teacher who taught a way of life one can simply be one with the Truth. A religion is a mind controlling aspect. One who blindly build faith creates the religion out of a philosophy. To understand Buddhism, one need to be balanced in both faith and intelligence.

Mind= Energy/Light/Intelligence therefore, Good Karma= Positive energy. Bad karma = negative energy.
Once both polarity been balanced to Zero, the zero point where ALL is ONE = Nirvana
(+1)+(-1)=0 =Nothing/Everything/Zero point/Omega point

My understanding of these terms and teachings.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Everything is impermanent = Becoming/Changing

Dukkha= Life of the 3rd dimensional world which is veiled by the illusion. Once we born to this world, we forget everything including our past lives and Karma. Therefore, we tend to repeat the same mistakes instead of learning the lessons and go forward. By opening third eye, one can penetrate through the veil which creates the illusion (breaking the space/time) and witness all the past lives(entering the time/space) and the many great lessons they skipped. Through that one comes to the greatest understanding/nirvana/ realizing the truth and cease existing in the third dimensional realm (Earth). Therefore, Dukkha is the life in third dimensional world. It is not necessarily just "suffering". It is mortality.

Maha Brahma = This is the Hindu interpretation of One Infinite Creator or Abrahamics called/personified as God. This idea of personifying the Great Source or the one infinite creator came to Abrahamic religions through Hinduism. This is more than 12000 years old teaching. In actuality, Maha Brahma is the source which formed what we call as the universe. One can call it the great central sun, it's a energy field or a The Source field because it is the source of everything/nothing.

Buddhism isn't a religion = It is a philosophy. Buddha never wanted to create a religion. He was a great teacher who taught a way of life one can simply be one with the Truth. A religion is a mind controlling aspect. One who blindly build faith creates the religion out of a philosophy. To understand Buddhism, one need to be balanced in both faith and intelligence.

Mind= Energy/Light/Intelligence therefore, Good Karma= Positive energy. Bad karma = negative energy.
Once both polarity been balanced to Zero, the zero point where ALL is ONE = Nirvana
(+1)+(-1)=0 =Nothing/Everything/Zero point/Omega point

My understanding of these terms and teachings.
Interesting perspectives, particularly what you say about Maha Brahma. I'm not totally against the idea of some benevolent creator being behind all of this, but in Buddhism and even Hinduism, Brahma isn't really worshipped. From the Buddhist perspective he's just another confused being with his own Karma, from the Hindu perspective Shiva chops off one of Brahma's heads (for incest with his daughter Sarasvati, apparently).

Also I get what your saying about philosophy as opposed to religion, though I don't think that there is always such a clear dividing lin. Buddhism is definitely logical, analytical, experiential, rather than based on any kind of blind faith. At least it should be, of course there are practitioners who are just into the devotional side and unfortunately don't seek out the philosophical aspect of the wisdom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sen

Sen

Established
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
153
Brahma shouldn't be worshiped. I don't think it should be the case though billions do. In my perspective one need to "realize" Brahma.

Hindu Yoga methods like Kriya Yoga, Buddhist meditation Anāpānāsati, and Tibetan Meditation methods like rainbow body are perfect techniques to be one with the universe.

None of these philosophies say one need to worship Brahma. It is kind of like master-slave model if one think they need to worship the higher to get spiritually advance. That is like a archetype in collective unconscious of human kind and I believe that's what make us as a collective go backwards compared to higher beings like Buddha, Babaji, Naropa, Padmasambhava....and many others.
 
Last edited:

Sen

Established
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
153
Just found this jewel,

To whom should I go for refuge
While I am dwelling in the ocean of samsara,
With its limitless depth and
Its horrible sea monsters of attachment
And so forth eating my body?

Whoever is utterly and completely
Without any fault
Such a person has become the repository
Of all good qualities; therefore
We should go to refuge to someone
With such a mind.
Respectfully praise

Those who abide in the teachings

-The extremely secret Dakini of Naropa-
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I like Buddhism as a philosophy, I think people can learn a lot from it.

My problem is it's too black/white. That is also called a "logical fallacy". In essence, Buddhism is forcing people to choose "white" when many other colors exist. Plus negativity can be a positive force, and positivity can be a negative force.

Also, I cannot see how the mind creates suffering. So let's try to explore that. Why do people suffer? I would say people mainly suffer through "loss", pain or some other feeling of weakness. Basically, without the physical world, these feelings simply would not exist. Because there would be no loss or pain.

Let me put it like this. If we completely remove the notion of physical death, what are we removing along with it? Suffering.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I like Buddhism as a philosophy, I think people can learn a lot from it.

My problem is it's too black/white. That is also called a "logical fallacy". In essence, Buddhism is forcing people to choose "white" when many other colors exist. Plus negativity can be a positive force, and positivity can be a negative force.

Also, I cannot see how the mind creates suffering. So let's try to explore that. Why do people suffer? I would say people mainly suffer through "loss", pain or some other feeling of weakness. Basically, without the physical world, these feelings simply would not exist. Because there would be no loss or pain.

Let me put it like this. If we completely remove the notion of physical death, what are we removing along with it? Suffering.
I'm not sure that Buddhism denies that negativity can be a positive force and vice versa, many people would regard the first Noble Truth "life is suffering" to be rather negative. Basically negativity and positivity are just dualities each dependent on one another, they have no real existence. Furthermore, we accept the law of causation, of course it's difficult to tell what causes might ultimately have beneficial effects unless one is omniscient.

Unhappily I think impermanence, death included, is a part of the reality which we have to face up to as human beings. Living forever would have it's own pains, I think that the renewal involved in taking a new body is something which can be useful spiritually, clearing away the dross of complexes we develop in this life. Of course death is one of the three sufferings Buddha saw, sickness, old age and death, which motivated him to become a Buddha.

I think that a happiness found within, being serene in the face of the seeming cruelty and harshness of the reality of the world, is a more profound and meaningful happiness than would be some kind of immortality.

Having said all this, I'm coming to doubt a few of the conclusions I came to in this short article, being perhaps a little too zealous. Something new on the horizon soon.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I'm not sure that Buddhism denies that negativity can be a positive force and vice versa, many people would regard the first Noble Truth "life is suffering" to be rather negative. Basically negativity and positivity are just dualities each dependent on one another, they have no real existence. Furthermore, we accept the law of causation, of course it's difficult to tell what causes might ultimately have beneficial effects unless one is omniscient.
I agree. And to clarify I wasn't trying to oversimplify or call Buddhism illogical. Maybe it's better to say the weakness I see in Buddhism isn't from what's in the depths, but what's on the surface. Of course, I need more time to absorb it all.

Living forever would have it's own pains
*Maybe* this is true. I think that might be subjective though. Basically, if we take into account that time is relative to mass, an eternity without mass would effectively be "timeless" or beyond time.

I think that a happiness found within, being serene in the face of the seeming cruelty and harshness of the reality of the world, is a more profound and meaningful happiness than would be some kind of immortality.
I agree that happiness is found within. But again your views about immortality appear to be subjective. My thoughts are you only think that way because you have a physical body.
Having said all this, I'm coming to doubt a few of the conclusions I came to in this short article, being perhaps a little too zealous. Something new on the horizon soon.
Looking forward to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sen

Sen

Established
Joined
Mar 9, 2020
Messages
153
Don't you think "living forever" is misinterpret throughout the history? I think it is beyond human comprehension. In my understanding, it means breaking the linear time barrier. Time exist because of gravity. Once the gravity been overcome we break the time. And, time what age us. This is what cause karmic death of this physical body. Living forever is more of a figurative term for a much deeper understanding.
For instance, Da Vinci interpret this through Monalisa. It isn't a portrait of a wife of a wealthy merchant. The portrait is basically speak of "eternal youth". Image is a combination of a man and woman. Left side of Monalisa is feminine and right is masculine. Da Vinci wanted to portray what it is to mean to break the linear time barrier, and he did it spectacularly.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
I think what makes Buddhism a religion versus a science like Western philosophy are elements like its folk imagery and Vedic conceptual background. Does Buddhism address the significance of it's own conditioning? A concept like the 6 Realms of Samsara is fascinating but (for me) would take time to internalize. It's interesting how the style of practice changed as the teachings were embraced by different regions. Something like Japanese Zen seems more about direct experience than the tribal symbolism of Vajrayana.

As an overall impression the wisdom revealed within Buddhism is sublime. Nearly 1/10 of the world is Buddhist and countless others have been inspired by its precepts. There is an intelligence that is accessible to everyone. Know thyself! What is true must be universal, and for someone who venerates the One God there's no conflict in drawing from Buddhist teaching. Their theology may differ but our ancestral spiritual traditions lead to the exact same way of life, it's beautiful. At a base level the Quran, the stories of Jesus, the Buddhist path or Hindu worship all remind us of spiritual awakening. Awaking to the depth of reality; to devote our lives to something beyond the physical, to remember God with every breath.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I agree. And to clarify I wasn't trying to oversimplify or call Buddhism illogical. Maybe it's better to say the weakness I see in Buddhism isn't from what's in the depths, but what's on the surface. Of course, I need more time to absorb it all.


*Maybe* this is true. I think that might be subjective though. Basically, if we take into account that time is relative to mass, an eternity without mass would effectively be "timeless" or beyond time.


I agree that happiness is found within. But again your views about immortality appear to be subjective. My thoughts are you only think that way because you have a physical body.

Looking forward to it.
So in the Buddhist approach, so long as we have self-grasping (and grasping at objects as inherently existing... an idea which takes some explanation) we are in a state of suffering. Without self-grasping there is no ego-self to suffer.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
So in the Buddhist approach, so long as we have self-grasping (and grasping at objects as inherently existing... an idea which takes some explanation) we are in a state of suffering. Without self-grasping there is no ego-self to suffer.
I think I get what you are saying.

Like even if humans existed in a purely mental state we would still self-grasp. Which could lead to suffering.

But I'm not sure that ego would still exist without physical forms. Without ego the "self" would be whole and in theory unconscious complexes would not exist.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I think I get what you are saying.

Like even if humans existed in a purely mental state we would still self-grasp. Which could lead to suffering.

But I'm not sure that ego would still exist without physical forms. Without ego the "self" would be whole and in theory unconscious complexes would not exist.
Without physical forms sounds to me like what is called the Formless Deva Realms. This is the destiny of those who develop high states of bliss in meditation but don't cut through and so become attached to them. They have no bodies and exist in a state of meditative peace for millions of years, however they still have a subtle form of self-grasping which eventually causes them to be born in one of the other realms.

I'm not sure that ego is a product of the brain or bodily consciousness as such. It's something which can exist in a lot of different forms, very gross to very subtle. Surely attachment to the body and sensual enjoyments is one form of this, but it could also be things like clinging to ideologies or habitual patterns of thinking. Even, as already mentioned, clinging to states of meditative bliss.

In the Bardo between lives it's said that we exist as mental bodies with the ability to travel anywhere immediately at will, but nonetheless we experience our own confused and terrifying karmic projections. Personally I'd say that having a body is actually something useful to us spiritually, I'm not sure that it's something we abandon as we attain higher spiritual states, like however big a tree goes it nonetheless has roots. This is only my perspective.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Without physical forms sounds to me like what is called the Formless Deva Realms. This is the destiny of those who develop high states of bliss in meditation but don't cut through and so become attached to them. They have no bodies and exist in a state of meditative peace for millions of years, however they still have a subtle form of self-grasping which eventually causes them to be born in one of the other realms.

I'm not sure that ego is a product of the brain or bodily consciousness as such. It's something which can exist in a lot of different forms, very gross to very subtle. Surely attachment to the body and sensual enjoyments is one form of this, but it could also be things like clinging to ideologies or habitual patterns of thinking. Even, as already mentioned, clinging to states of meditative bliss.

In the Bardo between lives it's said that we exist as mental bodies with the ability to travel anywhere immediately at will, but nonetheless we experience our own confused and terrifying karmic projections. Personally I'd say that having a body is actually something useful to us spiritually, I'm not sure that it's something we abandon as we attain higher spiritual states, like however big a tree goes it nonetheless has roots. This is only my perspective.
Yes, the formless realm would be the pure mental state I was envisioning.

My main problem with the Buddhist version is that it contradicts the theory of relativity. I.E that the concept of time is created by massive objects. Of course, many great minds disagree with Einstein, however, the time and space curvature are demonstrably true. Now, is it the whole truth? Probably not, but it's the closest humans can get to understanding "why" time exists.

Perhaps my teacher said it best...

"Naturally, one can contend from the start that myths and dreams concerning continuity of life after death are merely compensating fantasies which are inherent in our natures—all life desires eternity. The only argument I can adduce in answer to this is the myth itself.

However, there are indications that at least a part of the psyche is not subject to the laws of space and time. Scientific proof of that has been provided by the well-known J. B. Rhine experiments. Along with numerous cases of spontaneous foreknowledge, non-spatial perceptions, and so on—of which I have given a number of examples from my own life—these experiments prove that the psyche at times functions outside of the spatio-temporal law of causality. This indicates that our conceptions of space and time, and therefore of causality also, are incomplete. A complete picture of the world would require the addition of still another dimension; only then could the totality of phenomena be given a unified explanation. Hence it is that the rationalists insist to this day that parapsychological experiences do not really exist; for their world-view stands or falls by this question. If such phenomena occur at all, the rationalistic picture of the universe is invalid, because incomplete. Then the possibility of another valued reality behind the phenomenal world becomes an inescapable problem, and we must face the fact that our world, with its time, space, and causality, relates to another order of things lying behind or beneath it, in which neither “here and there” nor “earlier and later” are of importance. I have been convinced that at least a part of our psychic existence is characterized by a relativity of space and time. This relativity seems to increase, in proportion to the distance from consciousness, to an absolute condition of timelessness and spacelessness."

 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Yes, the formless realm would be the pure mental state I was envisioning.

My main problem with the Buddhist version is that it contradicts the theory of relativity. I.E that the concept of time is created by massive objects. Of course, many great minds disagree with Einstein, however, the time and space curvature are demonstrably true. Now, is it the whole truth? Probably not, but it's the closest humans can get to understanding "why" time exists.

Perhaps my teacher said it best...

"Naturally, one can contend from the start that myths and dreams concerning continuity of life after death are merely compensating fantasies which are inherent in our natures—all life desires eternity. The only argument I can adduce in answer to this is the myth itself.

However, there are indications that at least a part of the psyche is not subject to the laws of space and time. Scientific proof of that has been provided by the well-known J. B. Rhine experiments. Along with numerous cases of spontaneous foreknowledge, non-spatial perceptions, and so on—of which I have given a number of examples from my own life—these experiments prove that the psyche at times functions outside of the spatio-temporal law of causality. This indicates that our conceptions of space and time, and therefore of causality also, are incomplete. A complete picture of the world would require the addition of still another dimension; only then could the totality of phenomena be given a unified explanation. Hence it is that the rationalists insist to this day that parapsychological experiences do not really exist; for their world-view stands or falls by this question. If such phenomena occur at all, the rationalistic picture of the universe is invalid, because incomplete. Then the possibility of another valued reality behind the phenomenal world becomes an inescapable problem, and we must face the fact that our world, with its time, space, and causality, relates to another order of things lying behind or beneath it, in which neither “here and there” nor “earlier and later” are of importance. I have been convinced that at least a part of our psychic existence is characterized by a relativity of space and time. This relativity seems to increase, in proportion to the distance from consciousness, to an absolute condition of timelessness and spacelessness."

Jung, great man. Maybe what you are talking about is Nirvana, going beyond. The thing is, according to the Madhyamaka, Nirvana and Samsara are the same, Nirvana isn't a place but a state of being within samsaric existence.

Anyway, I have an anecdote as it happens, I used to know this guy who was like a really intense atheist, obsessed with hating anything which had the savor of spirituality, the kind of person who puts down all kinds of things without actually knowing anything about them, never mind actually practicing techniques. He told me once that science would make us all immortal, to which my response would be that living forever in that kind of state of mind would be basically eternal hell.

Buddhism really teaches us to look within, to practice meditation and good ethical conduct with the proper intention not to gain enlightenment for ourselves alone, but for the benefit of all sentient beings. The philosophical side is interesting and it can be helpful to study it in order to have things to contemplate on in meditation, it's not really the point though. Lived experience, "test my words like gold in the fire" Buddha said.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Jung, great man. Maybe what you are talking about is Nirvana, going beyond. The thing is, according to the Madhyamaka, Nirvana and Samsara are the same, Nirvana isn't a place but a state of being within samsaric existence.

Anyway, I have an anecdote as it happens, I used to know this guy who was like a really intense atheist, obsessed with hating anything which had the savor of spirituality, the kind of person who puts down all kinds of things without actually knowing anything about them, never mind actually practicing techniques. He told me once that science would make us all immortal, to which my response would be that living forever in that kind of state of mind would be basically eternal hell.

Buddhism really teaches us to look within, to practice meditation and good ethical conduct with the proper intention not to gain enlightenment for ourselves alone, but for the benefit of all sentient beings. The philosophical side is interesting and it can be helpful to study it in order to have things to contemplate on in meditation, it's not really the point though. Lived experience, "test my words like gold in the fire" Buddha said.
I've been reading a little bit about Nirvana, and the "Divine Eye". I like it, but idk if they are what Jung was referencing. I think he was talking about another world behind or parallel to our world. A place where all the strings of existence are pulled. A place where our heads would just explode immediately or something.

The concept of immortality is just compensation for our inherent weaknesses. I know this, and yet a part of me still has that "mortal" itch that I might scratch should the opportunity present itself. But I don't want to be a cyborg either. That does sound like eternal hell, and even having an off button sounds problematic.

In regards to ethics and proper intent, they are good in theory, and obviously hard to argue against. In reality, the world is harsh, and most people don't have a good reason to play by the rules. Like you think the atheist was bad, I know closet nihilists that destroy everything they touch. Now, I'd love to turn everyone into monks, but Americans specifically would die for their illusions.

As far as philosophy goes, I think it had its time in the sun. Proper debate is gone and been replaced by something else. What we mostly see as far as discourse is force, not persuasion.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I've been reading a little bit about Nirvana, and the "Divine Eye". I like it, but idk if they are what Jung was referencing. I think he was talking about another world behind or parallel to our world. A place where all the strings of existence are pulled. A place where our heads would just explode immediately or something.

The concept of immortality is just compensation for our inherent weaknesses. I know this, and yet a part of me still has that "mortal" itch that I might scratch should the opportunity present itself. But I don't want to be a cyborg either. That does sound like eternal hell, and even having an off button sounds problematic.

In regards to ethics and proper intent, they are good in theory, and obviously hard to argue against. In reality, the world is harsh, and most people don't have a good reason to play by the rules. Like you think the atheist was bad, I know closet nihilists that destroy everything they touch. Now, I'd love to turn everyone into monks, but Americans specifically would die for their illusions.

As far as philosophy goes, I think it had its time in the sun. Proper debate is gone and been replaced by something else. What we mostly see as far as discourse is force, not persuasion.
So I don't think the atheist was bad as such, just a fanatic of the kind which would also be incorrect if it were something religious. Perhaps the skeptical fanaticism, reducing everything to matter, consciousness to brain activity, life to the outcome of random chance, is one which is particularly dangerous, though I don't think it's much worse than some of the crazier forms of Abrahamic ideas. On the other I have met people who are skeptical of religion who are nonetheless good people, for example activists and rebels seeking a change to human social organization - their motivation is compassionate and often they are willing to make sacrifices for what they me, to me that is spiritual whether they identify as religious or not.

I think that Nirvana would completely blow our minds as you said of the "other world". Even states of consciousness lower than this which people access through meditation and maybe things like shamanism as well, are totally unlike our everyday consciousness. So far as I understand it, to enter into Nirvana you basically need to be dead, to have eliminated all tendency to produce karma, the ego cannot ascend beyond it's little chaotic world of confusion. Meditation is about eventually accessing those states of consciousness and learning also to carry them with you beyond meditation into everyday life. Buddha is said, in the Yogachara at least, to be omniscient, to have clear knowledge of anything he turns his (or her) mind to. Experiencing reality like this is so far from what experience as normal that I think even a momentary taste of it would drive an unprepared person insane.

Interesting what you say about philosophy and force rather than persuasion, something definitely worth reflecting upon. I definitely think that the kind of discourse which is in the "mainstream" sphere and even here is basically just chaos and noise, melodrama rather than rational. Unfortunately I think that the majority of people are simply incapable due to whatever karmic obstacles they have of differentiating logic and confusion, seeing through their own complexes. Jung of course was a very illuminated person and can help people a lot in the process of understanding if they have the necessary openness to listen and comprehend the things he was saying. Even Freud, if we're willing to face the whole truth about the Oedipal thing (which is found in the Bardo Thodol) can be helpful in self-understanding, with the caveat that his system as a whole kind of tended towards being a system of brainwashing for the elites to use and denies any kind of spiritual element (to which Jung of course assigned a primal place in his system).
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
So I don't think the atheist was bad as such, just a fanatic of the kind which would also be incorrect if it were something religious. Perhaps the skeptical fanaticism, reducing everything to matter, consciousness to brain activity, life to the outcome of random chance, is one which is particularly dangerous, though I don't think it's much worse than some of the crazier forms of Abrahamic ideas. On the other I have met people who are skeptical of religion who are nonetheless good people, for example activists and rebels seeking a change to human social organization - their motivation is compassionate and often they are willing to make sacrifices for what they me, to me that is spiritual whether they identify as religious or not.

I think that Nirvana would completely blow our minds as you said of the "other world". Even states of consciousness lower than this which people access through meditation and maybe things like shamanism as well, are totally unlike our everyday consciousness. So far as I understand it, to enter into Nirvana you basically need to be dead, to have eliminated all tendency to produce karma, the ego cannot ascend beyond it's little chaotic world of confusion. Meditation is about eventually accessing those states of consciousness and learning also to carry them with you beyond meditation into everyday life. Buddha is said, in the Yogachara at least, to be omniscient, to have clear knowledge of anything he turns his (or her) mind to. Experiencing reality like this is so far from what experience as normal that I think even a momentary taste of it would drive an unprepared person insane.

Interesting what you say about philosophy and force rather than persuasion, something definitely worth reflecting upon. I definitely think that the kind of discourse which is in the "mainstream" sphere and even here is basically just chaos and noise, melodrama rather than rational. Unfortunately I think that the majority of people are simply incapable due to whatever karmic obstacles they have of differentiating logic and confusion, seeing through their own complexes. Jung of course was a very illuminated person and can help people a lot in the process of understanding if they have the necessary openness to listen and comprehend the things he was saying. Even Freud, if we're willing to face the whole truth about the Oedipal thing (which is found in the Bardo Thodol) can be helpful in self-understanding, with the caveat that his system as a whole kind of tended towards being a system of brainwashing for the elites to use and denies any kind of spiritual element (to which Jung of course assigned a primal place in his system).
Sometimes I think Nietzsche was correct about religion. Like what you said about atheists, except the organized religious type reduces everything to a moral creed that cannot be followed in a straight line. Or the moral creed *when* followed leads to the total elimination of objectivity thus leading to Nihilism. Moreover, it is a moral creed with the purpose of asserting some type of control over others. Not a moral creed that's correct, or righteous.

I'll take your word for it as far as Nirvana goes. My own experiences with altered states of consciousness are hard to describe. Although it's probably obvious I tend to embrace the chaos inside myself. So I think that chaos can propel us forward, but also keep us held back. Now would it be better and more comfortable to be more peaceful? Absolutely, but I think there are many paths, so long as one is actually on the path.

Complexes are scary to confront. In essence, people are controlled by the chaos, in the same way, they are controlled by faulty moral codes. Chaos and morality offer up an absolute perception of being "right". In contrast, Jung said that the mind should be focused on sense and nonsense, not right and wrong. Of course, Jung was hardly a rationalist. So to me, it boils down to what's the most practical and beneficial. These days everyone thinks they are right, and sense has little meaning. Especially the sense of self, like people don't know themselves or are in denial about what they are.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Sometimes I think Nietzsche was correct about religion. Like what you said about atheists, except the organized religious type reduces everything to a moral creed that cannot be followed in a straight line. Or the moral creed *when* followed leads to the total elimination of objectivity thus leading to Nihilism. Moreover, it is a moral creed with the purpose of asserting some type of control over others. Not a moral creed that's correct, or righteous.

I'll take your word for it as far as Nirvana goes. My own experiences with altered states of consciousness are hard to describe. Although it's probably obvious I tend to embrace the chaos inside myself. So I think that chaos can propel us forward, but also keep us held back. Now would it be better and more comfortable to be more peaceful? Absolutely, but I think there are many paths, so long as one is actually on the path.

Complexes are scary to confront. In essence, people are controlled by the chaos, in the same way, they are controlled by faulty moral codes. Chaos and morality offer up an absolute perception of being "right". In contrast, Jung said that the mind should be focused on sense and nonsense, not right and wrong. Of course, Jung was hardly a rationalist. So to me, it boils down to what's the most practical and beneficial. These days everyone thinks they are right, and sense has little meaning. Especially the sense of self, like people don't know themselves or are in denial about what they are.
Yeah I agree, Nietzsche had some insight. I believe Jung wrote a pretty extensive commentary on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". Of course Nietzsche went insane in the end, perhaps a signal about the karma he was creating. He had some really deep insights but maybe went too far, I dunno.

As for the chaos, one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes (actually one of the few I remember is) "you must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star". Definitely any kind of genuine spiritual practice involves opening up to the unconscious, it's necessary to bring things out into the light of day and confront them before we can be free of them. Attaining some kind of superficial "peace" through having an "empty mind" isn't the point, except perhaps in the medicalized "mindfulness" which in truth is an empty shadow of spiritual practice, lacking both the necessary motivation and the comprehension of the state which is being sought. Many of the people practicing that, doctors and those supposedly "teaching" the technique included, don't even believe in the unconscious, being totally submerged in the materialistic "brain activity" theory.

In Buddhism a really important thing is "dedication of merit", whenever we do any kind of practise afterwards we say something like "I dedicate this merit in order to gain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings". Otherwise we are just reinforcing the ego with stolen techniques. I guess the same thing could be applied to psychoanalysis, personally I don't think I would be interesting in undergoing analysis because the aim of it isn't self-realization but "integration" or "individuation", useful things but no final goal and in some ways perhaps a potential obstacle. But reading Jung, with his vast insight and practical experience with human psychology can be really helpful, in interpreting dreams for example.

I never heard the thing you said about being focused on "sense and nonsense" rather than "right and wrong" but actually that's something I think I would agree with. That's the thing that troubles me about the Abrahamic religions, they simply don't make sense! Maybe Jung had some "European" conditioning, I don't think he really grasped the fundamental difference between the "monotheist" (so-called) and Eastern teachings, he also strongly rejected Theosophy.

As for confronting complexes, well I still have plenty of them, there's always work to do. I like what you say about "being in denial of what people are", I guess the first thing for most people would be to confront what Jung called "the shadow" and grasp that behind the fine film of consciousness there is a whole nest of monsters.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Yeah I agree, Nietzsche had some insight. I believe Jung wrote a pretty extensive commentary on "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". Of course Nietzsche went insane in the end, perhaps a signal about the karma he was creating. He had some really deep insights but maybe went too far, I dunno.

As for the chaos, one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes (actually one of the few I remember is) "you must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star". Definitely any kind of genuine spiritual practice involves opening up to the unconscious, it's necessary to bring things out into the light of day and confront them before we can be free of them. Attaining some kind of superficial "peace" through having an "empty mind" isn't the point, except perhaps in the medicalized "mindfulness" which in truth is an empty shadow of spiritual practice, lacking both the necessary motivation and the comprehension of the state which is being sought. Many of the people practicing that, doctors and those supposedly "teaching" the technique included, don't even believe in the unconscious, being totally submerged in the materialistic "brain activity" theory.

In Buddhism a really important thing is "dedication of merit", whenever we do any kind of practise afterwards we say something like "I dedicate this merit in order to gain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings". Otherwise we are just reinforcing the ego with stolen techniques. I guess the same thing could be applied to psychoanalysis, personally I don't think I would be interesting in undergoing analysis because the aim of it isn't self-realization but "integration" or "individuation", useful things but no final goal and in some ways perhaps a potential obstacle. But reading Jung, with his vast insight and practical experience with human psychology can be really helpful, in interpreting dreams for example.

I never heard the thing you said about being focused on "sense and nonsense" rather than "right and wrong" but actually that's something I think I would agree with. That's the thing that troubles me about the Abrahamic religions, they simply don't make sense! Maybe Jung had some "European" conditioning, I don't think he really grasped the fundamental difference between the "monotheist" (so-called) and Eastern teachings, he also strongly rejected Theosophy.

As for confronting complexes, well I still have plenty of them, there's always work to do. I like what you say about "being in denial of what people are", I guess the first thing for most people would be to confront what Jung called "the shadow" and grasp that behind the fine film of consciousness there is a whole nest of monsters.
It is my understanding that Jung related to the works of Nietzsche through the lens of archetypes. But Idk that Nietzsche went too far. I think there is a hidden side of "karma". Like there is an outer world manifestation of karma and an inner world manifestation of karma. So if Nietzsche did go too far, it was probably connected to his inner thoughts.

Most people don't believe in the unconscious. Apparently they never fell asleep before, or they think that dreams are merely random feedback from the conscious mind. Now sometimes I think that's true. However, the majority of my dreams don't seem random at all. So it is as you say, I was plagued by my dreams until I brought them into the light. However, I struggle with defining "spirituality". For me, there are just too many words or too many angles of approach.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the dedication of merit, and it's true Jungian psychology essentially has no endpoint. It is my argument that a Jungian philosophy when taken to its conclusion, leads to "holism". Of course, I haven't fleshed it all out yet, but the underlying basis of "individuation" is to realize the whole self. The "collective unconscious" is also viewed as a whole, as well as each unconscious archetype.

Speaking of conditioning. Jung was conditioned by the old European Gods. Specifically "Odin", so perhaps it's fair to say his ideology was another reaction to the master-slave mentality pervading throughout the world. Abrahamic religions certainly come to mind in that respect as well. And it's funny you bring up Jung's rejection of Occult teachings. Many posters here seem to identify Jung as being a personification of Satan himself.

I think Jung would say Satan is just another name for the shadow archetype. And such accusations of Satanism or Demonology to be projections originating in the shadow-self. Of course, I recognize the very real meaning behind such things. Like the essence of value is there, it's just often misguided.
 
Top