Buddhist Karma Kagyu

[Tellyontellyon]

I'd rather keep this fiction of being an 'I' . In Christianity we are allowed this fiction / worldview.

You can... However, it is the Buddhist world view that this leads you into incalculable suffering.

 

[ananda]

I like this word picture. Are you saying that Brahma gods are recycled souls of sentient beings?

They are considered to be sentient lifestreams that accumulated much skillfull kamma in past lives, and were reborn as Brahmas.

I find it difficult to believe that this complicated life and DNA and that our conscience and morality all developed by chance and natural selection. Compared to our bodies, minds and emotion, a computer or a TV is very simple. I find it difficult to imagine them reassembling themselves without intelligent design.

From a Buddhist perspective, the designers are the various individual sentient consciousnesses.

 

[ananda]

I'd rather keep this fiction of being an 'I' . In Christianity we are allowed this fiction / worldview.

Can you identify this "I"? By implication, it must be something that you control completely. E.g. it should change when you want it to change, doesn't change when you don't want it to change, etc.

 

[Andrewn]

You can... However, it is the Buddhist world view that this leads you into incalculable suffering.

In Christianity, suffering is not something to avoid. The Lord Jesus said:

Joh 12:24 Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit.

So, this suffering, this dying to self is necessary for fruit bearing. "For example, how fruitful you become is related to your ability to die to laziness, procrastination, pleasures, and lack of self-control." (Glorious Holy Spirit by Cedric Pisegna.)

 

[Andrewn]

They are considered to be sentient lifestreams that accumulated much skillfull kamma in past lives, and were reborn as Brahmas.

Am I right to say that you consider the Buddhas higher than Brahma gods bec the former attained parinirvana / extinction?

From a Buddhist perspective, the designers are the various individual sentient consciousnesses.

But, where did these individual sentient consciousnesses come from?

Can you identify this "I"? By implication, it must be something that you control completely. E.g. it should change when you want it to change, doesn't change when you don't want it to change, etc.

Self-control is the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[ananda]

Am I right to say that you consider the Buddhas higher than Brahma gods bec the former attained parinirvana / extinction?

The Buddhas and all enlightened disciples are considered superior because they transcended & awakened from the samsara's round through wisdom. The gods are considered "superior" to us usually only in terms of power, beauty, pleasures, and lifespan, but are still subject to rebirth in samsara. They delight in their pleasurable heavens, and most gods ignorantly & delusionally believe themselves to be eternal.

But, where did these individual sentient consciousnesses come from?

There is no observable initial origin. From a Buddhist perspective, it is cyclical: consciousness arises from mind & matter, and mind & matter arises from consciousness.

Self-control is the fruit of the Spirit.

That doesn't answer my question, though. What is that self you allegedly control?

 

[Andrewn]

The gods are considered "superior" to us usually only in terms of power, beauty, pleasures, and lifespan, but are still subject to rebirth in samsara.

How long is the deva's lifespan?

Can you identify this "I"? By implication, it must be something that you control completely. E.g. it should change when you want it to change, doesn't change when you don't want it to change, etc.

Weinreich gives the definition: "A person's identity is defined as the totality of one's self-construal, in which how one construes oneself in the present expresses the continuity between how one construes oneself as one was in the past and how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future".

 

[ananda]

How long is the deva's lifespan?

Depends on their kamma ... from tens of thousands of years for the lowest devas in the lowest heavenly realms, to aeons for the highest devas in the highest heavenly realms.

Weinreich gives the definition: "A person's identity is defined as the totality of one's self-construal, in which how one construes oneself in the present expresses the continuity between how one construes oneself as one was in the past and how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future".

Identity <> self.

He's describing a "lifestream" (as seen in Buddhism), but it's not an enduring, unchanging self.

 

[Andrewn]

He's describing a "lifestream" (as seen in Buddhism), but it's not an enduring, unchanging self.

This is not how I understand Weinreich. The word "self" has different meanings. In post #44, I said that we die to self. By that I meant selfishness / self-preservation / ease & comfort.

So, in the context of eternal life, I'd rather stick with "identity" or "personality." Whatever makes you who you are (is it your mind? your self-consciousness? your emotions) continues after physical death.

The issue of this continuity and the issue of Creator God are 2 important aspects to me. And then, of course, there is the salvation brought by Christ's death:

Col 2:15 After disarming the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them by triumphing over them in Christ.

One can understand this to mean that Christ conquered the devas. This is the truth we believe in.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

I know it's cheating, but this is quite a complex and big subject that takes a long time to explain... so I'm going to post a video.
This covers ideas about Self and the five aggregates. I hope it helps.

 

[ananda]

This is not how I understand Weinreich. The word "self" has different meanings. In post #44, I said that we die to self. By that I meant selfishness / self-preservation / ease & comfort.

How is "dying to self" related to the question "what is self?"

So, in the context of eternal life, I'd rather stick with "identity" or "personality." Whatever makes you who you are (is it your mind? your self-consciousness? your emotions) continues after physical death.

None of the above, in Buddhism. Our lifestream is like a rolling billiard ball which hits and transfers all of its potential energy to the next billiard ball, which in turn hits the next billiard ball, etc. There is no real continuity except for the transfer of kammic energy.

The issue of this continuity and the issue of Creator God are 2 important aspects to me. And then, of course, there is the salvation brought by Christ's death:

Col 2:15 After disarming the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them by triumphing over them in Christ.

One can understand this to mean that Christ conquered the devas. This is the truth we believe in.

It is not surprising, from a Buddhist standpoint. In our scriptures (DN1) there is an account of the death of a Radiant-level god who is reborn as a lower Brahma-level god. Then, finding himself lonely after a span of time, he observes the birth of lesser gods in his company (reborn there after their own deaths from higher spheres) & believes himself to be their father & creator. Not possessing the innate ability to see his prior births or the higher heavenly spheres, he (delusionally) believes himself to be the eternal father, all-powerful creator, sovereign lord, & ruler of all. The account goes on to describe the descent of those lesser gods into human form, and the birth of theism & the belief in one eternal god.

 

[Andrewn]

Our lifestream is like a rolling billiard ball which hits and transfers all of its potential energy to the next billiard ball, which in turn hits the next billiard ball, etc. There is no real continuity except for the transfer of kammic energy.

This is a very good description.

In our scriptures (DN1) there is an account of the death of a Radiant-level god who is reborn as a lower Brahma-level god. Then, finding himself lonely after a span of time, he observes the birth of lesser gods in his company (reborn there after their own deaths from higher spheres) & believes himself to be their father & creator. Not possessing the innate ability to see his prior births or the higher heavenly spheres, he (delusionally) believes himself to be the eternal father, all-powerful creator, sovereign lord, & ruler of all. The account goes on to describe the descent of those lesser gods into human form, and the birth of theism & the belief in one eternal god.

Interesting. Where does it say that the deluded god contacted mortal human beings?

 

[ananda]

Interesting. Where does it say that the deluded god contacted mortal human beings?

DN1 specifically talks about how the lesser gods who die and are reborn as humans, practice and achieve a meditative trance through which they recollect their former life and remember the Brahma-deva, and they begin to preach to other humans about him, in this way: "We were created by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world."

There are other suttas that does teach how higher devas occasionally take on grosser forms in order to descend to the lower heavenly spheres to interact with those lower devas, or even more rarely to the earthly realm to interact with humans (usually only to interact with the enlightened). It is said they rarely do this because the lower spheres are progressively more disgusting to them, just like a pool of mud is something we usually avoid and do not jump into.

 

[Andrewn]

I know it's cheating, but this is quite a complex and big subject that takes a long time to explain... so I'm going to post a video. This covers ideas about Self and the five aggregates. I hope it helps.

This interesting video reminds me that Buddhist philosophy is different from ancient religions like Judaism and Zoroastrianism but should rather be compared to the philosophies and metaphysics of Pythagoras (570 – 495 BC), Socrates (470 – 399 BC), and Plato (429 – 347 BC). I'd be interested in watching her next video about the "consciousness."

Buddhism as a religion practiced in Southeast Asia and Tibet is a whole different issue.

 

[Andrewn]

remember the Brahma-deva, and they begin to preach to other humans about him, in this way: "We were created by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world."

Are you're saying these are delusions rather than truths?

 

[ananda]

Are you're saying these are delusions rather than truths?

Yes, that is what the Buddha suggests. The Brahma believes that about himself because he cannot perceive spheres higher than his own and thus cannot innately perceive beings superior to himself, and he mistakes his long lifespan (reaching into the aeons) as eternal life.

 

[Andrewn]

Yes, that is what the Buddha suggests. The Brahma believes that about himself because he cannot perceive spheres higher than his own and thus cannot innately perceive beings superior to himself, and he mistakes his long lifespan (reaching into the aeons) as eternal life.

But the average believer in Southeast Asia and Tibet worships a number of devas! Did Buddhism fail to reach the masses with its true message? Or did Westerners misunderstand the teaching? Is Zen the purest form of practice?

 

[ananda]

But the average believer in Southeast Asia and Tibet worships a number of devas! Did Buddhism fail to reach the masses with its true message? Or did Westerners misunderstand the teaching?

The depth of Buddhist philosophy & phenomenology is profound, but also profoundly difficult to understand, unfortunately. IMO that led to lesser practices like deva-worship, which is not altogether foreign to Buddhist thought.

Is Zen the purest form of practice?

No, but rather the opposite, IMO.

 

[Andrewn]

which is not altogether foreign to Buddhist thought.

Would you please explain this?

 

[ananda]

Would you please explain this?

IMO, Buddhism recognizes that devas do possess a degree of power, and many Buddhists respect & appeal to them in the exact same way someone might appeal for help to a powerful government official, minister, or king here on earth. Some devas are also said to be enlightened to at least a degree, so those devas are definitely worthy of respect just like any other part of the noble sangha on earth.

In Buddhism, most things in life aren't black/white, either/or, good/evil, but rather falls somewhere on a spectrum, like the spectrum of unskillfulness<-->skillfulness. What they're doing isn't necessarily the highest in skillfulness, and isn't necessarily unskillful either, but somewhere in between.