Really surprising is that the mental construct of duality, and in fact the basis of all psychological suffering, is fragile and mutable enough that it can be eradicated! Ain't that great?!

(2) The experience of enlightenment, even after it is attained, isn't permanent, because enlightened human beings eventually die.

This kind of thing is another point that makes absolutely no sense to me, even assuming I'm pondering it from the vantage point of a pretty paradoxical mindset.

If it's a transient experience it's like anything else, and so enlightenment isn't something separate and eternal; instead that makes it sound like a transient state experience, like the samatha jhanas.

Mmmm, I just don't agree with that in general. There's nothing wrong with a dab of mysticism or heart in your practice, that's my gut feeling. The idea of hardcore dharma practice is lovely but that can also be taken a little too far at times, and saying that the experience of Enlightenment is in sum total as trivial as a set of neurological changes and implying that people are only the sum total of their grey matter is just not something I agree with.

Even Buddhism, with its beliefs in karma and reincarnation, states there is no such thing as a soul.

What you might call a 'soul' is just another configuration of phenomena that is impermanent, suffering, and no-self, even though it might be re-born several times. At least, that's my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not sure about it.

Maybe God broke itself into a squillion little independent entities purely for the pleasure of watching them re-discover their unity.

This may be a small point but where do you find evidence that "Buddhism" teaches "belief" in anything? I'd be interested to know the sutta citation which states this.

What you refer to as "just another configuration of phenomena that is impermanent, suffering, and not-self," Gotama called the five khandhas or the five aggregates. One is better off focusing on gaining insight into the khandhas and their influence on personality view in order to attenuate and eventually let go of their influence on one's perception of phenomena.

Well then we can agree to disagree.

Hi,

Here’s an interpretation, which I put forth because it is actually practical (can be personally applied right this moment), makes sense (does not presuppose odd metaphysical views), and jives with the traditional texts more so than other interpretations I’ve seen (which makes it useful for understanding the context of other practical discourses). I am not proposing this is necessarily the “correct reading,” so I won’t respond to any critiques of that nature.

The “cycle of rebirth” pertains only to the moment-to-moment rebirthing (arising & passing) of a ‘self.’ Let’s say a person is in a situation in which an identity is triggered. It (past karma) arises (accompanied with a feeling-felt stress): “wow, it is awful that you don’t believe in God.”[1] This is said to arise due to "past karma" because the identification was created in the past (perhaps it was originally handed down from parent to child in this case, then built upon from there-after [2]). This iteration of the cycle can go one of three ways:

(1) The identification is entrenched more deeply by obsessing about it ("but God has to exists, he answers my prayers!"), justifying it with new evidence ("see, page X of the bible says Y!"), or by adding new layers to it (such as unforgiving indignation toward the supposed offender: "I don't like John-Doe very much"). This specific part of the cycle has not been uprooted and additional karma has been added to the cycle.

(2) Shortly after being triggered, an identification of ‘higher priority’ arises and so the other temporarily passes (immediately preceding the new arising). This specific part of the cycle has not been uprooted, but little to no additional karma has been added.

(3) The identification is seen through in some way—as silly, or delusional, or stressful, or not-self, or impermanent, or whatever [3]-- and is thus released. This specific part of the cycle of rebirth has ended; it has been uprooted entirely, and no further karma can come from it.

Now consider that ‘beings’ in general cling tightly to a myriad of identifications and are consciously or unconsciously creating more of them all the time. Further, 'beings' typically cycle through several different identifications at a time; sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly, some in the foreground, some in the background. Hence: a perpetual cycle of ‘me’ being 'reborn' all the time, a cycle of 'me' justifying ‘my’ existence. This is why an arhat (using the 10 fetter model definition) is said to have ended the cycle of rebirth itself, as there is no more self, no more identification, no more being, no more stress, etc; there is no ‘me’ to arise: “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.”

Helpful?
Trent

[1] What is perceived to be “good” (“bright”) or “bad” (dark) is self referencing (inherited from institutions, culture, some are inborn, etc) and does not specifically reference some universal set of dogmatic principles (unless those dogmatic principles have been adopted as identifications / have been incorporated into one’s self). And so it is amorality which leads to ending the entire mess: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html

[2] Humans are born with instinctual identifications, and from the moment they're able to take on new ones / build upon the inborn, they do so (blindly). This may provide some clue as to the seemingly-literal statements about rebirth, as all 'selves' are fundamentally the same (and so any passing on of 'you' to 'another' is also just 'you' passing on to another 'you').

[3] It doesn’t matter how or why a bit of the self is eliminated, because none of it actually fundamentally exists anyway (hence ‘delusion’). A contemplative simply has to sincerely decide to eliminate whatever mental defilement arises. Perhaps one reason for this mention: (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html).

Yes, and maybe little green men actually did the breaking, and it is the taint of these little green men that causes suffering in our piece-of-god souls!

Ah that's just me using imprecise language, thanks for calling me out on it. Equally imprecise would be 'Buddhism states'... it's not like Buddhism is a thing.

The whole of life’s activities, what most beings take to be life’s significant activities, arise and pass away based upon the conditions which constantly arise, endure for a while, and ultimately pass away. Beings are made aware of these conditions based upon which sense organ is contacted and becomes conscious of the activity. When the condition ceases, passing away, it creates a change in the life continuum, and consciousness of that condition also ceases. Something new, though, may arise to take the previous condition’s place and thus create a new condition with new elements to confront and of which to be conscious. Thus what we call life and consciousness is based upon this ever changing panorama of altering conditions and their impact upon our sense faculties. What the Buddha realized and declared in no uncertain terms was that consciousness, the fifth aggregate, depends on matter, feeling, perception, and mental formations, and that its existence independent of these factors is not possible.

He stated (at SN 22.53; III.53): “Consciousness may exist having matter as its means, matter as its object, matter as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having feeling as its means . . . or perception as its means . . . or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its object, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.

“Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, feeling, perception, and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.”

The greater implication here is that all life, and thus all consciousness, arises in dependence upon and in relation to all other life and consciousness. And because all life is a reflection of arisen conditions, both physical and mental, all life and consciousness is conditioned in one manner or another. In order to reach the exterior infinitude of the Unconditioned, i.e. Nirvana in the world, one must be able to let go of all conditions, of all preconceptions, to stop clinging to anything whatsoever and float in the ever changing here and now, simply observing whatever is happening, with neither liking nor disliking in one's heart. This is the path to the cessation and relinquishing of suffering. When this is seen and fully comprehended, then the truth of the Four Noble Truths is seen and comprehended, as well as that of the Three Characteristics of Existence. In other words, the whole essence of the Dhamma is comprehended in one act of realization.

Really good essay Ian! Thanks!! Do you have anymore accessible stuff you have written?

Nick

Also I can see why attaining NS is so beneficial, as it demonstrates this point (no consciousness without the aggregates) directly.

I'm not sure anymore if it was in this thread, but I just came across a quote in one of the suttas, the Vatthupama Sutta, which made me chuckle at the truth of Florian's statement to me at one point:

"It is here, brahmin, that you should bathe,
To make yourself a refuge for all beings.
And if you speak no falsehood
Nor work harm for living beings,
Nor take what is offered not,
With faith and free from avarice,
What need for you to go to Gaya?
For any well will be your Gaya."

Another interesting side-question just occurs to me: how is it that Zen Roshis, for example, can test people's Kensho to verify that they're actually enlightened? If Enlightenment isn't a thing, a state, and certainly not a word(s) or even a way of saying said word(s), then it's of course totally subjective, and...how would anyone have a clue whether you are or not? Unless they're testing to see if the student's in a state of being absolutely delighted that they've had the experience...I dunno, it doesn't make very much sense to me, like so much else. I'm just using Zen as a convenient example, but the same question arises in every other lineage too. Daniel said at one point in a Buddhist Geeks podcast that they don't let the Tibetan Lamas and Rinpoches wear the funny hats unless they're enlightened, and yet when I actually ask myself I can't fathom how anyone would test Enlightenment.

Will an answer arrive to the question of how my being came to be confused into believing it was dual in the first place when I do attain stream-entry?

Stream-entry will be way better than just getting your question answered.