Forum Replies Created
Are you referring to the Sutta ?
If wrong, Lal will correct it…
“is this what this Sutta is all about ?” it might be – imo.
As for your awareness/acceptance of suffering: very well put.
well sangha fellow to meditate half of the day, sometimes amidst the dangerous jungle, to sleep only 3h per night etc etc…it’s not for everyone.
But on the other hand i like to think that the devas and the brahmas adepts of the Buddha are aware that nowadays, perhaps more than ever, every single person striving to accomplish Buddha Dhamma has added merit…look around you: the senses have never been more assaulted than nowadays…it’s a death-fight against the demon Kali.The demon, not the goddess.
Chanda : aspiring to something without anxiety – i would suggest. Otherwise it becomes clinging.
I understood quite the opposite (unless I misunderstood your post ha). I understood that whatever the “nonsense” you would have done in the past, if one succeeds into expand one’s heart as taught in the Sutta, one will rebirth in the brahmas realm… ?
That’s it yes, high divinity could but be the brahmas (plural thus for they are more than one,I suppose).
So the more subtle the beings are, the more they dwell within limitless love.
OK I’ll look for the link later. I thought that to cite the site only (accesstoinsight.org) would be enough but… I got it.
Lal said “Consciousness means life” – indeed. Life forever. Consciousness forever. I read but they aren’t forcefully directly related to my comment here. By the way: did you read my posts there ? Just asking.
I might be wrong but to me consciousness “was there” before humankind and will “be there” afterwards.
Also i make a difference between thinking/reasoning and to be conscious of.
I may be thinking/reasoning about a specific subject which means that i’m conscious about the subject in question but i’m not conscious or not enough conscious of all other stimulus , and/or i can be conscious/aware about one or more things without reasoning about it (here am I blaspheming again…).
And by the way; isn’t Consciousness what allows “to be aware”/sati ?May 22, 2018 at 12:51 pm in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15940
Well dear fellow…yes. Totally suits me.
MettaMay 22, 2018 at 12:30 pm in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15936
Thank you. Dhammawiki is wrong, someone translated something wrongly.
Seen the context, there are at least 2 possibilities of correction:
- “This doctrine does not lead to overcome aversion”.
- “This doctrine does not lead to equanimity”.
(This doctrine = the other one, Udaka’s doctrine probably).
AS for the scientific part:
I dare to say that “Yes the Universe is sankata meaning it’s a phenomenon but one without traceable beginnning THUS with no traceable end ;-). (The so despised western philosophical vocabulary can help a bit)…every being and thing is rupa namarupa meaning matter(?)and energy with name and form.” is susceptible of enriching your “As for “Bing bang + rebirth + multiverse = comform with buddha dhamma and solve scientific world “before big bang” mistery.” I hope.May 22, 2018 at 11:54 am in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15931
Yes the Universe is sankata meaning it’s a phenomenon but one without traceable beginnning THUS with no traceable end ;-). (The so despised western philosophical vocabulary can help a bit)…every being and thing is rupa namarupa meaning matter(?)and energy with name and form. This said:
- All such scientific speech might be less enriching than the following, because the following has to do with everyday’s gathi improvement, so can you pls clarify:
“this doctrine doesn’t lead to aversion” There’s a mistake here…?!?! Because the way you expressed yourself it’s like Buddha Dhamma would lead to aversion…
Pls clarify.May 22, 2018 at 8:24 am in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15915May 22, 2018 at 8:15 am in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15911
@Uyap said… “this doctrine doesn’t lead to aversion” ?!?!?! There’s a mistake here…
As for Udaka yes the Buddha practiced dhyana under his guidance having surpassed him in terms of absorption.May 21, 2018 at 10:51 am in reply to: Multiverse: Different Physical Laws and Different Dhamma? #15890
Réf. Einstein words on Buddhism
Globally: yes. But tell me, as for his “spiritual”: where is the Spirit in Buddha Dhamma ? For Spirit is by definition “eternal” THUS not compound…
P.S. – that said i’m not doing the apology of the existence of something that would be eternal, not-compound & whose condition would be totally nicca, may such thing exist or not…