Questions about Buddhism.

[arcticwolf]

The are a couple of questions which I have wanted to ask a Buddhist, in fact, DID ask one who obviously didn't know the answers, but would not admit it and gave me useless replies.

So, the first is the apparent (?) inconsistency between anatman and reincarnation. If there is no persistent entity, what is there to reincarnate ? The Buddhist whom I just mentioned said "the life force". To me, the life force, if such a thing exists, has no personal properties. It is not individualised. If it were reincarnated, there would be nothing in common between the "original" person and "his" reincarnation. It would make no sense, then, to say that "he" was reincarnated.

The second question deals with a much knottier problem. I have seen the Buddha (mis ?)quoted as saying that one must live in the present moment because the past is dead and the future unborn. It is not difficult to prove by impeccable logic that the present has no duration !

If we consider a very small increment of time, say one sextillionth of a second 1/10^-21
second, one sextillionth of a second ago is in the dead past; one sextillionth of a second from now is still in the unborn future. The interval between them is 2 sextillionths of a second. The "present" can be no longer that this. But, if we had chosen 1/10^-100 second, the duration of the "present" would be only 2 X 1/10^-100 second. Obviously ,
the duration of the present approaches 0 as a limit.

But, this means that THERE IS NO PRESENT. But, if there is no present, WHEN DOES ANYTHING HAPPEN ? This is the Time Paradox which has bedevilled me for decades.
St. Thomas Acquinas knew of it, and, if I understood him correctly around 60 years ago,
he said that the past and the future also do not exist. Only Eternity is real. This insight, the profundity of which I do not deny, has, unfortunately not helped me to resolve the paradox.

Was the Buddha aware, do you think, that the present moment does not exist, yet MUST exist ?

Svipdag

Sir, I hope you do not mind if I make it a thread, these are very interesting questions, this may benefit others.

I am not the ultimate authority on Buddhism or an enlightened being, so this is just my understanding, not an "offiicial" Buddhist position if there is one. I will be as brief as possible and will use the most common words I can think of to state what needs to be said, to answer your questions Sir.

First question, the idea of reincarnation and impersonality, and how they are related, and/or not contradict each other in Buddhism. To begin with there is no concept of permanent anything in Buddhism, so the concept of the soul (ataman) and by extension reincarnation do not exist in Buddhism. What does exist is the concepts of impersonality of everything, and the concept of rebirth. Instead of permanent immutable entity that is forever in unchanging form, in Buddhism the continuation is looked at as bunch of impersonal processes, that exist dependent on underlying causes, sort of cause and effect, but without unchanging entity in the driver's seat. In other words, what exists is a continuation of changing processes, impersonal in nature. The key idea here to understand is, it's the colletction of processes not an entity. What continues is the continuation of previous streams, not totally the same, but not totally different. The flowing river analogy can be applied here to further understanding. Now, if the mind will attach itself to entity view, and try to squeeze the unchanging entity somehow, somewhere here, this will not work, as permanence/personality is not reality. Of course we are talking here at the ultimate truth level not the relative one, this is another point that has to be understood.

Second question, the present moment. I am not happy interpreting it that way, the more correct way to think about it is current moment, or better yet to stay with the flow of ever changing flow of reality. You don't attach to any point in time, you don't even think of it that way, you stay with change, mindful of it, never leaving it with your focus, that's the idea and the ideal. To give you an example, consciousness is thought of as one smooth uninterupted flow, when in reality it is composed of mind moments that arise, last and end in such a rapid succession that the illusion of consistency is complete in almost all the minds alive today, this can be seen directly after years of meditation and with focus developed to be razor sharp. Tell anybody that is reality, their untrained minds will not comprehend it. So, to think of it if you must try to understand logically, you keep your mind focused on the flow of reality, not any particular moment in time.

All existence has 3 characteristics impermanence, impersonality and unsatisfactoriness. And this is a whole new discussion.

A thing to keep in mind is that it is the responsibility of a Buddhist to doubt everything Buddha taught, to verify everything, to find holes and inconsistencies in Buddha's teachings, he demanded it. So it's the Buddhists themselves who are the biggest critics of Buddhism in reality. I have tried again and again to find something that is inconsistent with reality in teachings of the Buddha, I haven't succeeded yet. Everything he taught empirism confirms, he taught reality as it is, he did not sugar coat it in any sense.

One last thing, Buddhist tunes the perception process to eliminate filters from the process that distorts the perception of reality (emotions, judgements, opinions etc). Buddhist uses focus and especially mindfulness to observe reality, not logic because logic has limits, mindfulness does not. How this is done, etc is a whole new discussion too.

Hope this sheds some light, and don't confuse you more.

[War Chef]

If we consider a very small increment of time, say one sextillionth of a second 1/10^-21
second, one sextillionth of a second ago is in the dead past; one sextillionth of a second from now is still in the unborn future. The interval between them is 2 sextillionths of a second. The "present" can be no longer that this. But, if we had chosen 1/10^-100 second, the duration of the "present" would be only 2 X 1/10^-100 second. Obviously ,
the duration of the present approaches 0 as a limit.

One can also say by the time the nervous system and brain even registers the "present" it's already gone. Reducing the mind to only a small trickle of incoming information is the closest we can come to the "now", therefore something metaphysical is needed that is always beyond time, existing independently of the mind. Buddhism doesn't provide this, but Hindu concept of Ataman does.

But being stuck in a endless loop of perpetual thought cannot be good, when does someones mind get to finally rest? Whether it's the internal dialogue, or thinking about that dentist appointment, imagining how the room will look; will it have fluorescent lighting, what will be the race or gender of the dentist? And then when it finally comes, it's not at all how you imagined it. That's why we shouldn't anticipate such things.

By the way I'm not Buddhist, just trying to be philosophical.

[arcticwolf]

One can also say by the time the nervous system and brain even registers the "present" it's already gone. Reducing the mind to only a small trickle of incoming information is the closest we can come to the "now", therefore something metaphysical is needed that is always beyond time, existing independently of the mind. Buddhism doesn't provide this, but Hindu concept of Ataman does.

But being stuck in a endless loop of perpetual thought cannot be good, when does someones mind get to finally rest? Whether it's the internal dialogue, or thinking about that dentist appointment, imagining how the room will look; will it have fluorescent lighting, what will be the race or gender of the dentist? And then when it finally comes, it's not at all how you imagined it. That's why we shouldn't anticipate such things.

By the way I'm not Buddhist, just trying to be philosophical.

Thinking is not really a part of meditation, it is a distraction really. Mind is to observe all distractions without engaging including thinking, see it pass and go back to being mindful.

Logic has limits, and it will not work well, past certain point.

[Svipdag]

Thinking is not really a part of meditation, it is a distraction really. Mind is to observe all distractions without engaging including thinking, see it pass and go back to being mindful.

Logic has limits, and it will not work well, past certain point.

It seems to me that jnana yoga involves reasoning, indeed, that reasoning is essential to it. Perhaps, though, meditation, at least in its usual sense is not a major component of jnana yoga.

[War Chef]

Thinking is not really a part of meditation, it is a distraction really. Mind is to observe all distractions without engaging including thinking, see it pass and go back to being mindful.

That was precisely my point. I don't engage in standard meditation but I do try to remain thoughtless (some prefer the word "mindful") throughout my day to day activities and it's helped a lot, but I think it's benefits are hardly noticeable until you tell yourself, "no biggie, I'll just skip today" and then you really see just how vital it is for ones mental well being.

Anyway, you'd be surprised at how much time people waste thinking about the most pettiest of things instead of actually appreciating the here and now - which is really the only thing that is promised to us. I'd say the majority of people, 90% are stuck in the never-ending loop of petty thoughts with no rest in sight. I was one myself and at the time I didn't believe "not thinking" was possible.

P.S. I know thoughtlessness is not the aim of meditation, but still, for me it's a very liberating feeling.

[Svipdag]

The insights which you have provided have, indeed shed new light on both of my questions. It would appear that the widespread idea of literal reincarnation , as exemplified by the search for his reincarnation after the death of each Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama, as if the same person had persisted from one incarnation to another is not an authentic Buddhist view of reincarnation.

The present Dalai Lama once expressed surprise that, though his predecessor loved horses, he, the reincarnation of the former Dalai Lama, was indifferent to them. It would seem that he expected a bit too much of reincarnation.

Being mindful of the ever-changing flow of reality is very different from living in the non-existent present. In fact, it would appear to me that time is irrelevant to mindfulness. This is a refreshingly different point of view. It does not solve the time paradox because it is not concerned with the time paradox. I am sure that there are very few people who are bothered by the time paradox , just as an engineer friend of mine could not see why I was concerned about the fact what what I perceive when my eyes respond to light having a wavelength of 650 nm. and which I call "red" may be entirely different from what he perceived under the same conditions.

Philosophical questions are important to some, but irrelevant to most others.

[Breedingvariety]

Thinking is not really a part of meditation, it is a distraction really. Mind is to observe all distractions without engaging including thinking, see it pass and go back to being mindful.

Logic has limits, and it will not work well, past certain point.

All reasoning is based on intuition.

One doesn't stop thinking. Everybody think differently. When someone says to stop thinking he really means stop thinking certain thoughts.

When Buddhist says stop thinking, he really means stop thinking delusional thoughts. When most men say stop thinking, they mean stop thinking outside their delusional box.

[War Chef]

One doesn't stop thinking.

Since this is all subjective, I can only speak for myself and say that I can cease all thinking, though this usually happens only briefly with many gaps in between. But in a way you are right. When someone is what he thinks void of thought, there is still a small trickle of sensory input coming in, and I'm guessing the mind is processing at least some of that though a lot more subtly than full blown thoughts.

[arcticwolf]

It seems to me that jnana yoga involves reasoning, indeed, that reasoning is essential to it. Perhaps, though, meditation, at least in its usual sense is not a major component of jnana yoga.

Yoga meditation is concentration meditation as far as I am aware. Insight meditation is on different level, though Buddhism does have tranquility meditation as well, it is used to develop concentration.

Concentration has the power to illuminate the subconscious, but it does not understand what it sees, that's where the mindfulness comes in. It is possible to train concentration so intensly as to open up minds possibilities, but that does not lead to enlightenment. Therefore, the most efficient way to meditate is to develop concentration to the point that it will help keep mindfulness steady, that's all it is needed, great concentration is not necessary.

Mindfulness is all important, there is no substitute for it, Buddha said, only mindfulness leads to enlightenment.

[arcticwolf]

That was precisely my point. I don't engage in standard meditation but I do try to remain thoughtless (some prefer the word "mindful") throughout my day to day activities and it's helped a lot, but I think it's benefits are hardly noticeable until you tell yourself, "no biggie, I'll just skip today" and then you really see just how vital it is for ones mental well being.

Anyway, you'd be surprised at how much time people waste thinking about the most pettiest of things instead of actually appreciating the here and now - which is really the only thing that is promised to us. I'd say the majority of people, 90% are stuck in the never-ending loop of petty thoughts with no rest in sight. I was one myself and at the time I didn't believe "not thinking" was possible.

P.S. I know thoughtlessness is not the aim of meditation, but still, for me it's a very liberating feeling.

That is absolutely right. Fool is his own worst enemy, and he doesn't even know it.