Search the Community

I have a question. Why people are trying to "realize how"/"find a way" to become enlightened or sometimes they even "come up" with their own "to do list" which they believe is going to get them to enlightenment, when there is already a model given by Buddha, which is 100% working? Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to push Buddhism on anybody. We don't have to believe all the mystical stuff like reincarnation and stories about hell/heaven, but we could use the steps Buddhism gives. For example, many people after watching Leo's or someone else's videos start meditating and stuff. What Buddha said was that deep meditation is pointless unless you developed goodwill towards others and have right behaviours (body, speech, mind), which actually makes sense if you take a good look at it. So why so many modern guru omit such important points? Are they important? Is there a shortcut to enlightenment which I'm not aware of?

@Key Elements LOL! Yeah, Thingen is a new year festival. In Thai and Burma, the whole country celebrate for 7-10 days. The purpose is (at least used to be) to wash all our sins, whatever we did wrong to our elders by washing their feet, hair, give our respects, and ask their forgiveness. Then elders will give you money, food and stuff like that. It's kind of like Chinese new year but celebrate differently. From what I know Karma does play role in enlightenment. For enlightened people there is no Karma anymore. But because you are not enlightened yet, karma is still there for you. Karma means actions. Where do actions come from? From your mind. For example, a person had done many awful things and decided to do enlightenment work. So he starts to meditate, research and knows what he did wrong. When he does enlightenment work, he must admit right when it's right and wrong when it's wrong because you are searching for truth. Now he knows he was wrong. The regret will hold that person from enlightenment. If it was small mistake he can forget it by thinking, 'well, only present moment exists.' But if it was huge mistake, you will have to apologize or let it out to someone and admit he was wrong. Then accept the consequence right then and there. @werlight was right too. Only actions you remember will effect you though! When someone says "the emotions just stays there," most people might think emotions are put in some container or pile up in somewhere in the brain. Actually our mind or thought doesn't work that way. In Buddhists, all emotions, thoughts, senses, feeling and everything that has to do with mind are called "Nan" (I'll just say thoughts). Thoughts are dying (disappear) every minute and second. But every after one thought is dead another thought appears right away depending on the previous. Those two thoughts are identical but first is not second and second is not first thought. For example, I am not my mother, my father or my great grandparents but I contain their DNA and stuff so I'm very similar to them but not exactly like them. Thoughts works but they appear only one at a time in awareness. They don't appear at the same time. The second thought is very similar to first one and therefore the illusion of permanence (ego) exists. So all the knowledge and thoughts you had when you were young are not there anymore. Only new thought which is generated from old thoughts exists now. Some thoughts or feelings (Nans) are stronger depending on how strong a thought (in experience) was. So the old unforgettable memories are strong generation thoughts which produced from old strong thoughts. Thoughts change depending on experiences. It's not like real actual experience stays in brain. If you know how these thoughts or senses works, you will know what reincarnation is. Reincarnation is not a soul get out of the body and possess another one. When it comes to enlightenment, Buddha said there are two types of people. One is who able to understand enlightenment and another is not doesn't matter how hard someone explain, he will never understand enlightenment. I tried as much as I could please ask me if you didn't understand what I wrote.

I consider myself as 100% Theravada Buddhist. But... I do not have faith in Buddhism because my first teacher who is a Buddhist monk in Burma said that I don't have to believe in Buddha. He also said as soon as I find his teachings wrong, I can leave the temple right away. He said that when I entered the temple to become a pre-monk (monks under 20 are consider pre-monks in Theravada).The other helpful thing about Theravada Buddhism is they maintained all of Buddha's teaching scriptures (originals). So when I started meditating, I can always go back and check my errors in scriptures. They all were written in Pali language. They explain how one's mind works when it goes towards enlightenment (Basically with curiosity). Explained all the distractions one would face in enlightenment path. Explained fake enlightenment experiences (There are 10 in basic). Explained many ways to enlightenment for many people. Doing enlightenment work is called Vipassana (it means looking carefully) and to gain power (stillness) of mind is called Samata in Theravada. Enlightenment work can be done in any position, anywhere, anytime but not Samata. Another thing is all that reincarnation, heaven, and hell are presented differently in Buddha's teachings (at least what I read were). Being just a Buddhist pre-monk, there were many rules but all those rules were explained why one should follow them. So being a Buddhist is like walking a guided path. It's like I was already told that there is a diamond at the end of the road but I will see a silver ring after ten steps, will see gold after twenty steps, cross muddy river in thirty steps etc.... I find Buddha's teachings very true after walking into his path or my teacher's path. LOL! I am a Buddhist. I love Buddha for teaching this most valuable path but I'm not religious person. I don't consider Buddhism as religion. I don't know if Leo had ever researched real Buddha's scriptures but doesn't matter. Leo might not claim himself as a Buddhist but it's funny that he is very much like my first teacher who is a Buddhist monk. He doesn't talk much but it was very straight forward when he talks. Leo should meet with him though. They will become very good friends.

@Sarah_Flagg Thats nice I was wondering how reincarnation corresponded with mediums.

@Sarah_Flagg Wow Sarah, a medium huh? I'd really like to know more about that. I've been pretty far out there but still, as far as I can understand, connection with the dead would be more in the sense of a thought form or as the Tibetan Buddhists call it "Tulpa". Is that not just a residual thought? A sort of intuitive thinking based on available information? Sorry, I digress, I'd like to know more about this & any potential validation of mediums. Back on the topic of reincarnation. In theory - whilst our physical bodies can be destroyed, science says that energy is "immortal". If we are fundamentally energy, then yes, we continue to exist somewhere in some form. If all is one & we are none, then existence is an ever changing deathless sculpture of interweaving order from chaos (perhaps like an ocean of fractals - ok less theory - more directness). Having seen my "residual self image" almost as realistically as I can look down upon my body & see it now in a lucid dream then maintained the same "frame of perception" but in another body & supposedly other dimension (so I waas told) in that astral experience, I like to think that yes, perhaps that residual self image can travel on past the body. I know it can in the "realm of dreams". You hear of great Buddhist masters & Yogi's deciding when to go & leaving their bodies "just like that" supposedly having died of cardiac arrest. The stories of people's outer body experiences all link up very nicely to perhaps add some weight to the notion that some perception of "spirit", energy or consciousness - whatever - can travel beyond. In a universe full of polarity, I like to think that in life there is death so in death one might reasonably theorise there could be life! But, from the direct experience of no self - It seems that metaphor for the unborn - or deathless - that we die alive when the ego is trancended & are reborn when we return to it through attachment. That these could be past lives. From a perspective of oneness, it seems apparent that there is life in death either way because we are every part of this experience. One person is part of all life. When that person dies, all life - that both sort of "is & is not" that person still continues... although that raises the question of the validity of objectivity from our subjective experience.

I am a medium and connect people to their passed loved ones on a daily basis, so I believe in some sort of reincarnation, but don't really believe in the teachings of Buddhist view on the timing. If I remember right they believe that you come back after 7 days on the other side. I've connected to spirit who has been on the other side for decades.

@Gnosis Didn't the Buddha talk about his past lives? He was said to be able to use magic but despised it.(Probably from all that meditating). Of course Reincarnation isn't the main point about Buddhism but I just don't know how to make sense of it. For distinguishing purposes I mean't Reincarnation as in literal lives. Rebirth is the law I think you're talking about when you are never the exact same person a second ago.

In my view, the Buddhist and/or Hindu belief of Rebirth and/or Reincarnation is more of a perspective than a religious belief. As a matter of fact, it does not change anything in actuality. The teaching of reincarnation can be interpreted in a whole range of ways, and you'll see that none of these affect the practice in a direct way, though all of these are debate-bly valid and in-valid. Let me elaborate by giving a few different perspectives on the teaching of past-lives, as the teaching does not have to be interpreted in a literal sense (though it can be). Past-lives can be interpreted as just another cyclical metaphor (that you see in so many different cultures around the world). For instance, you in each moment or perhaps you in each day. As you "die" when you go to sleep and are "born" again when you awake. Or you may interpret past-lives in a literal sense, in that the experience that you identify yourself with (some call it the I AM experience) is "dying" and being "reborn" again as your body dies (the common literal interpretation of past-lives). Or you may interpret past-lives in another literal way with a little more flavor, for instance some would say that other people, animals and things are equally your past-lives, and that is no more and no less valid that any of the previous interpretations. Or even to take that interpretation further added with a little modern physics (the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics), we can interpret past-lives as perhaps "you" in other parallel universes, or even every particle in existence across all parallel universes. So there you go, that's a bunch of different ways to interpret the teaching of past-lives. But in fact, none of these are actually relevant to you and your path. To say "you only live once" would be just another perspective of viewing the same "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word), that is the I AM experience. Because "you" as who you believe you are and this particular experience, is only occurring now. And in that sense, "you" only live once. Which is why, regardless of your belief or disbelief in the teaching of past-lives, the matter of the fact remains unchanged. In my opinion, the teaching of past-lives is more of a motivation to pursue Enlightenment than an excuse to excuse it. I hope this helped.

I just wanted to know who knows about Tom Campbell's Theory of Everything. For those who know about it what are you thoughts on his theory? I'm curious to know what Leo thinks about it. Tom Campbell is a nuclear physicist that teamed up with Bob Monroe, the author of "Journeys out of the Body" to study consciousness. Through out-of-body experiences performed over many years, he came up with his own theory of consciousness. Put it really simply, he argues that we are living in a virtual reality created by consciousness to allow itself to grow. He pretends that his theory explains everything from reincarnation to quantum physics. If you are interested in learning more about it, this two-hour long video from one of his workshop will give you a good overview of Tom Campbell's theory.

I was stuck on this one for a long time. Yes, ego death is an illusion, since ego never existed in the first place. But in the realm of the phenomenal world (i.e 'reality' as we know it, our sense perceptions) there's a body and a sentience ("I Am"). That body + sentience was birthed, and eventually, it will cease to function and dissolve. That's what most people refer to as physical death, and it's most definitely real in regards to the phenomenal world. Your sense perceptions and sentience will cease at some point. So, yes, the sentient focal point you call "I" will cease to be. The way to confirm this is to examine what happens when you go to sleep. In deep sleep, there is no awareness of being alive, no sentience, no thoughts to confirm your existence. The focal point you call "I" is not the Truth due to its ephemeral nature. How does the transition happen from one state of consciousness to another? Nobody knows, and nobody can know. We don't even know if reincarnation exists; that's just a baseless assumption. How does physical death happen? It just does. Why? Because. At this point, you're probably pretty down in the dumps reading what I just wrote. Fortunately, you're not any of these ephemeral things. Even when the body and the "I Am" dissolves, there is still something there...but it's not a thing at all. That, whatever that is, is Truth. Truth was never born and hence can never die. It's always been. Here's a quote that helped me contemplate Truth: "Imagine that an ultimate Big Bang in reverse, a sort of anti-Big Bang, suddenly blows up all existence. Absolutely everything that could possibly be experienced is gone. Add to that: time has also been blown away, and space is non-existent. So there is really nothing at all left. Has Being ceased to be? Has existence disappeared or diminished in any way? No. Not at all. We confuse being some thing with Being. We confuse experience with what is. Notice that with nothing at all, existence still is. It just isn’t any thing. It doesn’t exist in or as space or time, and so not as process or experience. In other words, is can’t come or go, it can only is." -Peter Ralston Ultimately, even if the sun explodes and everything gets destroyed and nobody is sentient to experience it... Truth still is. It's just not in the form of anything. To acquire a grounded consciousness of that is another story.

Ever since childhood I've been both fascinated and terrified by death. I will not discuss the actual death here but what happens after what we perceive as death. I'm being guided through a whole new dimension as we speak, but it is so difficult to convey, I'll have to chose my words VERY carefully. I used to believe in reincarnation, but right now, there are louder and louder elements that make me believe that we do not "go" and "come back", but somehow all is simultaneous. This right here, is extremely difficult for human mind to understand, simply because part of its nature is to live in time. I believe that what you are accessing @Sarah_Flagg, is another timeline so to speak, where the consciousness that is called upon, is able to revert to this present timeline as the known (departed) person. Damn, this is so hard to put in words that make sense even to me.. Feels like playing a song without knowing the notes, you only know when the melody's not right. Going further, I also feel that we're somehow accompanied by the same "people" that keep changing "costumes" (bodies). and in the same time, all those people have so many facets to them, that in the end, there's not at all more people...but just one changing facet. I'm sorry, I'll stop here because I cannot really express what comes through... Hope this helped somehow tho

I can see what you mean, the reason why we are afraid of death is not because we are afraid of losing our body, but because we are afraid of losing our self image. Enlightenment intellectually is losing the ego, and death is essentially losing the ego(from a thoughty, intellectual perspective) Though Leo gave some good advice above ^ I will just add that Alan Watts agrees with Leo, enlightenment also involves the realization that death as we intellectually see it is impossible, he states that enlightenment apparently shows you that lack of experience cannot happen, and reincarnation exists; another way of saying that lack of experience cannot occur. So according to Alan Watts, and adding to Leo's comments enlightenment is not like death, enlightenment is detaching from the ego, the ego still exists though you are 'detached' and see its true colours, and death is losing the ego in its entirety, you do not see it for what it really is or detach from it. Though anyone's intellectual interpretation of the above is a vivid story compared to the real scenario, I probably don't have to assert this but take caution