What's in Your Moment?

from JoeUser Forums
With palms together,

Good Morning Everyone,



In Zen we practice as an end in itself, not as a means to an end. Yet, we live with ends in mind, projected out in some mentally created future. Such a view creates a separation between this moment and an imagined 'other' moment that will somehow be better. It seems purposeful, but places purpose in the realm of the imagined.



In Zen when we live with purpose, we actually are our purpose.



So, instead of working toward being a better person, we focus our attention on being that better person, now.



Heaven and hell are not in the afterlife, as if an invisible clone of ourselves leaves our body upon death and is either rewarded or tormented, they are our present reality. They are the exact same state of being with one degree of separation.



To not suffer samsara, one enters nirvana, to enter nirvana is to realize samsara and nirvana are one.



This leaves us with just this single moment. How will it be for us? Will we relate to it as the last moment of our existence or just one step along the way? Will we measure this moment against past moments or desired future moments or will we live completely here and now?



Be well.
religion
2,834 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heaven and hell are not in the afterlife, as if an invisible clone of ourselves leaves our body upon death and is either rewarded or tormented, they are our present reality

Good Morning SoDaiho

Is there an afterlife at all in your understanding? if there is, what is in it or what happens in it? and if there is not, what happens to your soul after death?

I have many more questions but for now, hope you can answer those mentioned above.

please be specific, statements like "To not suffer samsara, one enters nirvana, to enter nirvana is to realize samsara and nirvana are one". sounds great but in fact mean nothing .... to me at least.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
ThinkAloud,

There is no afterlife in my understanding. There is no "soul" in the sense of an independent entity separate from all other energies or material. The various heaven and hell realms Buddhists talk about are mental creations, names for the sort of life we are live in real time. Buddhists do talk about re-incarnation, but this is a complex issue and prone to much confusion. The Buddha taught that there is no soul, he taught this because he saw that all things were related and were "conditioned" that is caused by something. This suggested an eternal causal chain from and to infinity in all directions. To be born again, in the sense Buddhists think of re-incarnation, is to understand that birth in a variety of forms happens from the stuff that's already here, could be seeds from a plant, or our genetic residue passed along from generation to generation. But this is a far cry from a ghostly So Daiho floating about only to be reborn as a squirrel.

Hope this helps and that I was specific enough.
Be well.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no "soul" in the sense of an independent entity separate from all other energies or material. The various heaven and hell realms Buddhists talk about are mental creations, names for the sort of life we are live in real time.


No afterlife and No soul. Very interesting really. Then a tree or a cat for that matter is as good as a human. and since there is no afterlife, then no accountability for actions in this life.

saving/cutting a tree is as good/bad as saving/killing a person. no difference, since there is no accountability and there is no soul. No reason for anyone to refrain from doing anything he/she wishes to do regardless of consequencies.

What makes anyone follow any guidelines for any moral code if there was no accountability.

And where did Buddha get all this?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I remember reading Anthony DeMello once and how he said did you ever notice how the people who are always so hot and bothered about the NEXT life are the very ones who aren't living THIS one?

I've always thought that he made a good point about that.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
No afterlife and No soul. Very interesting really. Then a tree or a cat for that matter is as good as a human. and since there is no afterlife, then no accountability for actions in this life.


Everything is the universe. A tree and a cat are the same stuff, are they not? Its odd you should think the threat of an unproven afterlife enforces some sort of accountability in the present? I am accountable now for my behavior, you? If you behave there will be a effect, a consequence, of that behavior. Sometimes the consequece is deeply internal, sometimes obvious and immediate, but there is always a result arising from our behavior.

saving/cutting a tree is as good/bad as saving/killing a person. no difference, since there is no accountability and there is no soul. No reason for anyone to refrain from doing anything he/she wishes to do regardless of consequencies.


Are you trying to be dense? Or is this an effort to be glib? Killing is a part of living: we kill to survive. But we should not do so maliciously. It is our intent that gives rise to bad karma. On one level, killing a tree is as bad as killing a cat or a person. On another, sentient beings have a resonsibility to live beyond themselves, caring for each other and those unable to care for themselves.

Try to do "anything you wish" that harms another being and see what happens. You will more than likely not have to wait to die to face a consequence.

What makes anyone follow any guidelines for any moral code if there was no accountability.

And where did Buddha get all this?


This is an incorrect assumpttion.

Where did the Buddha get all this? From a life of deep study of himself and the world around him; just like all spiritual masters.

Be well.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you trying to be dense? Or is this an effort to be glib?


Neither. I see you getting testy when the questions become direct. Sorry if that rattled you.

On one level, killing a tree is as bad as killing a cat or a person. On another, sentient beings have a resonsibility to live beyond themselves, caring for each other and those unable to care for themselves.


Where did that responsibility come from? And what if i dont like to take this responsibility. who or what objects to that?

Suppose i like trees more than people. Does that mean i can protect the trees from people? by killing them if necessary to keep the tress alive? and if not, why not? and suppose i do it anyway. Did I do anything wrong, morally i mean?

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is an incorrect assumpttion.


Really? ..... You think that is an assumption? and not correct?

So people will just do the right thing just like that with no accountability, no reward for Good and no punishment for Evil? So why arn't they doing that now? In all the history of humanity, when did that ever happen? ever !!!!!!

Could it be that it is exactly because they dont (and never)believe strong enough that there are afterlife consequences, rewards, and punishnments for their actions that they behave the way they do all around the world?

The consequencies of actions in this life certainly do not indicate any incentive to do the right thing. The powerful dominates the weak and enjoys the spoils of his actions, the invaders are heroes and are rewarded with parades and medals, liers and deceivers get elcted and re-elected and con-men get rich .... shall i go on ?

Are these assumptions? and incorrect assumptions at that? or am I missing something here? if so what is it?