Discussion Afterlife (and related) general discussion

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Shamana, okay, another question that springs to mind is why are there so many disagreements over the simple truth Sakyamuni is supposed to have taught? We have no way of verifying anything that came after him; the entirety of Mahayana and Vajrayana may well be nothing but heresies, and absent a sign from Buddha himself, we could never know. Even most Therevada teachings may be heretical innovations on what Buddha himself taught. You can't just believe what you like on the basis that it makes you feel good or that your guru tells you to; these things need testing.

"Buddha nature" as I was taught about it is not "the self," either;, and calling it "an egoless soul" is IMO falling victim to the delusion that there is a self. Rather, isn't it more like a bubble on a stream? Not a disparate thing, but merely the appearance of one, just a certain configuration of the air and water making up the stream?

So many other problems exist with this religion that you need to solve to believe it. Things like:

• Who or what created the realms and how?
• Why only six plus the desire and formless realms?
• Who or what is actually doing the judging, i.e., who died and made Lord Yama, well, Lord Yama? What's his karma look like?
• Who or what is deciding who goes to which realm?
• Who or what is fixing the terms of any given stay in any given realm? Some of those sutras are weirdly precise about how there are 14 hells and residence in each of the cold ones is 20 times longer than the one before it, the first one being "as long as it takes to empty a barrel of sesame if you took one seed out a century" and the hot ones having a geometric eightfold increase per level.
• Why is, for example, killing one's mother an anantarika-karma but something like the Holocaust isn't? Why would someone who killed her mother end up immediately in Avici but Adolf Hitler likely not, since genocide is not one of the five great rebellions?
• For that matter, Devadatta committed several of these, yet got promised rebirth after millennia rather than "kalpas and kalpas" as a pratyeka-Buddha. Why so short by comparison, when he tried several times to actually kill the Buddha and split the sangha at its most vulnerable newborn stage?

Additionally, we are getting answers to some of the questions Buddha refused to speculate on, and while he's correct that "who cares" is usually applicable to them, that doesn't apply to all of them. We know, for example, that at least the observable universe is finite.

Honestly I think you mean well but you haven't examined the very basic ground of your beliefs critically enough, and it makes you state things with authority you really don't know for a fact.

 

[Shamana]

@Shamana, okay, another question that springs to mind is why are there so many disagreements over the simple truth Sakyamuni is supposed to have taught? We have no way of verifying anything that came after him; the entirety of Mahayana and Vajrayana may well be nothing but heresies, and absent a sign from Buddha himself, we could never know. Even most Therevada teachings may be heretical innovations on what Buddha himself taught. You can't just believe what you like on the basis that it makes you feel good or that your guru tells you to; these things need testing.

"Buddha nature" as I was taught about it is not "the self," either;, and calling it "an egoless soul" is IMO falling victim to the delusion that there is a self. Rather, isn't it more like a bubble on a stream? Not a disparate thing, but merely the appearance of one, just a certain configuration of the air and water making up the stream?

So many other problems exist with this religion that you need to solve to believe it. Things like:

• Who or what created the realms and how?
• Why only six plus the desire and formless realms?
• Who or what is actually doing the judging, i.e., who died and made Lord Yama, well, Lord Yama? What's his karma look like?
• Who or what is deciding who goes to which realm?
• Who or what is fixing the terms of any given stay in any given realm? Some of those sutras are weirdly precise about how there are 14 hells and residence in each of the cold ones is 20 times longer than the one before it, the first one being "as long as it takes to empty a barrel of sesame if you took one seed out a century" and the hot ones having a geometric eightfold increase per level.
• Why is, for example, killing one's mother an anantarika-karma but something like the Holocaust isn't? Why would someone who killed her mother end up immediately in Avici but Adolf Hitler likely not, since genocide is not one of the five great rebellions?
• For that matter, Devadatta committed several of these, yet got promised rebirth after millennia rather than "kalpas and kalpas" as a pratyeka-Buddha. Why so short by comparison, when he tried several times to actually kill the Buddha and split the sangha at its most vulnerable newborn stage?

Additionally, we are getting answers to some of the questions Buddha refused to speculate on, and while he's correct that "who cares" is usually applicable to them, that doesn't apply to all of them. We know, for example, that at least the observable universe is finite.

Honestly I think you mean well but you haven't examined the very basic ground of your beliefs critically enough, and it makes you state things with authority you really don't know for a fact.

We cannot know with absolute certainty what Shakyamuni taught unless we were there with him. There was 500 years of oral transmission until they started writing scriptures. The buddha taught for 50 years according to beings needs and capacities, which is why there is different vehicles for different people.

If youre a mahayana or vajrayana buddhist Shakyamuni was not the only buddha ever to appear in this world. Many have appeared after him and any buddhas teaching is buddhadharma. The Dzogchen linage fx is complete independent of Shakyamuni and originates from Prahejvajra.

As a Nyingma buddhist i have no problem in taking Padmasambhava as my primary refuge buddha.

You will have to ask a khenpo or go to dharmawheel to ask about the full workings of karma because my brain is too fried for this.

As far as i know, the realms and this universe is created by our collective karma, but in general buddha only taught on the origins of suffering and not on the origin of worlds or species.

I didnt know that the universe is finite. Where can i read about this.? On another note isnt "the universe" a mental concept? Its a definition we choose.

I dont think anyone will argue that Hitler and other people responsible for genocide dont go to Avicii hell.

I dont why so much emphasis is put on not killing your parents. At least it should be the other way around as well.

In one story devadatta did go to hell.

The term soul is just to negate some of the nihilistic tendencies people associate with the no-self doctrine.

Buddhanature can be said to be our true innate nature because its eternal and it becomes apparant and manifest when our defilements are purified.

The Buddha said that anyone is free to dismiss any of his teachings if you upon thorough investigation find them not yo be true.

 

[Shamana]

@Shamana, okay, another question that springs to mind is why are there so many disagreements over the simple truth Sakyamuni is supposed to have taught? We have no way of verifying anything that came after him; the entirety of Mahayana and Vajrayana may well be nothing but heresies, and absent a sign from Buddha himself, we could never know. Even most Therevada teachings may be heretical innovations on what Buddha himself taught. You can't just believe what you like on the basis that it makes you feel good or that your guru tells you to; these things need testing.

"Buddha nature" as I was taught about it is not "the self," either;, and calling it "an egoless soul" is IMO falling victim to the delusion that there is a self. Rather, isn't it more like a bubble on a stream? Not a disparate thing, but merely the appearance of one, just a certain configuration of the air and water making up the stream?

So many other problems exist with this religion that you need to solve to believe it. Things like:

• Who or what created the realms and how?
• Why only six plus the desire and formless realms?
• Who or what is actually doing the judging, i.e., who died and made Lord Yama, well, Lord Yama? What's his karma look like?
• Who or what is deciding who goes to which realm?
• Who or what is fixing the terms of any given stay in any given realm? Some of those sutras are weirdly precise about how there are 14 hells and residence in each of the cold ones is 20 times longer than the one before it, the first one being "as long as it takes to empty a barrel of sesame if you took one seed out a century" and the hot ones having a geometric eightfold increase per level.
• Why is, for example, killing one's mother an anantarika-karma but something like the Holocaust isn't? Why would someone who killed her mother end up immediately in Avici but Adolf Hitler likely not, since genocide is not one of the five great rebellions?
• For that matter, Devadatta committed several of these, yet got promised rebirth after millennia rather than "kalpas and kalpas" as a pratyeka-Buddha. Why so short by comparison, when he tried several times to actually kill the Buddha and split the sangha at its most vulnerable newborn stage?

Additionally, we are getting answers to some of the questions Buddha refused to speculate on, and while he's correct that "who cares" is usually applicable to them, that doesn't apply to all of them. We know, for example, that at least the observable universe is finite.

Honestly I think you mean well but you haven't examined the very basic ground of your beliefs critically enough, and it makes you state things with authority you really don't know for a fact.

Trust me, Buddhism does not make me feel good. If i wanted a belief to give me comfort it would christianity or atheism.

In buddhism everyone is utterly fucked until they are firmly established on the path.

 

[Soul]

Trust me, Buddhism does not make me feel good. If i wanted a belief to give me comfort it would christianity or atheism.

In buddhism everyone is utterly fucked until they are firmly established on the path.

I'm reading the discussion between you two (+ cameo appearances) with fascination, and the appeal of Taoism is being resoundingly confirmed.

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Shamana, you continue to miss the point. In fact, you are doing the exact same thing fundie Christians do when challenged on an inconsistency in their doctrine, which is to repeat it again, louder this time. It's not about what makes you "feel good."

Fact is, humans are storytelling animals. A tremendous amount of myth and outright forgery has been built around Buddhism, and the fact that there are 500 goddamn years between when Sakyamuni lived and when people began putting pen to paper (stylus to papyrus, whatever...) leaves room for so much pseudeipgraphy as to make it impossible to reconstruct with any certainty barely any of what he actually said in reality.

Christianity's scriptures, and indeed Jesus' religious vision itself, was thoroughly corrupted with mere decades of Jesus' own death, starting with Paul, and I don't think we need to go into the wackiness of 2 centuries of Gnosticism etc. on top of all that. Not even 50 years. And you think the teachings will remain pure after 500? The only reason any of it survives is that Sakyamuni found out some very important things about the underlying nature of what we are pleased to call reality, and other humans were capable of the same so that they could verify or at least corroborate those findings (again, "when the master points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger").

You need to answer those questions. You take far, far too much for granted about your beliefs without stopping to ask what assumptions they rely on and whether those assumptions hold water themselves. Take here, where you said:

- "As far as i know, the realms and this universe is created by our collective karma, but in general buddha only taught on the origins of suffering and not on the origin of worlds or species."

This is one of those cases where "as far as I know" is not an acceptable place to let your mind rest. If nothing else, we need a mechanism of how these worlds and realms are created. My own hypothesis is that there actually is only one meta/over-realm, but it gets conditioned by the states of the beings in it at any given point in space/time/causality. That's not the same thing as saying that the realms are created by our collective karma, not even close, and the distinction is an important one.

Regarding Devadatta, the canonical story is that he did go to Naraka; my question is why he was, IIRC, promised rebirth after some millennia in Naraka, rather than kalpas and kalpas later, as a pratyeka-Buddha, considering that his myth is basically meant to teach about the five anantarika karmas.

I strongly believe, based on reading, research, and experience both first and secondhand, that a tremendous amount of exaggeration has gone into descriptions both of the supposed Hell realms themselves and how long people spend in them. The retribution is so completely, utterly disproportionate that, if there were any beings that had the power to ameliorate those conditions and did not, they themselves would be guilty of a hideous sin of omission.

No one, not even Adolf motherloving Hitler, deserves to spend "kalpas and kalpas" on fire, do you understand that? I can certainly see him deserving something on the order of 100,000 to 10,000,000 years, but not quadrillions of years as at least one sutra states of Avici. That is not justice. That is not even naturalistic consequence. That is vengeance, one of the worst tendencies of any sentient being.

I am trying to give these teachers the benefit of the doubt, and to believe that they purposefully exaggerate in order to light a (metaphorical) fire under their students' backsides, but the actual effect is merely to produce despair and permanent trauma in those with functioning empathy, and to harden the hearts of those who are predisposed to sociopathy. The idea backfired horribly. It was a "noble lie" perhaps, but also an incomprehensibly unskillful act. There is your cause-and-effect.

 

[throwaway123]

The more I think about this the more sad I become.

People live in bubbles. All of us do.

We deny the reality. Which is that there is no afterlife. It is terrfying but also a relief.

This realization hits me every few weeks and it hurts everytime but it is at the same time freeing and a good feeling. It's like torture and ecstacy at the same time.

 

[BaconCheeseburger]

I generally don't believe in any form of afterlife, but when I'm thinking about people who have passed who are of significance to me it makes me feel better imagining that they're in 'a better place' rather than just in nothingness.

 

[blanketyblk]

I generally don't believe in any form of afterlife, but when I'm thinking about people who have passed who are of significance to me it makes me feel better imagining that they're in 'a better place' rather than just in nothingness.

This statement is so true. While i would love to believe that i get to see my loved ones again. i know that is just a fairy tale.

i don't believe in anything after death and to me that is a relief. i don't think i could handle more living after this life. unless i had a totally blank slate and started again. and if that's the case. then was the bloody hell point to this life now.

 

[deathenvoy]

Committing suicide is trading the comparatively minor suffering of the human realm for the intense suffering of the lower realms. In short, it is a bad deal, since one is certain to fall into lower realms by committing suicide.

One of the lower realm are animals realm. I wonder if really animals suffer more than humans. At least they can be put down as coup de grace. And they don't need any sense of purpose (which does not exists in this chaotic universe) just pure instincts.

 

[Shamana]

One of the lower realm are animals realm. I wonder if really animals suffer more than humans. At least they can be put down as coup de grace. And they don't need any sense of purpose (which does not exists in this chaotic universe) just pure instincts.

It's generally not thought to be desireable. It's all fear and stupididty. I wouldn't mind being a loved dog or cat though.

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Shamana, your never did answer those question I posed to you. There are some serious problems with the very basic grounding of Buddhism that render it, in my studied opinion, wrong about certain things:

• If there is no individual soul and, as you said, even a given lifetime's set of skandhas do not re-aggregate upon rebirth, what exactly is getting reborn?
• If what gets reborn isn't actually "you," what is the point of rebirths in Naraka, as a preta, etc? If it's not actually "you," all that's happening here is that some innocent, effectively new being is suddenly appearing in Hell or a new ghost is popping up. What did it do, as a newborn life, to deserve that suffering?
• Who, exactly, is doing the judging here? Where did "Enma Daiou" come from, and what does his karma look like? Who gave him authority? Who gave authority to whoever gave Enma authority? And so on up the chain.

 

[Shamana]

@Shamana, your never did answer those question I posed to you. There are some serious problems with the very basic grounding of Buddhism that render it, in my studied opinion, wrong about certain things:

• If there is no individual soul and, as you said, even a given lifetime's set of skandhas do not re-aggregate upon rebirth, what exactly is getting reborn?
• If what gets reborn isn't actually "you," what is the point of rebirths in Naraka, as a preta, etc? If it's not actually "you," all that's happening here is that some innocent, effectively new being is suddenly appearing in Hell or a new ghost is popping up. What did it do, as a newborn life, to deserve that suffering?
• Who, exactly, is doing the judging here? Where did "Enma Daiou" come from, and what does his karma look like? Who gave him authority? Who gave authority to whoever gave Enma authority? And so on up the chain.

It's the delusion of an "I" that is reborn conditioned by karma. We still have a mind. We can say "this" mind or my mind or whatever. Egolessness does not negate that there is being, its just that the ego is a mental fabrication. If I had a mulitiple personality disorder it would still be this mind experiencing that ego illusions experience.

Even though it's not your ego that is reincarnated, it is still very same mind or conscioussness which experiences the pleasurable and painfull conditions of Samsara. The buddha didn't teach Samsara to be fair. He taught that it is a pit of snakes that we must escape from as soon as possible since there is no true freedom or safety in samsara.

So no, the poor pitiful hellbeing, who has just taken birth in hell has not deserved. But it was the very same mind that created the karma for that rebirth to manifest. I believe it is said though that hell beings have the ability to recollect the memories about how they got there, but I can't remember where I read it. Again Samsara is not taught to be fair. Buddha did not create it, he only teaches what he has discovered about it.

I am not familiar with Enma Daiou.

@Shamana, you continue to miss the point. In fact, you are doing the exact same thing fundie Christians do when challenged on an inconsistency in their doctrine, which is to repeat it again, louder this time. It's not about what makes you "feel good."

Fact is, humans are storytelling animals. A tremendous amount of myth and outright forgery has been built around Buddhism, and the fact that there are 500 goddamn years between when Sakyamuni lived and when people began putting pen to paper (stylus to papyrus, whatever...) leaves room for so much pseudeipgraphy as to make it impossible to reconstruct with any certainty barely any of what he actually said in reality.

Christianity's scriptures, and indeed Jesus' religious vision itself, was thoroughly corrupted with mere decades of Jesus' own death, starting with Paul, and I don't think we need to go into the wackiness of 2 centuries of Gnosticism etc. on top of all that. Not even 50 years. And you think the teachings will remain pure after 500? The only reason any of it survives is that Sakyamuni found out some very important things about the underlying nature of what we are pleased to call reality, and other humans were capable of the same so that they could verify or at least corroborate those findings (again, "when the master points at the moon, the fool looks at his finger").

You need to answer those questions. You take far, far too much for granted about your beliefs without stopping to ask what assumptions they rely on and whether those assumptions hold water themselves. Take here, where you said:

- "As far as i know, the realms and this universe is created by our collective karma, but in general buddha only taught on the origins of suffering and not on the origin of worlds or species."

This is one of those cases where "as far as I know" is not an acceptable place to let your mind rest. If nothing else, we need a mechanism of how these worlds and realms are created. My own hypothesis is that there actually is only one meta/over-realm, but it gets conditioned by the states of the beings in it at any given point in space/time/causality. That's not the same thing as saying that the realms are created by our collective karma, not even close, and the distinction is an important one.

Regarding Devadatta, the canonical story is that he did go to Naraka; my question is why he was, IIRC, promised rebirth after some millennia in Naraka, rather than kalpas and kalpas later, as a pratyeka-Buddha, considering that his myth is basically meant to teach about the five anantarika karmas.

I strongly believe, based on reading, research, and experience both first and secondhand, that a tremendous amount of exaggeration has gone into descriptions both of the supposed Hell realms themselves and how long people spend in them. The retribution is so completely, utterly disproportionate that, if there were any beings that had the power to ameliorate those conditions and did not, they themselves would be guilty of a hideous sin of omission.

No one, not even Adolf motherloving Hitler, deserves to spend "kalpas and kalpas" on fire, do you understand that? I can certainly see him deserving something on the order of 100,000 to 10,000,000 years, but not quadrillions of years as at least one sutra states of Avici. That is not justice. That is not even naturalistic consequence. That is vengeance, one of the worst tendencies of any sentient being.

I am trying to give these teachers the benefit of the doubt, and to believe that they purposefully exaggerate in order to light a (metaphorical) fire under their students' backsides, but the actual effect is merely to produce despair and permanent trauma in those with functioning empathy, and to harden the hearts of those who are predisposed to sociopathy. The idea backfired horribly. It was a "noble lie" perhaps, but also an incomprehensibly unskillful act. There is your cause-and-effect.

It is taught that Buddha's disciples had superior mental faculties compared to most practioners these days and because life was simpler, less overstimulated they were highly focused on absorbing and memorising the teachings. No doubt that this leaves a lot of room for intrepetration, however it's worthwhile considering that some of Buddha's greatest disciples did in fact reach enlightment or full enlightment and were thus able to fully transmit the teachings. In buddhism "Buddha" is not limited to Shakyamuni.

"My" Buddha is Padmasambhava who I have met in dreams, visions and fully embodied in a human being that I would call my "guru". Similary the same applies for his closest disciple Yeshe Tsogyal where I have similar experience. So I consider myself to know real life more or less Buddha's from whom I can ask questions and gather experience.

Like I said my brain is too fried to into the great discussion of the origin of everything. I can only say that an incredibly intelligent scientist, philosopher and buddhist monk called Mathieu Ricard wrote a tremendous book on the subject called "The quantum and the Lotus" where he compares and debates Buddhism teachings on the nature of reality with western science insights into this topic.

Buddha credited Devadatta with being his guru in a former life thus creating the conditions for Shakyamuni's full enlightment. Because of the merit generated by Devadatta in that former life, he said to be destined for Buddhahood.

I don't believe anyone "deserves" to spends eon's in hell's, but I don't govern the way of the world. Whether the teachings on the hell realms etc is a lie, I don't have the super-clairvoyance to know. I only know that the only real life people I have met who have demonstrated the qualities of buddhahood have personally warned me about the consequenses of suicide leading to rebirth in the lower realms which certainly has led me to discomfort and worry about seeking relief through suicide. My life is so ruined that's im pretty obessed about suicide regardless of the consequenses, but I cannot tell myself that I will be fine or that I have nothing to worry about regardless what I do.

You are free to consider Shakyamuni or other Buddha's noble liars. I'm just wondering who has the authority to do that.

 

[Shamana]

@Shamana, your never did answer those question I posed to you. There are some serious problems with the very basic grounding of Buddhism that render it, in my studied opinion, wrong about certain things:

• If there is no individual soul and, as you said, even a given lifetime's set of skandhas do not re-aggregate upon rebirth, what exactly is getting reborn?
• If what gets reborn isn't actually "you," what is the point of rebirths in Naraka, as a preta, etc? If it's not actually "you," all that's happening here is that some innocent, effectively new being is suddenly appearing in Hell or a new ghost is popping up. What did it do, as a newborn life, to deserve that suffering?
• Who, exactly, is doing the judging here? Where did "Enma Daiou" come from, and what does his karma look like? Who gave him authority? Who gave authority to whoever gave Enma authority? And so on up the chain.

If you have an interest it, this is a super cool chanting of the heart sutra. I used to live 3 mins away from the author.

https://vajrasound.com/the-heart-sutra-2/

and a devotional song to Yeshe Tsogyal by his ex-wife

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

What I'm interested in, @Shamana, is you backing your beliefs up by answering those questions. This is a smokescreen. You are in serious epistemological and theological trouble here without those, and don't quote that sutra about the guy who gets shot with a poison arrow and wants to know who shot it and what it was made out of at me; these are things that potentially undermine the entire worldview of Buddhism.

 

[Shamana]

What I'm interested in, @Shamana, is you backing your beliefs up by answering those questions. This is a smokescreen. You are in serious epistemological and theological trouble here without those, and don't quote that sutra about the guy who gets shot with a poison arrow and wants to know who shot it and what it was made out of at me; these are things that potentially undermine the entire worldview of Buddhism.

Which questions atm? I cannot answer your questions about the great theory of everything or the full workings of karma.

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Shamana, you contradicted yourself here. Let me quote:

"it's the delusion of an "I" that is reborn conditioned by karma. We still have a mind. We can say "this" mind or my mind or whatever. Egolessness does not negate that there is being, its just that the ego is a mental fabrication. If I had a mulitiple personality disorder it would still be this mind experiencing that ego illusions experience.

Even though it's not your ego that is reincarnated, it is still very same mind or conscioussness which experiences the pleasurable and painfull conditions of Samsara. The buddha didn't teach Samsara to be fair. He taught that it is a pit of snakes that we must escape from as soon as possible since there is no true freedom or safety in samsara.

So no, the poor pitiful hellbeing, who has just taken birth in hell has not deserved. But it was the very same mind that created the karma for that rebirth to manifest. I believe it is said though that hell beings have the ability to recollect the memories about how they got there, but I can't remember where I read it. Again Samsara is not taught to be fair. Buddha did not create it, he only teaches what he has discovered about it."

This misses the point entirely. It is not about "fairness" to me, and I will thank you to stop that patronizing insinuation. This is about the fact that if there is a "mind" that is continuing existence through rebirths, then the concept of anatman is false. You have simply redefined non-self as "non-ego," but there is still something that does survive between lives, and thus what we have is reincarnation as per Hinduism, not rebirth as per Buddhism.

Call it whatever you want, but if you are telling me that something survives, in and of itself, between rebirths, you have undermined Buddhism and the teaching of anatman, and fatally so. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck, and dabbles for fish like a duck, it's a duck, even if you insist it's a swan.

Furthermore, despite what you have experienced, none of it is direct, empirical evidence. You are essentially saying that because a teacher has manifested what you believe to be a miracle, therefore for that reason every single thing the teacher is transmitting is true. Whereas I have had direct and secondhand experience with how reality actually works, and it contradicts some of these teachings.

Finally, I am not calling Sakyamuni a liar, noble or otherwise. I am calling you naive, overly-trusting, and somewhat intellectually lazy.

 

[Shamana]

@Shamana, you contradicted yourself here. Let me quote:

"it's the delusion of an "I" that is reborn conditioned by karma. We still have a mind. We can say "this" mind or my mind or whatever. Egolessness does not negate that there is being, its just that the ego is a mental fabrication. If I had a mulitiple personality disorder it would still be this mind experiencing that ego illusions experience.

Even though it's not your ego that is reincarnated, it is still very same mind or conscioussness which experiences the pleasurable and painfull conditions of Samsara. The buddha didn't teach Samsara to be fair. He taught that it is a pit of snakes that we must escape from as soon as possible since there is no true freedom or safety in samsara.

So no, the poor pitiful hellbeing, who has just taken birth in hell has not deserved. But it was the very same mind that created the karma for that rebirth to manifest. I believe it is said though that hell beings have the ability to recollect the memories about how they got there, but I can't remember where I read it. Again Samsara is not taught to be fair. Buddha did not create it, he only teaches what he has discovered about it."

This misses the point entirely. It is not about "fairness" to me, and I will thank you to stop that patronizing insinuation. This is about the fact that if there is a "mind" that is continuing existence through rebirths, then the concept of anatman is false. You have simply redefined non-self as "non-ego," but there is still something that does survive between lives, and thus what we have is reincarnation as per Hinduism, not rebirth as per Buddhism.

Call it whatever you want, but if you are telling me that something survives, in and of itself, between rebirths, you have undermined Buddhism and the teaching of anatman, and fatally so. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps like a duck, and dabbles for fish like a duck, it's a duck, even if you insist it's a swan.

Furthermore, despite what you have experienced, none of it is direct, empirical evidence. You are essentially saying that because a teacher has manifested what you believe to be a miracle, therefore for that reason every single thing the teacher is transmitting is true. Whereas I have had direct and secondhand experience with how reality actually works, and it contradicts some of these teachings.

Finally, I am not calling Sakyamuni a liar, noble or otherwise. I am calling you naive, overly-trusting, and somewhat intellectually lazy.

There is a continious stream of awareness. But no "I" can be found in either our body or our mindstream. It's pretty easy. If an "I" exists in any concrete real way, it' should be pretty easy to find, but all buddhists yogi's who have looked for an I have never found it.

The fact that we have mind that is not born and does not die does not prove the concept of an ego. In this life I am a human called Alexander. I Idenity with being Alexander and human being. When this die, this mindstream may conncet with womb, and this mind will identify with a American human being called joe. I will have no memories of Alexander. Is this the same ego? Or is another one that has been created?

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_links_of_dependent_origination

If it were not the same mind experiencing continious rebirth, it would not be rebirth, it would just be birth.

 

[Soul]

There is a continious stream of awareness. But no "I" can be found in either our body or our mindstream. It's pretty easy. If an "I" exists in any concrete real way, it' should be pretty easy to find, but all buddhists yogi's who have looked for an I have never found it.

The fact that we have mind that is not born and does not die does not prove the concept of an ego. In this life I am a human called Alexander. I Idenity with being Alexander and human being. When this die, this mindstream may conncet with womb, and this mind will identify with a American human being called joe. I will have no memories of Alexander. Is this the same ego? Or is another one that has been created?

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_links_of_dependent_origination

I'm fascinated by the discussion you two are having, and a lot of it resonates hugely with me ... but I'm lost. @Shamana, can you explain this again, but like to a two-year-old, please and thank you kindly? Changing what we call it doesn't change what it is, right? Why would a bubble that isn't separate from the river be punished for anything that occurred before it appeared?

And other flawed and malformed questions. I'm grateful to both of you.

 

[Shamana]

I'm fascinated by the discussion you two are having, and a lot of it resonates hugely with me ... but I'm lost. @Shamana, can you explain this again, but like to a two-year-old, please and thank you kindly? Changing what we call it doesn't change what it is, right? Why would a bubble that isn't separate from the river be punished for anything that occurred before it appeared?

And other flawed and malformed questions. I'm grateful to both of you.

I'm honestly a bit confused about what you're asking me. But it's kind of a complicated subject and I'm not very sharp these days.

If we wanted to prove to someone that the "I" is real, how would be go about it? Can it be located? Can you take a picture of it? Is it somewhere in the body? If yes, where in the body? Is it in the mind? Where in the mind?

I would argue that the "I" is just a thought that we grasp very strongly to.

 

[Soul]

I'm honestly a bit confused about what you're asking me. But it's kind of a complicated subject and I'm not very sharp these days.

If we wanted to prove to someone that the "I" is real, how would be go about it? Can it be located? Can you take a picture of it? Is it somewhere in the body? If yes, where in the body? Is it in the mind? Where in the mind?

I would argue that the "I" is just a thought that we grasp very strongly to.

I'm sorry my questions are so uncouth. I don't have any difficulty with the lack of any I, just with the concept of punishment or merit when there is no I to be reborn. Bubbles on a river aren't responsible for what the water did before they appeared. The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease and return to the source. What are all these hells for - who is in them, when there's no I, and what for?

You talk about "a continuous stream of awareness" and "mind that isn't born and doesn't die" and assert (I think?) that that's not I or ego or atman. To me that sounds like the source, the Tao, the river on which any I is just a bubble - or at least something approaching that. So again: who or what are these hells for? Not for any I, and (surely!) not for the source, so ... ???

You've said there's no claim that it's fair, nor is it meant to feel good, but where does compassion come into it?

Where do cetaceans come into it, for that matter? Why are animal incarnations considered full of stupidity and fear when there are animals that are quite likely at least enlightened as humans? (That's a digression, but still!)

The sutra you gave a link to a few posts back is quite beautiful. It also seems to have a completely different message than much of what you and KoE have been discussing. Can I hear it in Tibetan somewhere?

Thank you again, and ongoing apologies for my crudeness.

 

[Shamana]

I'm sorry my questions are so uncouth. I don't have any difficulty with the lack of any I, just with the concept of punishment or merit when there is no I to be reborn. Bubbles on a river aren't responsible for what the water did before they appeared. The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease and return to the source. What are all these hells for - who is in them, when there's no I, and what for?

You've said there's no claim that it's fair, nor is it meant to feel good, but where does compassion come into it?

Where do cetaceans come into it, for that matter? Why are animal incarnations considered full of stupidity and fear when there are animals that are quite likely at least enlightened as humans?

The sutra you gave a link to a few posts back is quite beautiful. It also seems to have a completely different message than much of what you and KoE have been discussing. Can I hear it in Tibetan somewhere?

Thank you again, and ongoing apologies for my crudeness.

Karma and rebirth is not about reward and punishment. It's about cause and effect. When someone commits horrible deeds and is reborn in a lower realm. It's not about thinking, this being is being punished by bad karma, he or she earned it. A buddhist should think how sad, how pointless.

With regards to hells. Well the beings in hell still idenitfy with an I, even though it's an illusion. About what the hells are for. Well you can ask what is planet earth with all it's humans and animals for. We just know it is here and we now humans living on it. In the same way enlightened teachers who can travel freely trough the realms of samsara say that there are hell realms and that being are born from cause of very negative actions. Great bodhisattavas aspire to travel to hell realms to liberate the beings who there.

It said that whenever the mani mantra "Om Mani Pema Hung" is recited through the blessings it creates it creates the cause for hell beings to be liberated from that realm. Thus it is also said that by reciting the mani mantra oneself is also protected from falling into lower realms, but I am not going to say that it works that way also if you kill yourself, because all the teachers I have asked, say that it doesnt work that way.

I honestly don't feel the need to debate whether animals are stupid compared to humans. Yes Dolphins can be quite in intelligent, but the mental faculties of an animal is nothing compared to humans. Try and teach the law of karma to animal and see how it works out.

Compassion is something that we human beings can possess and develop. Buddha's are also said to have unlimited compassion, but they are not omnipotent. They cannnot remove a beings karma.

In buddhism there is a not a great omnipotent creator who is dishing out rewards and punishment. There is simply the law of karma.

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Soul, this is straight-up BS. Sorry to be so blunt, direct, and profane, but that's what this is: obfuscatory, high-sounding language from a religious tradition desperately spinning to keep itself, if not consistent, at least palatable to its adherents. This sort of ad-hockery is always a very bad sign for the truth value of any given claim. Thank you for working with me here to start exposing the problems with this worldview; it means well and it's less awful than Islam or Christianity, but it still messes people up and can traumatize those of a good but sensitive disposition. It's also not true based on my own experience and research.

@Shamana, If there is something that's continuous and aware, it is by definition an ego, even if it's not our specific self. This, IMO, would be the "Source" I am told about, i.e., we're just pieces of that Source, like bubbles on a stream. There is, therefore, some "ego" somewhere, and calling it stream of mind or primordial nature or whatever does nothing to disguise the fact.

This is why I've been saying that the 14 (or 10, or 4) questions Sakyamuni refused to answer are a problem, because the insistence that the answers don't matter or lead you down wrong beliefs are not the core problem: the problem is that knowing the answers would significantly undermine many of the religion's tenets, and it seems like a cynical ploy to prevent cognitive dissonance rather than any genuine concern for the initiates.

Then there's the questions you keep dodging. They are serious problems for you, and what answers you have attempted to provide just lead into the above problems. You have no real answers; you've said, for example, that the realms are created by karma, but this is actually contradicted by Buddhist cosmology.

In particular, the maha-kalpa cycle consists of four phases, during which the desire realm (samsara) is created, populated, and dissolved, with the second phase beginning when the first being takes rebirth in one of the hells...which are explicitly stated to be there already. Now you have a serious issue, because this destroys your insistence that peoples' karma creates the realms--in effect, the same tired excuse some Christian fundamentalists use when they say that "you send yourself to Hell, not God," and which fails for the same reason: something created those hells with the explicit purpose of people going there.

This of course leaves aside the earlier problem that, if rebirth is true and not reincarnation, the beings in the hells are not the previously-living beings who "deserve" to go there, for any amount of time, as a result of their karma; it's more like someone pushing on one end of a carpet and raising a ruck at the other end, where one end is in the human realm and the other in the hells. Sure, it's the same carpet ("mindstream") but it's not the same ridge of carpet. How is this even logical, leaving aside even any notions of fairness or justice? You're essentially saying that a person's evil deeds lead to the creation of a new life in a horrible place, and that new life has only the barest connection to the old one. Worse still, it may think it is the old one, it may think it deserves to be in hell when it manifestly does not.

 

[Soul]

Karma and rebirth is not about reward and punishment. It's about cause and effect. When someone commits horrible deeds and is reborn in a lower realm. It's not about thinking, this being is being punished by bad karma, he or she earned it. A buddhist should think how sad, how pointless.

With regards to hells. Well the beings in hell still idenitfy with an I, even though it's an illusion. About what the hells are for. Well you can ask what is planet earth with all it's humans and animals for. We just know it is here and we now humans living on it. In the same way enlightened teachers who can travel freely trough the realms of samsara say that there are hell realms and that being are born from cause of very negative actions. Great bodhisattavas aspire to travel to hell realms to liberate the beings who there.

It said that whenever the mani mantra "Om Mani Pema Hung" is recited through the blessings it creates it creates the cause for hell beings to be liberated from that realm. Thus it is also said that by reciting the mani mantra oneself is also protected from falling into lower realms, but I am not going to say that it works that way also if you kill yourself, because all the teachers I have asked, say that it doesnt work that way.

I honestly don't feel the need to debate whether animals are stupid compared to humans. Yes Dolphins can be quite in intelligent, but the mental faculties of an animal is nothing compared to humans. Try and teach the law of karma to animal and see how it works out.

Compassion is something that we human beings can possess and develop. Buddha's are also said to have unlimited compassion, but they are not omnipotent. They cannnot remove a beings karma.

In buddhism there is a not a great omnipotent creator who is dishing out rewards and punishment. There is simply the law of karma.

Thank you, first of all, for the sutra, and for your long response. Again I apologise, especially because it seems I've irritated you. I'm not trying to debate you - I'm not at all equipped to debate. I want to understand.

Karma is not about reward and punishment. A being commits horrible deeds and is reborn in a lower realm. But who is reborn, since there's no ego or I or atman? How is this being related to the one that did horrible things?

It is sad, and seems completely pointless. And it still seems to have very little to do with what that beautiful sutra is saying.

@KnightOfEnceladus, thank you for that carpet. That's a very good image for what's puzzling me.

 

[Shamana]

Thank you, first of all, for the sutra, and for your long response. Again I apologise, especially because it seems I've irritated you. I'm not trying to debate you - I'm not at all equipped to debate. I want to understand.

Karma is not about rewards and punishment. A being commits horrible deeds and is reborn in a lower realm. But who is reborn, since there's no ego or I or atman? How is this being related to the one that did horrible things?

It is sad, and seems completely pointless. And it still seems to have very little to do with what that beautiful sutra is saying.

Let's say that I have multiple personality disorder. There is an experience of 3 different personalities. There is 1 mind who is subject to these 3 personalities. Is it another beings mind who experiences all of this, all drama associated with these personalities? No there is only 1 mind and 1 body subject to this. All the ego/personalities are created by that mind and will cease within that mind.

A teacher called Dzongar Khyentse said "We assume that each of us is a self, that there is an entity called "me." The self is just another misunderstanding, however. We generally manufacture a notion of self, which feels like a solid entity. We are conditioned to view this notion as consistent and real... But Siddhartha realized that there is no independent entity that qualifies as the self to be found anywhere, either inside or outside the body. Like the optical illusion of a fire ring, the self is illusory. It is a fallacy, fundamentally flawed and ultimately non-existent... The self is assembled, doesn't exist independently, and is susceptible to change... At the moment that Siddhartha found no self, he also found no inherently existing evil—only ignorance. Specifically, he contemplated the ignorance of creating a label of "self," pasting it on a totally baseless assembled phenomenon, imputing its importance, and agonizing to protect it... Probably the biggest discovery in human history was Siddhartha's realization that the self does not exist independently, that it is a mere label, and therefore that clinging to it is ignorance."[3] "

 

[Shamana]

@Soul, this is straight-up BS. Sorry to be so blunt, direct, and profane, but that's what this is: obfuscatory, high-sounding language from a religious tradition desperately spinning to keep itself, if not consistent, at least palatable to its adherents. This sort of ad-hockery is always a very bad sign for the truth value of any given claim. Thank you for working with me here to start exposing the problems with this worldview; it means well and it's less awful than Islam or Christianity, but it still messes people up and can traumatize those of a good but sensitive disposition. It's also not true based on my own experience and research.

@Shamana, If there is something that's continuous and aware, it is by definition an ego, even if it's not our specific self. This, IMO, would be the "Source" I am told about, i.e., we're just pieces of that Source, like bubbles on a stream. There is, therefore, some "ego" somewhere, and calling it stream of mind or primordial nature or whatever does nothing to disguise the fact.

This is why I've been saying that the 14 (or 10, or 4) questions Sakyamuni refused to answer are a problem, because the insistence that the answers don't matter or lead you down wrong beliefs are not the core problem: the problem is that knowing the answers would significantly undermine many of the religion's tenets, and it seems like a cynical ploy to prevent cognitive dissonance rather than any genuine concern for the initiates.

Then there's the questions you keep dodging. They are serious problems for you, and what answers you have attempted to provide just lead into the above problems. You have no real answers; you've said, for example, that the realms are created by karma, but this is actually contradicted by Buddhist cosmology.

In particular, the maha-kalpa cycle consists of four phases, during which the desire realm (samsara) is created, populated, and dissolved, with the second phase beginning when the first being takes rebirth in one of the hells...which are explicitly stated to be there already. Now you have a serious issue, because this destroys your insistence that peoples' karma creates the realms--in effect, the same tired excuse some Christian fundamentalists use when they say that "you send yourself to Hell, not God," and which fails for the same reason: something created those hells with the explicit purpose of people going there.

This of course leaves aside the earlier problem that, if rebirth is true and not reincarnation, the beings in the hells are not the previously-living beings who "deserve" to go there, for any amount of time, as a result of their karma; it's more like someone pushing on one end of a carpet and raising a ruck at the other end, where one end is in the human realm and the other in the hells. Sure, it's the same carpet ("mindstream") but it's not the same ridge of carpet. How is this even logical, leaving aside even any notions of fairness or justice? You're essentially saying that a person's evil deeds lead to the creation of a new life in a horrible place, and that new life has only the barest connection to the old one. Worse still, it may think it is the old one, it may think it deserves to be in hell when it manifestly does not.

It makes a pretty big difference whether we call something our ego, personality, soul, self, source, being, true nature, primordial nature etc. Because they mean different things.

When we talk about ego, it is

@Soul, this is straight-up BS. Sorry to be so blunt, direct, and profane, but that's what this is: obfuscatory, high-sounding language from a religious tradition desperately spinning to keep itself, if not consistent, at least palatable to its adherents. This sort of ad-hockery is always a very bad sign for the truth value of any given claim. Thank you for working with me here to start exposing the problems with this worldview; it means well and it's less awful than Islam or Christianity, but it still messes people up and can traumatize those of a good but sensitive disposition. It's also not true based on my own experience and research.

@Shamana, If there is something that's continuous and aware, it is by definition an ego, even if it's not our specific self. This, IMO, would be the "Source" I am told about, i.e., we're just pieces of that Source, like bubbles on a stream. There is, therefore, some "ego" somewhere, and calling it stream of mind or primordial nature or whatever does nothing to disguise the fact.

This is why I've been saying that the 14 (or 10, or 4) questions Sakyamuni refused to answer are a problem, because the insistence that the answers don't matter or lead you down wrong beliefs are not the core problem: the problem is that knowing the answers would significantly undermine many of the religion's tenets, and it seems like a cynical ploy to prevent cognitive dissonance rather than any genuine concern for the initiates.

Then there's the questions you keep dodging. They are serious problems for you, and what answers you have attempted to provide just lead into the above problems. You have no real answers; you've said, for example, that the realms are created by karma, but this is actually contradicted by Buddhist cosmology.

In particular, the maha-kalpa cycle consists of four phases, during which the desire realm (samsara) is created, populated, and dissolved, with the second phase beginning when the first being takes rebirth in one of the hells...which are explicitly stated to be there already. Now you have a serious issue, because this destroys your insistence that peoples' karma creates the realms--in effect, the same tired excuse some Christian fundamentalists use when they say that "you send yourself to Hell, not God," and which fails for the same reason: something created those hells with the explicit purpose of people going there.

This of course leaves aside the earlier problem that, if rebirth is true and not reincarnation, the beings in the hells are not the previously-living beings who "deserve" to go there, for any amount of time, as a result of their karma; it's more like someone pushing on one end of a carpet and raising a ruck at the other end, where one end is in the human realm and the other in the hells. Sure, it's the same carpet ("mindstream") but it's not the same ridge of carpet. How is this even logical, leaving aside even any notions of fairness or justice? You're essentially saying that a person's evil deeds lead to the creation of a new life in a horrible place, and that new life has only the barest connection to the old one. Worse still, it may think it is the old one, it may think it deserves to be in hell when it manifestly does not.

It makes a difference though whether we call that something Ego, personality, self, source, stream of mind, primordial nature because it refers to different things. I am not adverse to calling our timeless awareness our unborn being, but it's worthing that when we are talking about this, we are already busy attaching labels and feelings unto our notion of such a being and all those labels and concepts are simply thoughts.

We experience thought-free awareness, there is awareness, but there are no thoughts of "me" and "you". Unlike our ego illusion, which is fabricated by thoughts, our awareness is not facricated by thoughts or anything.

The doctrine of emptiness is very much about the fact that ALL phenomena are empty of our perception of them. Thus our true nature is also empty about all the notions, feelings and thoughts we have about it.

 

[Soul]

Let's say that I have multiple personality disorder. There is an experience of 3 different personalities. There is 1 mind who is subject to these 3 personalities. Is it another beings mind who experiences all of this, all drama associated with these personalities? No there is only 1 mind and 1 body subject to this. All the ego/personalities are created by that mind and will cease within that mind.

A teacher called Dzongar Khyentse said "We assume that each of us is a self, that there is an entity called "me." The self is just another misunderstanding, however. We generally manufacture a notion of self, which feels like a solid entity. We are conditioned to view this notion as consistent and real... But Siddhartha realized that there is no independent entity that qualifies as the self to be found anywhere, either inside or outside the body. Like the optical illusion of a fire ring, the self is illusory. It is a fallacy, fundamentally flawed and ultimately non-existent... The self is assembled, doesn't exist independently, and is susceptible to change... At the moment that Siddhartha found no self, he also found no inherently existing evil—only ignorance. Specifically, he contemplated the ignorance of creating a label of "self," pasting it on a totally baseless assembled phenomenon, imputing its importance, and agonizing to protect it... Probably the biggest discovery in human history was Siddhartha's realization that the self does not exist independently, that it is a mere label, and therefore that clinging to it is ignorance."[3] "

... Thank you, @Shamana. I have tried and failed to understand how that's related to what I asked. I shall go back to the Heart Sutra, and contemplate learning the ways of creation from narwhals.

 

[whyidon'tknow]

Dying.... the ultimate journey into the unknown. It makes me feel excited. A little scared but more excited. Potentially the greatest journey my soul will ever go on

I hope there is not suffering of course. I hope I cease to exists. Best case scenario I get to experience love in the afterlife

 

[KnightOfEnceladus]

@Soul: he's trying to tell us that the "mindstream" continues onward, conditioned by previous karma. This is, again, semantic BS: first of all, if something is aware and continuing, it is an ego, call it whatever you will. Even if that means there's only one ego (Source/Absolute/God/whatever) that's still what it is.

Second: I do not believe Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, truly understands what is going on as and after we die. @Shamana, I want you to read this, and re-read it until you understand it, and contextualize it within the framework of your religion. See also specifically what it says that your religion is missing. Then you will understand why I am not a Buddhist, despite believing it is the least wrong religion of all: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799306/m1/1/

These are things that never would have occurred to you in your milieu, which is restricting you to itself with strong injunctions not to look elsewhere. I seem to recall some schools even telling people that apostasy or abandoning their teacher for another is effectively the sixth "great rebellion." That failed the sniff test for me, and very badly at that.

 

[Shamana]

... Thank you, @Shamana. I have tried and failed to understand how that's related to what I asked. I shall go back to the Heart Sutra, and contemplate learning the ways of creation from narwhals.

The only thing I can say is that in this life my stream of awareness is experiencing being the human being called Alexander who looks in a certain way and behaves in a certain way. The "personality" of Alexander was born this from this mind when it identifed itself with the 5 aggregates. When this body dies, this mind because it has no anchor will experience it own vast limitless size and nature with center or end, because the mind cannot handle this, it creates a suble body(according to the tibetan book of the dying) and this mind with it's subtle body will still resemble Alexander in his prime without sickness or old age. Then this stage of the bardo there are awe-inspiring visions of peacefull and wrathfull deites and eventually the karmic winds stir and blow and pull you towards your next rebirth. When you come to your mother and father cupolating your subtle body now tranforms into the human that you will become in his prime years and then you are sucked into your mothers womb when sperm connects with it. In the womb all memories of your former life is lost and when you reborn, you will typically have little recollection that life or non at all. There will be a new body and a new name and through that another ego or personality is fabricated. But it's still the same stream of mind, stream of awareness that experiences this.

@Soul: he's trying to tell us that the "mindstream" continues onward, conditioned by previous karma. This is, again, semantic BS: first of all, if something is aware and continuing, it is an ego, call it whatever you will. Even if that means there's only one ego (Source/Absolute/God/whatever) that's still what it is.

Second: I do not believe Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, truly understands what is going on as and after we die. @Shamana, I want you to read this, and re-read it until you understand it, and contextualize it within the framework of your religion. See also specifically what it says that your religion is missing. Then you will understand why I am not a Buddhist, despite believing it is the least wrong religion of all: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799306/m1/1/

These are things that never would have occurred to you in your milieu, which is restricting you to itself with strong injunctions not to look elsewhere. I seem to recall some schools even telling people that apostasy or abandoning their teacher for another is effectively the sixth "great rebellion." That failed the sniff test for me, and very badly at that.

Do you want me to read the full 47 pages?

The friend of mine, who I consider to be the human emodiment of Green Tara and Yeshe Tsogyal told me once, that when one her friends comitting suicide, she could see him in the bardo being pulled downwards by black hell beings, but then see him be rescued by one of Padmasambahvas bardo helpers who's name I cannot recollect. In generally trust this women 100%.

The ego is born and the ego dies. Our timeless awareness is neither born. Nor ceases. Hence it's not an ego. It is not facbricated either.

apostasy can be a mistake yes. If you are start preaching to your buddhist sangha that all our souls belong to almighty creator god who sends heathens to hell. Then you are from a buddhist point of view telling a delusion lie. But in buddhism apostites are not be killed, harmed or scorned at like in Islam.
There is no fault in abandoning a teacher if you feel there is nothing more or can learn from him.
If a teacher does not live up the qualifications to a dharma teacher or Vajramaster then it is your duty to abandon that teacher and possibly warn about him/her if they perfrom criminal and unvirteous actions.

However slandering a pure faultless dharmateacher or vajramaster, because he possibly started poking holes in your ego, is considered a mistake and breach of Samaya.

 

[Scribble Fan]

I'm sure there is a peaceful abyss waiting for me after death but I partially hope there's something more. It wouldn't make any logical sense but neither does this meaningless universe, what's it all here for? It's hard to apply sense to such an irrational world sometimes.

My best case scenario would be an almost solid lucid dream with the ability to connect with the ones I shared this life with, enter a state of healing, maybe to even find love. My worst would be a place where there's no hiding from one's internal self. I've been so tortured by this existence and the people that were supposed to care for me that I'd resemble an unstable, twisted monster. No thank you!

Well, suppose I'll find out soon or eventually, won't I? It's almost euphoric and exiting, at the same time miserable and fearful. I honestly just wish there was anything more for my younger brother and I. He's the only friend and comfort I truly have.