It is my theory that there is only One consciousness.
This is different from solipism, because its like this. It’s like your past childhood is no longer experienced, yet you know it was real. And its like your current self you know is real but gonna be the same as your past childhood and be no longer real.
Other lives are like that, say someone on the internet reading this, they are one of your selves that is going to fade out of reality.
And Buddha failed, because it’s impossible he didn’t reincarnate, since I am here right now, and the process of consciousness is to become more complex and evolve, not go into primordial bug level consciousness.
There is the controversial issue within Buddhists on the topic of ‘rebirth’ but its is different from the concept of ‘reincarnation’ of Hinduism.
This issue of rebirth is very controversial and it can be very complicated.
There is no denying that all living humans has consciousness within its certain acceptable definition.
It is also reasonable to state a person’s consciousness can extend to the collective consciousness within a group of living humans.
Other animals may have their own specific type of consciousness.
However to extrapolate consciousness to anything thing other than living things [with any semblance of ‘consciousness’] is an unsubstantiable speculation.
To claim the Earth, the Universe, reality as a whole is conscious-in-itself is not substantiable and not tenable.
How do we know all humans have consciousness? At what point do we say that all lower beings have consciousness, such as mosquitoes? We already have evidence consciousness has a dividing line, I cannot read your mind over the internet because I am not conscious of you. At this distance, I can only pick up vague readings which may be chaos. So how do you know it will go through and sit in every body?
In any case, they say buddha escaped Rebirth but how can this be if Consciousness still exists and I am living testament.
What is accepted as “All humans have consciousness” is limited to those who share the consensus of the definition of consciousness and that proposition. I believe the majority will agree all human have consciousness based on a simple definition of what consciousness means. dictionary.com/browse/conscious?s=t
However as we moved into more specific definitions of ‘what is consciousness’ [philosophical, scientific, spiritual etc.] then we will have separate groups aligning to their favored definitions.
For those who agree “all human have consciousness” they can move down the evolutionary tree to assess the point the defined [as agreed] consciousness is absence. In relation to human consciousness, one can hypothesize such consciousness exists in the higher primates and self-aware animals [elephants, dolphins, etc] to some low degrees and no more human-like consciousness beyond that.
In another perspective one may state mosquitoes has mosquito-consciousness [whatever the acceptable definition is] amongst those who agree to this proposition.
Physically wise, it is obvious humans do not have nor shared the same consciousness as humans are not connected via neurons from one human brain to the other.
In another perspective there is the concept of “mind reading” and that is because all humans has a generic brain and mind. Example; psychologytoday.com/blog/me … g-children
Thus one can understand the mind of the other to some degree because we have the same fundamental generic brain and mind.
This is the basis for the collective mind where at times a group of people [mass, mob, crowd] are controlled by ‘one mind.’
Buddha claimed of escaped from rebirth has nothing to do with physical rebirth nor rebirth of his consciousness into another entity.
An analogy is like a tree that keep producing seeds, then sprout, become a tree, produce fruit, the tree dies and then next generation of seeds that sprout to continue the cycle of rebirth.
The above analogy is applied as a tree-of-sufferings within the human mind where it produce seeds then die and the seed are reborn as new suffering on a continual cycle of sufferings. The purpose of Buddhism is thus to stop [destroy or modulate] the rebirth of the seeds of sufferings within the mind and thus one is mentally free from sufferings.
One example is the tendency of human to ruminate on their worries, problems, anxieties and be entangled in a circular wheel of continually reborn compounding sufferings. To resolve such ruminations one need to nip it at the bud [or seed stage], i.e. kill it and preventing its continual rebirth. This is why Buddhism introduce the practice of Vispassana, i.e. mindfulness.
So the concept of rebirth in Buddhism do not refer to the rebirth of the self or consciousness into another entity.
You failed, not the Buddha. When one is at the mercy of one’s ruminations then one is poisoning oneself. It is not the Buddha’s fault.
Buddha found the solution to end the mother of all sufferings, including those of ruminations, etc.
If you want to avoid rumination to the extent of sufferings from them, then find out the solution from the Buddha on how to kill those seeds of ruminations.
I ruminate a hell of a lot, it’s in relation to my anxiety. I remember reading that meditation is not something you do but something you achieve. I didn’t really have much success with it until recently.
I can enter into a meditative state, like a blissful relaxation. I can push everything, the suffering, tension etc to the back of my head and I have this clarity in the front of my head. It’s almost like there is an inner presence which is separated from body and mind, like your hovering over your own body. Like a clear infinite observation.
It took me ages to learn how to do it, but I’ve got it now, it truly is amazing… But I dont think anyone will believe me though as it is something you have to experience for yourself.
Maybe you can keep tying and maybe it will happen for you. Good luck.
It’s not that I don’t believe you, it’s that I’d like for you to define what you mean by infinite.
No Buddha failed, not me. One of his goals was to alleviate himself from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. But he did not, since Consciousness still exists, and he is experiencing my life right now.
Also read up the difference from other more authoritative sources.
Samartha is focus more on blissful relaxation which of course will help on one’s thinking, daily life, health and well-being.
Vispassana is slightly different from Samartha and it about developing of one’s self and thought on the now from moment to moment. This allow one to nip any ruminations or any other issues [good or bad] at its source.
In any case one must practice Samartha meditation to steady the mind before practicing Vispassna [mindfulness].
Brahman (Sanskrit: “holy might”, “world soul”), originally a magic spell, then the force giving the effectiveness to the act of sacrificing, finally the creative and conversing principle of the world - being by the fact itself (“ipso facto”) - that creates, carries, conserves, and takes back everything into itself.
According to the Vedanta the Brahman is identical to the Atman (Sanskrit: “self”, “soul”/“psyche”).
Samsara (Samasara) is the self-repeating cycle of the individual life (life cycle) by rebirths (cycle of rebirths) with all their sufferings from which one can merely be redeemed by entering the Brahma resp. the Nirvana.
If there is only one soul, then you are him reincarnated.
The theory requires there to be no fundamental difference in existence/reality, but if there is no duality nothing would exist et al. If there is ‘fundamental difference’ as the universal quality and or function of manifest existence, then we all fundamentally have that quality!
That doesn’t add up. You are combining two unrelated memes.
Meme 1 = existence is reality
Meme 2 = duality equals contrast, and contrast equals existence
or
Meme 2=duality is supposedly necessary for existence but actually there’s no proof, since actually only subjective perception is necessary for existence and we can never prove any existence outside our own singularity
my philosophy is that existence is ‘a’ reality!, but reality itself is everything [more than existence]. …though can we be sure that existence is not its [realities] only reality!?
What like every polarised particle in existence? If there is no primary duality you cannot arrive at contrast. You are assuming that there can be a kind of ‘contrast’ without that being a product of a more fundamental duality, when in every case it is. The very fact that the universe had a beginning confirms there to be a duality [existence/non-existence] at least more fundanental that it. It will be true however, that reality is ultimately one, and hence that duality is not the ultimate nature of reality. Duality I concur cannot be the most fundamental nature of reality, except that it is an eternal and hence always existing in the same sense as principles/law generally.
If thought is more fundamental at base than existence, then yes. I don’t see how either of any two affecting parties can be fundamentally before the other?
