[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[Joy Vriens]

Vicente,

>Although note there is a trap when we are limiting this investigation 
>to the borders of what we are interpreting of our perceived Reality. 
>Sorry for giving the next poor example: when we try to be focused in 
>this same instant of perception of our Reality, in the more isolated 
>picture provided by our eyes that we can be able to catch, then here 
>maybe we can be aware that there is something eternal (devoid of time) 
>between the arising of our concatenated thoughts. 

I wouldn't say there *is* something eternal, but the idea of something eternal (or unlimited) appears to balance the limited reality we perceive. Something is defined by its opposite. Neither of the opposites *is*. Simultaneously with the two opposites arises the idea of an openness in which they appear. You could then say it is eternal, but then you would be sitting in one of the opposites :-)  

>that's truth. And not only in Buddhism but in most of religions the 
>beings arises as some reaction while we keep bonds or doors with some 
>pristine state. We were expelled of some paradise, we are here because 
>orders of some gods, we are a product of actions of previous beings, 
>etc..  
 
>In this sense, I agree with what Richard Hayes said in other message. 
>In Buddhism we are lucky of not being forced to be restricted to some 
>mythological system. And probably it has to do with that negative 
>approach of Buddhism that you comments. 
>There is not doubt any person can be awakened without having any 
>concern about this matter. In fact I think it would be better at all. 
>However, when the question arises, then we start a philosophical 
>investigation with logical difficulties in keeping coherence. 
>Coherence is not needed to respect an untouchable doctrinal system but 
>for the efficacy as a philosophical mean. Regarding this coherence 
>is when at least I think non-rebirth is a wrong thing. 
> 
>Maybe in some future will appear a serious development able to 
>suppress this question in a brilliant way for practical purposes, so 
>everybody would understand there is not need to waste our time with 
>this. However, it cannot mean the substitution with non-rebirth. 
>I agree this problem is a bad business regarding difficulties and the 
>poor benefits in practical terms. Some messages ago there is a cite of 
>a Sutta, in where same Buddha avoid this matter in practical terms to 
>surpass obsession. Then it shows it can be the wiser option. 

Yes, he seems to go for the non-defining (no birth, no rebirth), the openness, the tathagata.

Joy