(Andrew Kaczynski, posted in 2013) 29-year-old Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu (born Benny Mileikowsky, groomed in Chicago, here using the pseudonym "Ben Nitay") on a local Boston show debating Israel-Palestine.
Who is Bibi's father? Cornell University Professor Benzion Netanyahu was a Polish-born American-Israeli encyclopedist, historian, and medievalist. He served as a professor of history at Cornell, scholar of Judaic history, and was also an activist in the Revisionist Zionism movement, who lobbied in the United States to... More
Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu (born October 21, 1949) is an American educated (MIT) and raised Jewish Zionist Israeli politician [groomed by the CIA to become a militant leader of Zionism's settler colonial project] and diplomat who has served as the longest serving [repeatedly reinstalled in spite of his ongoing corruption trial paused by his ongoing wars on Gaza, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, and now Iran] prime minister of Israel since 2022, having previously held the office from 1996 to 1999 and from 2009 to 2021. Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel's history, having served a total of over 17 years. More
The shaman climbed the mountain, gathering sacred flowering herbs and berries along the way -- Datura moonflowers, toloache, Brugmansia angel's trumpets, Salvia apiana sage, kasiile, toyon, holly -- until delirium overwhelmed him with lurid and ecstatic visions of hell and heaven. Then he returned to the human world.
Word spread of him. People asked, "Is it true, as they say, you have seen hell?"
"I have."
"What is it like?"
"It's hideous, ironic, horror beyond imagination," the shaman winced to relive, nearly blinded by his recollection:
"There's food everywhere, but no one eats, and drink aplenty, but no one drinks. There are long wooden spoons with which to partake, but their bodies have only tiny appendages for arms, too short to bring such elongated spoons up to their shriveled lips. Parched slaver forms like ashes in their mouths, and bodies waste away. Struggle as they might, everything goes to waste. They bellow in agony."
The people shrank away, with growing acreage dedicated to burying their discarded surplus, collapsing under smoldering heaps of trash.
"And heaven?" asked the hopeful. "Is it true as they say, you have seen heaven?"
"I have."
"And what's it like?" they pleaded.
"Heaven," the shaman revealed, "is exactly the same."
"What," cried the people, "the same? Surely, that is no heaven!"
"There is one difference," the shaman went on to explain.
"In heaven, there is an abundance of food and drink, long wooden spoons, and bodies with tiny appendages too short to bring these utensils up to their mouths. But the beings there, without hesitation, use the long spoons to feed one another. There is no want. No request ever goes unanswered, no desire unfulfilled. Acts of kindness overflow as do spoons.
"Spoon fed and cared for, there are continuous cries of gratitude and rejoicing as beings fall over one another to be the first to give. There is food, and they eat. There is drink, and they drink, and they relish diversity and bounty. They care for one another, nourish one another, thank one another. The sweetness of their caresses, gentleness of their words, kindness of their eyes," the shaman wept to recall, "make the place so beautiful that I only wish I could have shown one world to the other."
"KARMA: It's everywhere you're going to be." Deeds have the power to produce resultants.
.
Pranks are fun to watch because they're funny and because it's not us on the receiving end. It must be terrifying, if even for the first moments, to be the pranked on. But it sure is funny, at least for males. Females may have more sense and sensibility, preferring to daydream about Darcy coming to save them. They are so fun, funny, and fascinating that a question comes up: Are they unskillful karma?
That is, will they result in unpleasant, unwished for, unwanted, even unbearable results when they come to fruition and ripen?
It seems to be a matter of degrees if one thinks about it just a little. What's "better," to kill one person or two people?
But isn't karma an "imponderable" and unanswerable question in Buddhism? No, what's imponderable is the working out (vipaka-phala) of karma (deeds). What we throw out by our mental, verbal, and physical actions will come back to us, but precisely HOW they will come back, that is imponderable and would drive one to madness to keep trying to figure out.
The answer is obvious only it's hard to answer because, between only those two choices, of course it's better to killer fewer people but it cannot in any way be said that it's "good" (and certainly not "better") to kill anyone.
In exactly the same way and for the same reason, a person pranked Halloween-style is going to be scared. That fear may dissolve and resolve again as catharsis, laughter, an adrenaline rush, a moment of clarity, hiccuplessness, or whatever, but for that span of time, one was frightened, experiencing horripilation, terrified, apoplectic, having a bowel movement -- and that can't be good to do to someone just for laughs.
If one imagines a motive -- such as to teach a valuable lesson or remind someone of something or to bring about sudden relief or whatever -- that may modify the karma and attenuate, but it certainly does not erase it, absolve it, make it good, or turn it into an indulgence to be paid off. It's still bad. It's like spanking someone. Whatever the motive, it is still bad (violent, insensitive, cruel, abusive) and potentially traumatizing. One may later thank you for traumatizing him or her, such as when that person grows up, joins the military, and kills many people instead of bowing out of a mission like a smarter or less traumatized person might think to do. But that thanks does not mean it was a good or neutral deed on the part of the doer, only that it had some effect for which the victim feels a necessity to have gratitude, like when you are beaten in prison on arrival, not because you did anything wrong or deserved it but only because stronger guys were looking out for your future and wanted you to toughen up, look alert, and mind your Ps and Qs. You may thank them when you avoid getting jumped by antagonistic opponents or get jumped but were ready for it because you remained hypervigilant after the first beating. But that won't make that beating "good." At best, it might make it "mixed." Mixed means at least partially bad, negative, harmful, an therefore resulting in suffering (dukkha) for the doer.
If one beats one's child with a "good" parental motive then imagines that as a karmic result, later on, perhaps in a future life, one is beaten by one's parent with a "good" motive, how is that going to be experienced, how is it going to feel, what are going to be the negative results (whether or not there are any positive ones)? Say that, indeed, one doesn't flip off the neighbor anymore but, on account of being beaten, starts seeing beating others (being physically violent and/or scolding) as a means to an end -- as demonstrated by one's own loving parent? Will one call that a win and say that beating is not bad karma? It is clearly bad karma even if it does some good or has some positive outcome in addition to all the negative outcomes. What if the child becomes nervous, fearful, introverted, shy, full of violent outbursts, closed in, untrusting...? "But, at least, does not flip off the neighbor anymore" will be a pathetic rationalization when trying to explain that spanking was "good karma."
Would that karma were so nice and limited, but each act has exponential results.
.
Reduce debt, maximize profit
What are the motives for pranks? That is another way to know whether something is skillful (wholesome, good, meritorious, proper conduct, advantageous, beneficial, harmless, in line with the dhamma): find the motives motivating it. There are six motives to choose from, and it is never really going to be just one. It will tend to be a mixed bag. At one impulsion (javana), at one mind moment (citta), it may be just one motive, but there are thousands if not millions of such impulsions and mind moments in one act (karma). The most important quality of the karma (act) is the cetana (motive, ambition, intention behind it). The six motives are easy to remember because they flipsides of one another:
greed (attraction), nongreed
hatred (aversion), nonhatred
delusion (wrong view), nondelusion.
Actions motivated by any degree of greed, hatred, or delusion we can put in the unskillful, unwholesome, harmful, producing dukkha pile.
Actions motivated by any degree of nongreed (letting go, giving up, sharing, generosity, nonstinginess, charity, compassion, caring, loving-kindness, harmlessness) we can put in the skillful pile, which produces (when it finally comes to fruition, which is whenever it meets the necessary and sufficient conditions to come to frution, much more likely later rather than sooner.
Actions motivated by aversion (FEAR, annoyance, disliking, revulsion, hatred) we can put in the unskillful pile.
Actions motviated by nonaversion (tolerance, sympathy, mercy, compassion, loving kindness, fairness, enlightened self-interest) we can put in the skillful pile.
Actions motivated by delusion (ignorance, confusion, wrong view, misplaced or blind faith, fanaticism) we can put in the unskillful pile, which produces unwelcome, unwanted results when they (those impulsions and mind moments) come to fruition and ripen.
Actions motivated by nondelusion (wisdom, direct knowing and seeing, understanding, clarity) we can put in the skillful pile.
Spite, not your boyfriend, is karma.
One thing that should be clear although it is probably not is that there is no such thing as greed or hatred without delusion. Delusion gives rise to greed. It gives rise to hatred. There could be greed without hatred, and hatred without greed, or delusion without either, but otherwise they are usually mixed up, supporting one another, producing unskillful karma.
All that one might say in condemnation of the first three mentioned might can be turned around to praise the other three, but one must understand these terms are translated from a more sophisticated and subtle language with more nuances than English. Pali, which comes from Sanskrit, has many multivalent terms, with each word having a RANGE of meanings. That's why it sounds "negative," non-this and non-that. But according to Bhikkhu Bodhi and other scholars, this is just a convention. Nondelusion (whatever it might mean in English) really does mean "wisdom" in the original languages of the Buddha (Gandhari, Magadhi, Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit). And nonhatred (adosa) is not merely the absence of hatred but the positive aspects of loving kindness. Our English ears have trouble hearing this and we see negativity where it is not.
Another way to have looked at this question, "Is it (pranks or anything else) bad karma?" would have been to compare life to the Disciplinary Code or Rules and Regulations the Buddha set down for monastics. Bothering others, no matter the motive, is bad because it bothers them. So thoughtlessly, unmindfully, neglectfully, carelessly, inadvertently making noise that is disruptive to others is labeled "wrong" and "not to be done" in the Vinaya. One trivial example that comes to mind is that, while eating, which in olden times was done with the hand, one is not to scrape the bottom of the bowl with one's nails such as to make noise that bothers others who are eating.
There was no intention to bother them and, nevertheless, it is wrong and should be avoided. If done with the motive to disturb others, then it is clearly bad however minor it may seem or however many rationalizations we may give. So following the example of the Monastic Sangha, who are models of good behavior for Buddhists (not that they always are), we can clearly see that pranking, joking, teasing, or even unintentionally disturbing others by our walking loudly, coughing, twitches, scratching, snoring, carelessly passing wind, and so on can be deemed violations of the Code, which applies to monastics and not us but is an example to us of what the Buddha taught for the longevity of Buddhism (the Dharma in the world), the respect of others for Buddhism and the Buddha as a teacher, for the comfort of the peaceful, and for the taming of the disturbed. The Vinaya explains why each rule or regulation was set down in the first place, with a backstory to explain its necessity. Some rules are as general as just for making it comfortable to be around or for the calming of those who are not calm. Big time pranks would never be in line with this. Little teases maybe, but even that is walking the line as we never know how someone is going to take something. We might be able to know our motives, innocent or not, but they are not likely to know those motives so may grow resentful, angry, vengeful, disturbed, or motivated to strike back. For peace's sake, keep the peace. Pranks are anti-peaceful.
Karmic results
What will be the result of any intentional action? We may imagine that it is commensurate with the act, and it is, but we all fail to understand "the act." The typical misconception, based more on a popular understanding of Hinduism than what the Buddha taught, is that if we do one thing, that one thing will happen to us in return.
This is wrong for at least two reasons. One, we don't realize what constitutes "the act" (the deed, action, intention). The Abhidhamma (the "Dharma in Ultimate Terms") as a treatise of Buddhist psychology goes into extreme detail about what "consciousness" is. We may think it's a thing, but in fact it's a process, a stream of mind-moments (cittas). These are not really "thoughts" but components or "particles" of awareness. Mental formations -- such as feelings, perceptions, volitions, and 50 others -- give us "consciousness." Among these are javanas or "impulsions." If there are countless cittas streaming, there are an exponential number of javanas for each. Each of these might lay down a track, a seed, that later manifests as a karmic result. If this understanding is correct, one "deed" (with uncountable cittas and javanas) will result in an exponential number of results. The is for the good, the bad, and the neutral resulting in welcome, unwelcome, and neither welcome-nor-unwelcome results. Results are of two kinds, resultants (vipakas) and fruit (phala). It's not clear what the distinction is, but it used to be said that one referred to mental resultants and the other to physical circumstances. Thus, one can see that mental resultants might be immediate (regret, remorse, sadness, mental pain, delight, passion, joy, elation, etc.) whereas as life circumstances might be the fruit, our situation, where we are born, how our body is, our looks, health, longevity or lack of these.
Two, since ancient times, for whatever reason, people have made the mistake of thinking that if we do something in a certain way, that deed will produce the same thing for us in the same way. This is completely wrong. When the Buddha was asked about it, he said that such a view was the negation of his teachings on karma. For example, if we slap someone in public, we may worry that our deed (our karma of slapping that person in public) will result in us being slapped in public. This is so common a view that there's no convincing even most Buddhists that this is wrong. This is what sutras and stories, the media and our own thinking tell us is "fair" and proportionate. It's incorrect. The Buddha teaches a variable result of karma. For example, if someone kills, the result will not be that one is killed. That could be the result. It may even be likely that that is the result. Oh, if only it were we might learn something. The results are actually much worse. That act, that deed, because so many things led up to it, because it was motivated by so many cittas and so many more impulsions, will yield unwelcome results over and over, again and again for a long, long time. Even if the negative results are avoided in this life (we are not caught, we are not punished, we experience no remorse, regret, sadness, misgivings, worries about retribution, coarseness, insensitivity, drunkenness to try to drown the guilt or bolster the rationalizations), they will not be avoided forever.
So "live by the sword, die by the sword" is not necessarily true. It is self-evidently untrue in the way we understand it and true in another way we do not understand. We think that because this killer who killed with a sword, who killed many people because he lived "by the sword" as a soldier, cop, or criminal must die by getting stabbed or beheaded, but he died of a heart attack or disease or old age surrounded by his loved ones. How could this be? Doesn't make the famous utterer of that adage wrong? That utterer will be vindicated because there are many lives, not just this one. So what if he doesn't "die by the sword" this time? He likely will in the future, many times over, but even if he doesn't, even if that is avoided, he will reap what he has sown and it will produce many unwelcome results (resultants and fruits, multiplying, maturing and ripening). In hell realms, one may be killed with a sword many times. And, still, having been killed many times over, having had many lives shortened by this act, incurring animosity and fear from others, bad looks, an angry disposition, aversion, fear, worry, and so on, that deed is not exhausted. It keeps producing unwelcome results when it gets the opportunity.
Even if the negative results are avoided in the very next life, which is unlikely since it is a heavy karma (course of action with the power to drag us down to the downfall or niraya and condition our rebirth in an unfortunate plane of existence, among animals, ghosts, demons, or hellions), going from brightness to darkness or darkness to darkness, there is still the probability of that deed bearing its result in subsequent lives when it gets the opportunity to produce results. When it finally catches up with us, the result will not be someone kills us and that's that. It is far more likely that it will result in sickliness, a shortened lifespan wherever one is born, ugliness, and other problems, to say nothing of the possibility that the person we killed will seek revenge life after life, in a cycle of retribution because we will strike back and get in more trouble. But, say, no bad result ever came about until one life far in the future, a fortunate rebirth on a good plane of existence on or above the human plane. And there the result was that it caused a shortened life and we died prematurely: That karma is in no way exhausted by that having happened. We are likely to have many lifespans shortened, have much sickliness, much pain, many lives in the downfall (a collective term for subhuman lives which have much suffering and very little hope of escape). When we add up what happened as a result of that "one" deed of killing, we will certainly understand that it was not worth it. Conversely, a skillful deed was more than worth it. If we give, share, help others, we will be helped many times over before that karma of giving that one time, even a small amount, is exhausted. (It depends to whom and how we give, but giving is good, which is not to say that it can't be made bad or soured or used as a pivot point for negativity. Imagine if we give to shame someone, outdo someone, belittle someone, or simply to gain more for ourselves. It looks like giving and sharing from the outside, but inside we can see a negative motive for a "good" deed. So it can bear its mixed results, perhaps ironically. What if as a result of giving, we get a fortune BUT we are limited to distributing it not enjoying it ourselves? We are made the head of a trust fund for others with a pittance of a stipend for serving on the board of its distribution. So the Buddha many times advised, for the nondoing of the unskillful and the doing of the skillful, this is what a buddha teaches. Why he teaches is that we and others around us might benefit. He wished for the whole world, far beyond this human plane, to benefit.
Kar Krashes and Karens (instant karma?)
This is the strange and seemingly "unfair" thing about karma. We only killed that one time, yet we are experiencing the unwanted, unwelcome, unbearable results over and over again. Similarly with skillful or good deeds, with merit. Though we only give a little, it comes back manifold. (Cast your bread upon the water).
Finally, what is the ultimate wisdom? It is enlightenment (bodhi, satori, kensho, vipassana, insight, epiphany, dawning, knowledge, sight, knowing-and-seeing, liberating-wisdom, awakening). Why? It is because ignorance (avijja, avidya, moha, miccha-ditthi, maya) is the root of all our problems in samsara (the cycle of rebirth, "again becoming," reappearance) which is inseparable from dukkha so long as we're trapped in it. Liberation (moksha) is no longer being trapped even when we still might be in it as in nirvana-with-remainder, the living arhat or buddha who still experiences pain (dukkhata) but has overcome all that can upset (dukkha) -- a response to pain rooted in aversion or frustration in wanting something to be other than the way it is.
Less is more. We should have said far less (words) and it would have been much more (useful). But for readers who read all the way through, comment. Is there any sense in what the Buddha taught? It's not so different than our Christian, Hindu, Jain, and even Jewish teachings, only the Buddha tweaked those misunderstandings and made them so clear that in his day, he was never called a "Buddhist" but frequently called a "Karmavadin," a teacher of the efficacy of deeds.
You may think I'm "hot," but I'm d*ad cold, so the joke's on you (Ariana Viera, RIP).
.
There's great hope in what he taught because in all but five situations (regarding five heinous deeds), all karma is modifiable and may even be compensated for so that it does not ruin us. Even in the case of those five deeds, and we can look at the example of Devadatta for evidence of this, karma does not rule everything. Karma is not the cause of everything. Those five have the unfortunate power to bear the result in the very next (immediate) rebirth, and it will not be good. But what else we do now will also condition the future, even if other deeds are not powerful enough to expunge or avoid this powerful result of immediate next rebirth experience. The evidence is in what the Buddha said would happen to Devadatta, the Judas figure in Buddhism. He might have much suffering ahead of him, much explaining and accounting for his horrific misdeeds, yet he would eventually become an arhat perhaps even a silent buddha.
Impersonal organic broth or 'primordial soup' fed by stars needed energy to move. Lightning!
A human can develop ESP?
In the beginning, which repeats in an endless cycle of inconceivable duration, there were the great elements or maha-dhatus. These are not things but characteristic of materiality. The things they are characteristics of are minute particles, kalapas.
Physical, material, tangible things are conglomerates of these particles, which amazingly are discernible to minds purified by profound stillness and attention in meditation. It is within the capacity of human minds. By the time physical beings came into being on this human plane and this planet in particular, the world was already very old.
The third eye can see molecules and particles?
And something preexisted it, a more subtle plane of the immaterial, the energetic, the abstract. These two domains are interdependent and not found apart except in the immaterial sphere (arupa loka). Between the extremes of that immaterial sphere (a set of four rarefied worlds somewhat like places of Platonic forms) and our sensual sphere (kama loka), there is a third sphere of subtle form (rupa loka).
The 31 Planes of Existence (and more)
From the sensual to the fine-material to the immaterial (formless) there are planes of rebirth. All 31 Planes of Existence within these three spheres are reached by karma, in particular the tremendously weighty karma of meditative absorption (the jhanas). It is because one gained, developed, and mastered the four formless attainments that rebirth is possible in those worlds in accordance with that attainment.
Because of gaining, developing, and mastering the four form attainments, rebirth is possible in the fine-material sphere or "heavens" (sagga).
Otherwise, skillful karma (good, profitable, beneficial action of mind, speech, and body) leads to welcome states in our sensual sphere, which is replete with sensual heavens far superior to the pleasures possible for humans experiencing bliss on the human plane. But here within this lowest and densest of the three spheres, we have worlds of great suffering of seemingly interminable duration.
Science says earth's organic life began with impersonal amino acids (star dust) and energy.
If a kalapa is an "atom," does it look like one? No. It is fast and resembles a dying ember.
The IVC had nuclear bombs long before the USA
It might be alright, tolerable, and sufferable to do a misdeed here, expressing some harmful intention in an ill-done deed, and as a result be reborn as an animal and then come back to the human plane. That might be alright. It might seem horribly disproportionate to what we did -- let's say steal a bunch of food and hog it down like a certain kind of animal. But this is not what happen. The results are far worse because once someone falls in the "great waste" or "downfall" (niraya), it is not clear when one will emerge from those worlds.
Instead, one revolves and turns, going from worse to worse to worse in accordance with our karma (our "just desserts"). The Buddha made this point particularly clear in one sutra where he speaks of going from bright to bright worlds, bright to dark worlds, or dark to dark worlds. Imagine one is born in poverty in the human world on account of past greed and an unwillingness to share.
Ancient IVC = Indus Valley Civilization
Then, still suffering form that active form of greed, one gets in trouble in the human world, engages in unskillful karma, and as a result is reborn in a subhuman world. From there, with the possibility of doing any skillful karma but instead feeling a necessity to engage in more and more unskillful karma to "survive" or get by, one inherits the result of new misdeeds and plunges into more trouble and misery.
This having happened, what is the chance of turning it around and emerging out of this abyss or downfall? It is not likely, and when it eventually happens (as it will because these worlds are not eternal), it will be because of some past skillful deed finally fortuitously coming to fruit and providing an opportunity.
Having come out and being reborn a human again? What is most likely to happen? Habit is likely to draw one back into the entire morass of all that previous suffering. We don't learn very well, and the universe is not trying to "teach" us anymore than a branch reaches out to scratch us or a fire leaps to burn us. Thorn and flame are there; we bump them. They do not attack back for our bump. The bump merely bears a result.
I like sex, so I married a rich 16-year-old and took her from the UK to US to start a cult.
.
Who needs wisdom? You got crazy
This is quoted beautifully in The Tibetan Book of the Dead by Sixties sex guru Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche a beloved former lama (shyster, fraud, and sex abuser) caught up in the delights of our Western world. I bought the whole crumby book thinking there would be more gems in it like this, presented as if Rinpoche had come up with this brilliance. But it is the poetic product of Portia Nelson that, if memory serves (and it does not), runs something like this in the book:
"There's a Hole in My Sidewalk: Autobiography in Five Short Chapters" (Portia Nelson).
What about the symbolism on Buddhist temple walls? This is an oversimplified version of the 31 Planes of Existence as Six Worlds (devas, asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, hellions)
.
Not only do those subtle physical heavens exist, but there are also lower subhuman states -- the planes of animals, ghosts, shapeshifting spirits, monsters (ogres, ghouls), demons (demigods), and hellions.
These may seem unbelievable to us, just as for many the idea of any kind of "heaven" is silly. But as American Theravada scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed out (As It Is), does it not make sense that there would be worlds for experiencing the results of deeds good and ill?
What are the Four Elements?
All of these things and places pre-existed the "beginning." Why? The beginning we speak of is the one we can see, the one that would have taken place in this world. But this world is just one of countless similar worlds all within the human plane (manussya loka). So to speak of the beginning is a flaw pursuit. We are already on shaky boards. There was already warmth, sky, ground, and the deep. There were already the Four Elements or the 14 specific characteristics of our tangible materiality.
When we imagine the theory of the Four Elements (earth, wind, fire, water) is an antiquated notion easily replaced by our modern Periodic Table of Elements, it is only because we do not understand the former, and we assume the latter is stable when it is actually fluctuating and hurtling toward replacement all the time.
Earth Element: solidity, heaviness (teeth, bones, hair, flesh in the body)
Water Element: liquidity, cohesion (mucus, blood, spit, sweat)
Fire Element: temperature (heat, warmth, cool, cold)
The Buddha did not come along and say, "Oh, yes, this old theory of there being Four Elements, that's correct." People by then did not understand the theory in detail, so he either restored it to what it originally meant or refined it to give an accurate explanation using the archaic terms.
For example, let is look at "fire." As a mahadhuta or great element, it does not mean the symbol 🔥 representing a burning flame. A burning flame is a symbol representing it, and what is it? It is temperature. What is temperature (tejo)?
Unique flow of info IDed in the human brain
It is cold as well as heat and includes chemical fire such as we see in digestion (dissolving, dissolution, breaking apart). This need not stay at an abstract level of belief and categorization; in the practice of Four Elements Meditation (💩🔥💧💨), we see it directly and know it intimately. All of the characteristics of matter are brought into consciousness and made very noticeable, just as the breath grows more and more subtle and is known more and more clearly with practice of stillness and attention (samma-samadhi, which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path).
A successful meditator can SEE a kalapa? Yes. How? These particles are fast, very fast, arising, turning, and falling away in a finger snap. They are too fast to see. However, and this is a big however, human perception is such that it is recorded in the seat of consciousness near the heart.
If a successful meditator looks down, there's a greenish mirror of sorts. This reflects what has been perceived. While the active kalapa is far too rapid to discern, the "tape" or trace of it recorded by perception can be review. In the review, the particle can be slowed down, making it discernible. This is one secret why a knowledgeable and experienced guide is necessary. One would not stumble on this problem and find a solution by chance.
We are humans and rely on culture, and culture means handing down knowledge. The Buddha is the best friend we have (utilizing the idea of Buddhist "noble friendship," kalyāṇa-mittatā, because he made known how he awoke, and others awoke, and all of those awakened in any of the four major phases of awakening became the Noble Sangha, the community of enlightened practitioners). Learning the Dharma (Dhamma) from these individuals.
THEREFORE, none of the aforementioned is a "theory" for science to decide on. It is an outline of what happens already, what works already, what others have done already. There are awakened people in the world, not all of them Buddhist monastics, all of them practitioners of these sorts of things. The Buddha was like a candle, giving rise to countless other candles in the world. THESE THINGS ARE ALL PERSONALLY VERIFIABLE.
But that would take individual initiative and effort, first finding a teacher who can actually teach these things just as the historical Buddha did. (They exist in the Year 2024. Contact us, and we will point some out).
How did life begin?
All of these things can be known-and-seen
If all the inanimate elements were present, and if the immaterial energies or the formless intelligence, structure, or "software" were present, all that had to happen was the merging of the two. They are, after all, interdependent. One does not exist without the other.
When DOES it all begin? This might be a better question. This weekend we were out in the woodlands above Los Angeles learning survival skills with the School of Self-Reliance. It is revelation to have the wisdom of the Native Americans handed down to us and our urban-suburban mindsets. The ancients were very clever and efficient.
The surprise came when we tried figuring out how to make a net out of simple cordage, yarn, fibrous strings rolled up in a spindle. Well, there's no way to do. It's like trying to connect some points within in box without lifting the pencil. (The secret is always to "think outside the box"). If one does, one suddenly sees a way, has an aha moment.
Abhidhamma (Sayalay Susila, Dhr. Seven)
The instructor and nature guide Christopher took a length of string and cut it. That was the first aha. We're making a net, yet we cut the string? Yes. He tied both ends to two twin coastal live oak trees (which are going extinct after thousands of years because of chemtrail corruption and artificial drought but being blamed on the cleanup crew, the oak beetle, that takes out sick trees).
Then he cut more lengths. That was the second aha. (We had been trying to imagine a way of weaving the one string into itself to form a basket of loops like a bunch of fancy Celtic knots). Then he had us tie lengths of string to the line tied to the tree. This can also be done with a circle armature by taking a supple branch and making a basketball hoop then tying down from there, which is good for skirt making and anything requiring a closed basket like pattern.
Does the West have any idea?
The final aha came when we began tying simple knots into the hanging strings, taking one side and tying it to the next. That's when the big AHA hit us. Once a netmaker starts doing this, there suddenly is no beginning and no end. But there is a beginning! That first knot! But that "knot" didn't come from nowhere and nothing. It came from all the non-knot things (string and structure, pattern and pulpy material). There is actually no "knot" (in an ultimate or philosophical sense) because there, when we analyze it, are actually only two things -- the material and the metaphysical, neither of which are the "knot."
See the new bear knot for a demonstration of this magic trick, this very useful camping, survival, and construction technique in rope use and knotting, recently released on TikTok.
This wise Western monk can explain in detail.
But when we combine the two, usher them into interdependence, suddenly we see "knot." That is to say, the illusion of "knot" arises. The knot is unreal, but it has form and function. It is easily returned to the unreal when undone. Nothing new actually comes into being. Nothing is born. What was there is still there.
What was there? In the beginning, there was the material (Four Elements or characteristics of matter in varying degrees to make every other physical things). And there was the metaphysical, the pattern, the design, the intelligence, the immaterial, the software, the idea, the "name" if you will. In ancient times these two were known as nama-rupa, "name and form." Name is mind, and form is body (or the physical inanimate thing that becomes animated by the formless thing, in a manner of speaking).
How does any "thing" (dhamma) come to be? The Buddha had a very, very profound explanation of this. All things are Dependently Originated. (They may be no thing, but they are not nothing). And if we say to anyone that there is no "knot," or no "self," or no "ego," they will necessarily misunderstand what this means.
For those with a greedy (lobha-type) nature, it will seem that there must be a merging with the eternal and clinging to it;
For those with a hate (dosa-type) nature, it will seem that there must be an annihilation or separation from the eternal and rejecting it;
For those with a deluded (moha-type) nature, it will seem uncertain, unknowable, doubtful, confusing.
All explained in detail (Sayalay Susila)
But it's actually knowable and answerable. IF a "knot" indeed comes into actual existence when tied, then where does "it" go when untied? Does it go into the eternal, the world of Platonic forms, that is, the immaterial world of ideas, names, software, the mystical Judeo-Christian logos? (In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was good, God, Good god, gawdammit? What was the first word? Om (🕉️). Why?
Because this whole universe, the world we see and the unseen world behind what we see, is vibrating at varying frequencies. So all that is seen and experienced is a sort of binary of on-off (1-0) in endlessly varying degrees and quantities, magnitudes and tones, and if one listens very carefully, one can hear or at least imagine that one hears the hum of the universe. This mechanism, vast and spread out, is revolving and doing something, and that is making a low hum sound. What does it sound like? Listen. It sounds like aummmmmmmm. (To Catholic and Christian ears, it may sound like this, A'mennnnnnnnnn).
Is this the logos (word) Judeo-Christians mean?
Or does "it" go to nothingness, the abyss, emptiness, annihilation, the dark?
It doesn't "go" anywhere. What was there before is still there (name and form); what was never there (the thing, in this case the knot) is still not there. So it does not go away and it does not return, but it sure seems like it does.
Are we light like devas (shining ones)?
So what does it do? It manifests or does not. It is seen or remains unseen. The software works its magic on the hardware, and the hardware reflects the magic and limitations of the software. This happens interdependently so that the limitations and magic of the hardware are also revealed by the software. (E.g., if we want to run up a rocky hill, we might be able to, given the will and a body that does not wear out or crash. All the wanting won't make it so if the body gives out, and all the perfection of the body will not make it so if the will is not present, obviously).
Help, Alan Watts!
Everything's a verb; nothing's a noun.
Each thing, every thing, arises dependent on other things. What other things? Its constituents. Therefore, in this way, paradoxically, it (the actual thing) does not arise; there is just what there was before (the constituents and the pattern), but now they are functionally integrated and so give the illusion of something new coming into being. This is what there is: an illusion (maya) has come into being. What will go out of being at death? The illusion will go out. Where will it go? It will go back to potential rather than manifested. One can go into physics and sound all too metaphysical. But this is actually quite simple and self-evident and can be proven in an instant. Alan Watts pointed this out: Take your hand, open it wide, and look at your palm. Now make a fist. Where did the hand go?
It's right there, same as before.
Yes, but now there's a "fist." ✊
(Open the hand). No, there isn't. 🤚
(Ball the hand). Yes, there is. Look! ✊
Ah, yes, that thing.
Yes, it's a fist. ✊
So a "fist" came into existence just now?
Yes, obviously.
It looks like a hand (palm-hub, radiating fingers, wrist, muscles, skin, blood, bones...), the same as before.
Yeah, but now it's a "fist."
But when you open it, it's a "wave."
(Open it). It's a wave!
(Ball it). It's a fist!
What's going on?
A "fist" is just what we call the functional integration of these elements (palm, fingers, etc.) in this way (pattern). In another way, it's a "wave."
What defines it?
Interestingly, Watts had the genius to realize long ago, it's NOT a thing but rather a process.
Huh?
When it's waving, we call it a wave. When it's fisting (balling up into a fist), we call it a "fist." When it's handing, we call it a hand....
But isn't it?
Sure, conventionally speaking, but ultimately of course it's not. It's always just a hand (handing) -- a hand being defined by what it's doing.
But what is a "hand"?
It's a thing (constituent amalgam)` that is handing, that is all these mudras (hand poses)
So what are we? I'm a "being," you're a "being," right?
We're always in flux, transforming, decaying, perishing, hurtling toward destruction, even when we're birthing, surviving, growing...like this wave, falling away, becoming a fist, falling away, becoming a wave (waving goodbye), just a hand, handing, falling away.
Oh yeah. I guess maybe that's what the Buddha meant when he emphasized impermanence (anicca)?
Yes! There's no static "being" here, but what there is (the Five Aggregates clung to as self) is always becoming, turning, morphing, changing, falling away, rearising, endlessly. This is samsara, the endless cycling. We're usually too busy to ever notice. But a little stillness, or even an attempt at stillness (samadhi) reveals it.
But isn't a "fist" real? Say yes, or I'll punch you. 👊
Yes. Of course, it's real on a certain level, the day to day, in the conventional way of speaking.
What else is there but the conventional way of speaking?
Unclench your fist and I'll tell you.
Oh, sorry. 🙇♂️
There's the ultimate (paramatha), of course, as in what is it really?
But it's not really a "fist"?
No, it's just a hand fisting. And when it's chopping, we call it a "chopper" (thing that chops), or a slapper (slapping), or a clapper (clapping), or a wiper (wiping), or a poker (poking)... 👃
Oh yeah, huh?
Yeah.
Help, Thich Nhat Hanh!
The simpler one makes it, the better (Thay).
The late great Thich Nhat Hanh said this in a much prettier way when he observed one day on tour, coming through Pasadena, California, and stopping at the Convention Center. Jeff and I were there to see what greatness he would evince, what pearl of wisdom he would utter. He didn't say much of anything. But he did say this. He pulled out a bag of rocks being sold or given to kids to meditate with at Plum Village in France. We have Deer Park here in Southern California, and I didn't see this bag of pebbles for sale, though I imagine they must have been available somewhere. And taking out a pebble at a time, there was a word on it to reflect on. As I pulled my eyes back down because they were rolling too much and someone might see, Thay (Ven. Hanh) said something profound. It caught me by surprise.
He asked, "Did you ever notice that clouds are made completely out of non-cloud elements?" Huh? Well, ground water is not a "cloud," and heat is not a "cloud," and the mysterious process of condensation is not a "cloud," and altitude is not a "cloud," and "white" or "blue" or "fluff" is not a cloud. BUT when these merge, what arises but a "cloud"? Or the illusion "cloud" seems to come into being, arise, appear. It's just the name given by the mind to the functional integration of all these constituent factors, the elements. I wasn't sure he knew what he had just said.
No Mud, No Lotus (Thay)
Fortunately, he immediately gave another example to prove he had. He asked, "Did you ever notice that flowers are made completely of non-flower elements?" There's mud and fertilizer (very anti-flowery dung and watery dirt), the seed, the sun, the heat, the season, all this and more. Then they all come together when the conditions are "right" (and we'll call them "right" after the fact then try to assemble them again for it to happen again). For what to happen again? Flower(ing). Look at the flower, its beautifully scented, delicately structured transience. Is it mud? There's no trace of mud that was so important to its birth. Is it dung? Doesn't smell like it. Is it water? It's not water but there must be water in it, wet yet dry to the touch...it's clearly not water. Is it air? It's airy or must have air in it, but it's not air. Is it color? It has color but clearly is not the color itself. Is it any of these things of which it is made? No, not as such, yet there's nothing else here but the immaterial stuff, the structure, the pattern, the math, the sort of invisible parts. Did Thay think up this example? It was almost worth waiting around in there looking at "now" watches to hear just this one example.
Back to the point, the final and biggest aha: When one gets to the stage of making the first knot (assuming the previous things were not knots when they probably were, tying to the tree and hanging the strands of string down from the first line), one grabs any strand and ties it to the strand next to it.
Seemingly out of nowhere, a "net" starts to emerge. It starts to arise. It starts to appear.
Because there has been a net existing before (somewhere in the netmaker's past or mind or schooling), the net is actually reemerging, rearising, reappearing, and for this reason all birth is rebirth, patisandhi, not a first birth.
Where is the beginning? It cannot be found, and it doesn't matter. It is not apparent in the net. It is not "right" to say it began with this knot (even though we marked it so we would be able to say with certainty that it was this one) because it is very unsatisfying. There is a net of many identical knots all strung together, and that's the beginning? Why, how, who says so? The point is, it is not obvious in the data, in the tangible, observable, sensible field of perception. There's no reason why that one is or should be the first, but it is, and the real question is not "What was the beginning?" but, What preceded the beginning? What gave rise to that? As we have seen, there were many beginnings, many things setting up before a net came into illusory being, but once it started, there it is rolling along.
SOLUTION: A better simile might be the convective power of water drawn through a hose. Cause low pressure in the hose by blowing or sucking on it, and water starts to come through all on its own. Now place the other end of the hose into the tank being sucked out, and when will it end? When did it begin? As soon as the loop completes, the question doesn't make sense. That is to say, it becomes meaningless. What we want is not a first point but a better explanation to, Why? What for? To what end? What is the purpose of life. And for that, Buddhism has an answer. But people aren't going to like it. It doesn't satisfy. What if all this were just for its own sake, just impersonal phenomena rolling along, things clinging to themselves as the fundamental attachment causing all of this strife, worry, dread, and longing for eternal life or endless anything? If ending is the problem, then not-ending must be the solution. This sounds logical, perfect, but it is incorrect. The real solution would be not to start. Bringing the process to an end, if it does not rearise then there's no problem. We dread this solution because what about all the aspects of the illusion we like? Are we to lose those? You propose to take away our illusion(s)? Told ya you wouldn't like it. Awaken to the Truth; it's much better.
Buddhism likes science because both attempt to explain the world. Ask the Dalai Lama.
And having been born (not really), it will die (not really). It will not do these things, because it itself in an ultimate sense did not exist, does not exist, and will not exist, but the illusion that arose, that did come into being, that does carry on for awhile, and that does "die" or come to an end until it is arises again.
This is how life began. For details on how life began in this world (on this planet if this is a spinning planet and not a stationary platform much bigger than what we are shown with a hollow center of other levels as described in Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain cosmologies since ancient times) this time around, see the Agganna Suttaor "A Buddhist Genesis" a discourse on "Knowledgeof Beginnings."
The Buddha leaves out what was stated here and begins with a preexisting world and the subtle light beings (or, according to at least one sagacious scholar, Dr. Sugunasiri, Ph.D., light beams) that alighted on it, became coarse, and lost their subtle abilities, becoming denser and denser, in accordance with karma (habits) of the past reemerging again in a new cycle.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
%20sayalay%20anutara%20pa%20auk%20forest%20monastery%20WQ.jpg)
