God interacting with humans.

[BigSkyDiamond]

13 minutes ago, Lairg said:

Is that a half-remembering?

 

recognized.  I have recognized who and what i am, and the need to get out and return.

And at another level i've already returned.  And at another level i never left.

 

It can happen in an instant, in the blink of an eye.

 

i am keeping it close, holding it near and dear, something you wrote earlier

"So I raised my consciousness to a higher plane and was beyond the problem" (when you were stuck in the envelope).  what did that entail, how did you do it, what steps were used?

 

 

Edited June 23 by BigSkyDiamond

[manitou]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Where have YOU been    !  ?        (Did you miss me too ?   )   

 

How I have missed your often 'common sense '  .   

 

We should have dinner together  .... I suggest  misteka veggie enchiladas

 

 

I think veggies would be a misteka with enchiladas.

 

Yes, I have missed you too,  Nungers.

[Lairg]

37 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

i am keeping it close, holding it near and dear, something you wrote earlier

"So I raised my consciousness to a higher plane and was beyond the problem" (when you were stuck in the envelope).  what did that entail, how did you do it, what steps were used?

 

Long ago, for a week each morning in meditation I was taught a new technique.  Rising on the planes was the first - and potentially the most important for spiritual science

 

I sent you a private link a few weeks ago

 

 

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

42 minutes ago, Lairg said:

 

Long ago, for a week each morning in meditation I was taught a new technique.  Rising on the planes was the first - and potentially the most important for spiritual science. I sent you a private link a few weeks ago

 

Thank you.  OK.  Time for me to step back, I'm spinning my wheels.  

I am hearing, "You have enough.  Use what you already have." So i will do that.

 

Edited June 23 by BigSkyDiamond

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

I think veggies would be a misteka with enchiladas.

 

  

 

2 hours ago, manitou said:

 

Yes, I have missed you too,  Nungers.

 

Ah yes ... and your pleasant wit  as well  !  

[stirling]

23 hours ago, manitou said:

I think it's helpful, for full understanding, not to look at a god as a separate being from us.  I don't think there's anything out there that would rather be aware of an interaction.  We are the whole enchilada.  This is what self realization is about - our true identity.  And to bring a devil into it is just plain silly.

 

So nice to see some posts from you here! _/\_

[Jadespear]

On 6/21/2025 at 12:44 PM, Krenx said:

 

It is to end craving/ the root of suffering. Complete understanding of the phenomena. The end of aging sickness and death. Never to be reborn again in the world. 

 

It is a superhuman feat.

 

So what is the sign that someone has completely understood phenomena? What is the qualities of measure? Kinds of practice, the key focus? This sutta describes it quite directly.  

 

(Topic might be shifting out of focus from original question. Mods might start reeling this one in.)

 

SN23.4

 

At Sāvatthī.

 

Then Venerable Rādha went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him:

 

“Rādha, I will teach you the things that should be completely understood, complete understanding, and the person who has completely understood. Listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.”

 

“Yes, sir,” Rādha replied. The Buddha said this:

 

“And what things should be completely understood? Form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. These are called the things that should be completely understood.

 

And what is complete understanding? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called complete understanding.

 

And what is the person who has completely understood? It should be said: a perfected one, the venerable of such and such name and clan. This is called the person who has completely understood.”

 

Thank you. 

 

So, said another way - nirvana is a state of being in harmony and engaged with only that which provides pleasure.  As, greed, hate, and delusion typically do not.  While the abolishment of these emotions may be a pre-qualification of being in or reaching "nirvana" - thats all they really are.  The problem I have with this way of thinking is that it is somewhat cyclical and based on relativities.  Negative emotions are a part of life, albeit not pleasant.  I experience nirvana when in communion with the absolute.  What hindus call bliss.  Which is what Im pretty sure the Buddha referred to as well, as he learned meditation and everything from hindu/vedic sages.  Which is why the saying is true from the Bhagavad Gita - "pure awareness of consciousness produces infinite joy".  To me, as I understand it - "nirvana" and "infinite joy" are the same thing.   

 

I'm sorry - I don't see a way to logically agree with the aim of ending reincarnation.  Apparently from some stories of spirituality, even high angels / gods feel sadness, etc.  So, no matter where you go in the Universe - all the good and bad still exists in potential.  Therefore, it's impossible to negate it entirely...  not saying the effort isn't worthwhile and positive.  I totally believe in the value and worth of being a positive person.  I could be totally wrong, but it seems to me that buddhists believe in "ending reincarnation" on Earth.  They totally believe in "re-birth" into another realm... the so called "pure lands" etc etc.  Which is basically the same belief and reasons why they promote the embrace of virtues - as what qualities one reinforced in themselves mentally emotionally - influence where one goes upon death.   The concept of reincarnation from ancient times seems to be limited to people actually believing that when people died they became other creatures on Earth... it seems like that is the so-called "cycle of birth and death" they are always trying to escape from.  Why else would buddhist scriptures espouse beautiful places in the afterlife that sound like heavens?  They are all basically simply an attempt to rise above the perceived drudgery and lack of happy existence on Earth.  Which is why - the hindus proclaim that such assertions may be true, that life here isn't as good as the next place, BUT - that doesn't mean that you have to wait until you die to experience it.  Thats why they proclaim the beauty of life in the here and now.  In the here and now - on Earth, in a pure land, in a hell, in the middle of nowhere - is the only thing true, the only thing to rely on for supreme and everlasting happiness.  That is what "niravana" is to me...  the joy that eternally emanates from the source, the tao, or the absolute.   The buddha didn't seem to proclaim it as such, because he probably believed that when it was discovered its significance was more impactful than if talked about and proclaimed as an authority....  but the Buddha still proclaimed himself as an authority - but only on the "way" to perceive inwardly and outwardly.  

[Jadespear]

On 6/21/2025 at 5:28 PM, Nungali said:

 

 

That sentiment is one I have often commented on . I see it like this- to put it simply  ;

 

Some traditions seek enlightenment in order to retire in contemplation . Others seek it to better full fill their life's work and mission here .  For example in the old Sufi tradition , if you were a brick layer and devoted yourself to spirituality  as well , then  when you achieved enlightenment  you would become an enlightened brick layer  and contribute your insight and genius to society .  Nothing would stop you from observing , commenting , teaching others .... maybe the enlightened brick layer would lecture in the mosque . 

 

I watched one once , busily laying brick after brick . he was asked about the plan and design . There wasn't one , he sorta 'chanelled it' as he went along  - intuitively   .  He was asked how he knew if what he was building would be suitable for the clients taste . That wasn't a problem as he knew them , he knew everyone in the town , their likes dislikes and way they wanted to live ... intuitively, and it came out brick by brick 'in the moment '.

 

Or a tiler . They work differently getting deeply involved in design , using 'sacred geometry '   and conscious calculations .

 

These type of arts are mostly lost  , but their beautiful work remains in some places .  As an architect once said ; ' A Great Architect is one that knows how to design houses that make the people that live in them feel good and happy  and healthy and allows their particular lifestyle to function well . A bad architect is one  that , no matter how he is acclaimed , no matter how much money or fame he has accrued , has to have his building torn down after 20 years as its ineffeciant, unhealthy u functional and did not make people happy .'   Yeah ! 

 

 

 

- another thing I note .  Some people think  'siddhis' are the aim of magic  .  They understand that they are not the end aim in eastern systems  ( even though some think they are , say they are , and practice as if they are , in those systems  ) yet can not seem to envision the aim of  western Magick   beyond the manifestation of 'powers' or siddhis .  

 

probably due to the issue that magic suffered a lot of ignorant input during the Middle Ages and at other times . Just like the eastern traditions suffered ignorant input and practitioners  at certain times ,  and both still suffer that from current practitioners . 

 

Thank you Nungali. 

 

Yes regarding "siddhi" - I've also heard that if someone does not experience some form of siddhi as in a spiritual experience, or a yogic union of sorts that causes effects... then its a sign that they have not yet reached a certain level of meditation.  Which makes sense...because the word "siddhi" literally means - "accomplishment".  What is commonly understood as miraculous or occult or magic is nothing more than the arisen effect initiated by one who has accomplished reaching or being in union with (temporarily) the causal sphere ( the tao, the source, the absolute, whatever).  Which makes sense to me when hearing about all the phrasing of "attain the tao", or "one with god" or "conquer the all", or "flow with the tao".  If one does not reach the tao in such a deliberate way - no accomplishment  or siddhi will ever occur.  So the things that happen are basically side-effects that point towards a synthesis of oneself with the all - what mystics call, "the mystic death".  Buddhists call it "ego death".  Etc etc.  

[Nungali]

There are other types  of other similar dynamics . Certain people have certain 'things' or powers happening around them . They are not siddhis as these people never did any training or practice like that .  It seems 'ingrained'  ... they 'come with something '   (meaning when they develop they seem to have certain powers pre programmed .

 

I assume it comes from 'past life; work or via genetic inheritance .   I had a GF years back that seemed to be able to manifest anything she needed , it was very magical to watch that .... she would never use it for money though and believed that was wrong and would disrupt her 'gift ' ... she never practiced any sort of magic yoga or meditation .  ( That I know of , or on 'this plane'    )  

 

Then there is yet another whole different side again to it ... and its the most successful and simple of just about anything I have encountered  .... its something taught to me by my indigenous teacher . Yet again  this depends on 'what has gone on before ' . 

 

Its like ; imagine a monk in a monastery , he has been doing all the practices and meditating and studying for years ... and observing nature and the seasons and learning from that .  One day , when all this comes to a head , just at the right moment in the monks 'pre-realisation'  .. just as the energies are right and the stars have aligned , the head monk ( who has realized all this ) walks past the other and clonks him on the head with a stick ....   !   ...... the monk gets a major realization . 

 

But if head monk walks down the road and hits a random person on the head with a stick .....  nothing .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jadespear]

On 6/18/2025 at 2:21 PM, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

no it is not just semantics.  and no it is not just another word for the same thing.  That would make for a good thread topic, for those who seek to (a) clarify explore understand the difference between magic and divinity, and (b) differentiate between them.  just like there is a difference between big G "God" and little g "gods."

 

It would be interesting to hear from many who may be on a variety of paths, regarding their own frames of reference.  My understanding (frame of reference) is that magic is not a path to divinity.  Rather it is an obstacle, barrier, impediment.  Since this thread topic is "God interacting with humans" a different thread might prevent it from going too far off topic.  On the other hand, anyone whose path includes God, then those views on magic are relevant to the topic.  As it relates to "God interacting with humans"

 

 

 

 

I think it's the opposite.  There is no way to literally understand divinity in comprehensible terms unless you understand existence.  Albeit, yes - there is "wisdom" that we all have that isn't dependent on perception, but intuition - which is based in the divine.  But for the sake of this topic "magic" is basically referred to as the literal "knowledge".   Not sorcery and conjuring spirits in the middle of the night...  If you actually believe in divinity, then is it not presupposed that all things come from it?  Therefore to endeavor to understand "all the things" - I.e. magic is the literal path of understanding everything one step at a time, where each new piece of information adds to the previous - thus in the end adding up to the eventual complete understanding.  It could be compared to "enlightenment of the observable universe and how it operates".  Which is why high level adepts performed miraculous and magical feats to demonstrate their understanding... Jesus miracles, buddha miracles, etc etc etc.  

 

Jewish Kabbalah is a way that instructs one to gradually walk this way of knowledge on approach of divinity.  Which is why Jewish priests could and can perform "magic".  Which is why Moses parted the Red Sea with a magic staff, etc etc Which is also why Jesus is always largely depicted in pictures with his hands in Mudra shape.  True Magic is the absolute science of the law, deeply protected and used only for noble purposes by those who are sincere in their understanding and embrace of it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

19 minutes ago, Jadespear said:

 

I think it's the opposite.  There is no way to literally understand divinity in comprehensible terms unless you understand existence.  Albeit, yes - there is "wisdom" that we all have that isn't dependent on perception, but intuition - which is based in the divine.  But for the sake of this topic "magic" is basically referred to as the literal "knowledge".   Not sorcery and conjuring spirits in the middle of the night...  If you actually believe in divinity, then is it not presupposed that all things come from it?  Therefore to endeavor to understand "all the things" - I.e. magic is the literal path of understanding everything one step at a time, where each new piece of information adds to the previous - thus in the end adding up to the eventual complete understanding.  It could be compared to "enlightenment of the observable universe and how it operates".  Which is why high level adepts performed miraculous and magical feats to demonstrate their understanding... Jesus miracles, buddha miracles, etc etc etc.  

 

 

 

I don't see how magic can be 'eliminated' from the thread topic . If one is going to get all  'specific' about that  then any   thing   that reaches out to the divine or even creation is off topic .

 

If this thread is strictly about the title ... then it is absolute hubris  as it asking US how God deals with us, not how we deal with God . 

 

Which is why I like your  ; 

 

" There is no way to literally understand divinity in comprehensible terms unless you understand existence. " 

 

I would shorten that ; 

 

There is no way to literally understand divinity . 

 

I agree about studying and experiencing 'all' things that come from it .

 

Its the 'white school' of acceptance ; we chose to incarnate to experience this life and lessons - embrace and enjoy that  and get full involvement while you can . 

 

The Black school is one of denial , we were somehow forced or cast down or fell here ... its  bad and wrong and full of bad things that lead you away from  another type of life  back were you came from , the way to get back there is to deny and not be involved with a lot of the reality of life . 

 

Edited June 24 by Nungali

[Jadespear]

Thanks Nungali. 

 

Yes, I agree.  I like how you nicely paraphrased the subject both ways... god reaching out to us, and us reaching out to god.  

 

Honestly, isn't it strange that people even pre-suppose that they came from somewhere "else"... I mean... here we are.  Lay people believe in the afterlife, etc. but they don't know it.  Seems rather foolish to embrace your defined "black school", when it only makes life harder to bear than it already is... perpetual angst on top of survival?  No thanks.  I'll take the white school,  accept, learn,  & rise.  

[Krenx]

14 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 I experience nirvana when in communion with the absolute.  What hindus call bliss.  Which is what Im pretty sure the Buddha referred to as well, as he learned meditation and everything from hindu/vedic sages.  Which is why the saying is true from the Bhagavad Gita - "pure awareness of consciousness produces infinite joy".  To me, as I understand it - "nirvana" and "infinite joy" are the same thing.   

 

 

The buddha mentioned many blissful and peaceful experiences in his past experiences in his past lives, as well as his life as an ascetic before he became a buddha. He talked about the various blissful meditation "jhana" states he achieved/ experienced, but had enough wisdom to realize it was not the end suffering, there was still "liability" for suffering that existed, which was suffering. Those attainments were not small feats, because if sustained, it would have led him to heavenly realms for a long time.

But when he became the Buddha, he explained there are two types of Jhana. Worldy jhanas, and the jhanas with the dhamma as a basis. And the jhana of the noble ones that the buddha recommends, leads to nibbana. It has a different flavour.

That difference is subtle experientially for many, that is why many ascetics and monks mistaken their meditative achievements as the end of the path. Because it is so sublime and blissful. Similar to how many devas live in conditions with very little suffering, so most do not have any interest in continuing to deepen their progress. 

 

Quote

Apparently from some stories of spirituality, even high angels / gods feel sadness, etc.

 

This is true. Devas when coming to the end of their lives, start to experience signs of their luster depreciate, as they get close to exhaustion of their merits, leading some of  them to lower realms. And lower devas also go to war with asuras. So devas are in many ways like humans in various experiences. 

 

Let me just list out some points that are relevant to your assumptions, which should help clarify them.

There are four levels/stages of enlightenment. Sotapanna, anagami, Sakadegami, Arahant.

Sotapanna (stream enterer):

• Someone who has right view. And their conduct, understanding on the dhamma reflects as such. 

• They will have 7 more lifetimes maximum before full enlightenment. 7 more meaning it could be less than 7, and could be human realm rebirth, or a mixture with heavenly realms. It depends on the individual’s kamma, how far along they are on he path etc. 

• From this point, the noble ones (Those within the 4 levels of enlightenment) will never be reborn into the lower realms. Because they will not be inclined to commit kamma heavy enough for that. 

Sakadagami (Once returner):

• For a sakadagami, as the name states, they return to the human realm one last time to become arahants. 

Anagami (Non returner):

• The Anagami does not return. To the sensual realms. Upon death, they are reborn in the pure abode heavens, and transition to final nibbana from there.
• The Mahayana’s idea of “pure lands”, its conditions, are NOT the same as the early buddhist/ theravada idea of the “pure abodes”. The same terms might be similarly adopted, but it is defined by basically different religions. Good to keep them separate. 

Arahant: 

• This being is fully enlightened, and upon the breaking up of their body in this life, they will reach final nibbana, never to be reborn again. 
   

Quote

Why else would buddhist scriptures espouse beautiful places in the afterlife that sound like heavens?  They are all basically simply an attempt to rise above the perceived drudgery and lack of happy existence on Earth.

 

The Buddha is actually quite clear about how heavenly realms are still part of samsara, the “world”. He uses the realms to convey “direction”. Which direction good deeds incline a person towards, and where bad deeds incline to. Using these things as a reference point to set up the practitioner’s chance of success.

Because practically speaking, in the woeful realms (Hell, animal, ghost), the dhamma cannot be seen or practiced. There is too much confusion and suffering there, and it is just a place to exhaust bad kamma.

It is only in the human realm and heavenly realms that the dhamma can be found and learned. And it is actually in the human realm where MOST of the work is actually done on the path. The human realm is special that way. This is why a buddha always appears in the human realm. Because the body of spiritual work is here. The woeful realms, and heavenly realms, are often a place to exhaust kamma.
 

Quote

the Buddha still proclaimed himself as an authority

 

It is not a proclamation he made for any “Strategic” reasons. He realized he was the only one in the universe while he was alive that had this knowledge of the dhamma. From recollection, he realized that every buddha before him, held this same dhamma knowledge. And when there are no buddhas in the world, he explains there were pachekka buddhas, who were beings who discovered the dhamma on their own, but remained in solitude. He knows all this, explained it. So when he declared he was the one who re-discovered the dhamma in the world, it was more a matter of fact. A fact people could verify themselves by learning about it, and comparing it with other kinds of doctrines in the world, and see if they share the same flavour. The dhamma that is re-discovered by a buddha is unique. People may not agree with the dhamma the buddha taught, but they can agree that the essence and it's end goal, is unlike any other teachings. 
 

So from these points, you can see that knowledge is used to orient “direction”. And that direction eventually leads to dispassion of the entire world itself. After all, you cannot put down what you don’t know you’re holding onto. So understanding phenomena completely, seeing the root of suffering properly, you can finally abandon the right things, uproot craving. 

 

Edited June 25 by Krenx

[Jadespear]

12 hours ago, Krenx said:

 

 

The buddha mentioned many blissful and peaceful experiences in his past experiences in his past lives, as well as his life as an ascetic before he became a buddha. He talked about the various blissful meditation "jhana" states he achieved/ experienced, but had enough wisdom to realize it was not the end suffering, there was still "liability" for suffering that existed, which was suffering. Those attainments were not small feats, because if sustained, it would have led him to heavenly realms for a long time.

But when he became the Buddha, he explained there are two types of Jhana. Worldy jhanas, and the jhanas with the dhamma as a basis. And the jhana of the noble ones that the buddha recommends, leads to nibbana. It has a different flavour.

That difference is subtle experientially for many, that is why many ascetics and monks mistaken their meditative achievements as the end of the path. Because it is so sublime and blissful. Similar to how many devas live in conditions with very little suffering, so most do not have any interest in continuing to deepen their progress. 

 

 

This is true. Devas when coming to the end of their lives, start to experience signs of their luster depreciate, as they get close to exhaustion of their merits, leading some of  them to lower realms. And lower devas also go to war with asuras. So devas are in many ways like humans in various experiences. 

 

Let me just list out some points that are relevant to your assumptions, which should help clarify them.

There are four levels/stages of enlightenment. Sotapanna, anagami, Sakadegami, Arahant.

Sotapanna (stream enterer):

• Someone who has right view. And their conduct, understanding on the dhamma reflects as such. 

• They will have 7 more lifetimes maximum before full enlightenment. 7 more meaning it could be less than 7, and could be human realm rebirth, or a mixture with heavenly realms. It depends on the individual’s kamma, how far along they are on he path etc. 

• From this point, the noble ones (Those within the 4 levels of enlightenment) will never be reborn into the lower realms. Because they will not be inclined to commit kamma heavy enough for that. 

Sakadagami (Once returner):

• For a sakadagami, as the name states, they return to the human realm one last time to become arahants. 

Anagami (Non returner):

• The Anagami does not return. To the sensual realms. Upon death, they are reborn in the pure abode heavens, and transition to final nibbana from there.
• The Mahayana’s idea of “pure lands”, its conditions, are NOT the same as the early buddhist/ theravada idea of the “pure abodes”. The same terms might be similarly adopted, but it is defined by basically different religions. Good to keep them separate. 

Arahant: 

• This being is fully enlightened, and upon the breaking up of their body in this life, they will reach final nibbana, never to be reborn again. 
   

 

The Buddha is actually quite clear about how heavenly realms are still part of samsara, the “world”. He uses the realms to convey “direction”. Which direction good deeds incline a person towards, and where bad deeds incline to. Using these things as a reference point to set up the practitioner’s chance of success.

Because practically speaking, in the woeful realms (Hell, animal, ghost), the dhamma cannot be seen or practiced. There is too much confusion and suffering there, and it is just a place to exhaust bad kamma.

It is only in the human realm and heavenly realms that the dhamma can be found and learned. And it is actually in the human realm where MOST of the work is actually done on the path. The human realm is special that way. This is why a buddha always appears in the human realm. Because the body of spiritual work is here. The woeful realms, and heavenly realms, are often a place to exhaust kamma.
 

 

It is not a proclamation he made for any “Strategic” reasons. He realized he was the only one in the universe while he was alive that had this knowledge of the dhamma. From recollection, he realized that every buddha before him, held this same dhamma knowledge. And when there are no buddhas in the world, he explains there were pachekka buddhas, who were beings who discovered the dhamma on their own, but remained in solitude. He knows all this, explained it. So when he declared he was the one who re-discovered the dhamma in the world, it was more a matter of fact. A fact people could verify themselves by learning about it, and comparing it with other kinds of doctrines in the world, and see if they share the same flavour. The dhamma that is re-discovered by a buddha is unique. People may not agree with the dhamma the buddha taught, but they can agree that the essence and it's end goal, is unlike any other teachings. 
 

So from these points, you can see that knowledge is used to orient “direction”. And that direction eventually leads to dispassion of the entire world itself. After all, you cannot put down what you don’t know you’re holding onto. So understanding phenomena completely, seeing the root of suffering properly, you can finally abandon the right things, uproot craving. 

 

 

 

Ok, so yet again - what is nibbana or nirvana?  The literal meaning is lost to me... I understand that there can be different places with different conditions or surroundings or whatever you want to call it in existence...but thats all they are.  Nirvana is a place described as one with nothing, or a place of permanent residence?  Or what? 

 

It's too caught up in religious promise like all religions... be good, and reach everlasting happiness.  But for buddhists its what - become enlightened, reach everlasting nothingness?  And yet, how does becoming aware of things equal causation into said places?  That doesn't make sense.  Obviously one would have to literally know how to "get"there.  

 

I mean, I enjoy the buddhist perspective, its just that its all based on ones existence as being utterly terrible and worthless in the end... so much so that all effort is put into escaping all reality?  For what?  Some other reality? 

 

Robert Monroe reached a curious place in his afterlife travels as well, which he described as being supremely blissful.  He called it "home".  Yet, beings still get bored there.  

 

All the pre-determined rules are kinda laughable to me... considering that anyone at anytime can do whatever they want, i.e. meditate for the rest of their life if they wanted to.  And also, learn how to live forever.  

 

 

 

 

[Krenx]

2 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

Ok, so yet again - what is nibbana or nirvana?  

 

Oh. If that was the question, what nibbana is. Then to simply put it, it is the end of suffering. It is the end of birth, aging, sickness and death. It is the abandonment of this world.

 

The question surrounding "where" you go after final nibbana, do you exist, not exist, etc, an unanswerable question. It is not something you can intellectually or verbally explain while in the world. It is only to be experienced. But where you do NOT end up is clear. You cannot be found in the world anymore upon final nibbana. 

 

There seems to be  a lot of misunderstandings around Buddhism. This is not a criticism. This is normal and requires more clarification, even for myself before learning about what it really is. There is no live forever, meditating 24/7. The Buddha did not live forever, and often spent time spreading the dhamma. Not just meditate. 

 

And yes. The Buddha did explain devas do get restless. Suffer in various ways.

 

For what do buddhist practice? Because even if most of us cannot recall our past lives, the fact is we have been in this same old washing machine called samsara for a very very long time. All the suffering, and sense  pleasures we make great efforts to avoid, or seek, we been through it countless amounts of times. The same stories continue to unfold, the same questions we continue to ask. The same answers we get. If you understand the dhamma, you will see clear signs of this exhausting never ending vicious cycle called existence. 

 

If you start to develop the right kind of dispassion towards the world, the kind of relief from laying down the burden of craving is unlike anything else. 

 

We do not realise the kind of trap, drug of self, sense pleasure we are on, and how that craving slaves us through every decision in our lives. To start existing and acting in ways that are not out of craving,  is like existing in a totally different reality. 

 

Suffering is not good. When you suffer, you cause suffering too. And I don't think people understand how much suffering we are each responsible for, in this life, and previous lives. We can "try" to convince ourselves that suffering is okay. But our every behaviour and mental afflictions is screaming the fact that it is NOT okay, not good to suffer.

 

As I continue on the path of buddhism,  I start to see my past actions, harm I caused others and myself, and actually be able to get to the root of it and stop that harm, reduce suffering. I don't think you can call that meaningless. 

 

Buddhism is not for everyone. And there is quite some work involved to understand it. And that work involves alot of adjustment in behavior and lifestyle to uncover hidden defilements, resolve it, to be able to understand these things at a personal level. Best I can do is answer questions about it, clear up and misunderstandings about it. Take it as you see fit. 👍. 

Edited June 25 by Krenx

[Cobie]

 

19 hours ago, Nungali said:

… the 'white school' of acceptance ; we chose to incarnate to experience this life and lessons - embrace and enjoy that  and get full involvement while you can . 

 

The Black school is one of denial , we were somehow forced or cast down or fell here ... its  bad and wrong and full of bad things that lead you away from  another type of life  back were you came from , the way to get back there is to deny and not be involved with a lot of the reality of life . 

 

2 hours ago, Krenx said:

… what nibbana is. Then to simply put it, it is the end of suffering. It is the end of birth, aging, sickness and death. It is the abandonment of this world.

 

The question surrounding "where" you go after final nibbana, do you exist, not exist, etc, an unanswerable question. It is not something you can intellectually or verbally explain while in the world. It is only to be experienced. But where you do NOT end up is clear. You cannot be found in the world anymore upon final nibbana. …

 

@Nungali the belief in “nibbana”, is this “white school” or “black school”.  Or can these terms not be used for other traditions?

 

Edited June 25 by Cobie

[Jadespear]

6 hours ago, Krenx said:

 

Oh. If that was the question, what nibbana is. Then to simply put it, it is the end of suffering. It is the end of birth, aging, sickness and death. It is the abandonment of this world.

 

The question surrounding "where" you go after final nibbana, do you exist, not exist, etc, an unanswerable question. It is not something you can intellectually or verbally explain while in the world. It is only to be experienced. But where you do NOT end up is clear. You cannot be found in the world anymore upon final nibbana. 

 

There seems to be  a lot of misunderstandings around Buddhism. This is not a criticism. This is normal and requires more clarification, even for myself before learning about what it really is. There is no live forever, meditating 24/7. The Buddha did not live forever, and often spent time spreading the dhamma. Not just meditate. 

 

And yes. The Buddha did explain devas do get restless. Suffer in various ways.

 

For what do buddhist practice? Because even if most of us cannot recall our past lives, the fact is we have been in this same old washing machine called samsara for a very very long time. All the suffering, and sense  pleasures we make great efforts to avoid, or seek, we been through it countless amounts of times. The same stories continue to unfold, the same questions we continue to ask. The same answers we get. If you understand the dhamma, you will see clear signs of this exhausting never ending vicious cycle called existence. 

 

If you start to develop the right kind of dispassion towards the world, the kind of relief from laying down the burden of craving is unlike anything else. 

 

We do not realise the kind of trap, drug of self, sense pleasure we are on, and how that craving slaves us through every decision in our lives. To start existing and acting in ways that are not out of craving,  is like existing in a totally different reality. 

 

Suffering is not good. When you suffer, you cause suffering too. And I don't think people understand how much suffering we are each responsible for, in this life, and previous lives. We can "try" to convince ourselves that suffering is okay. But our every behaviour and mental afflictions is screaming the fact that it is NOT okay, not good to suffer.

 

As I continue on the path of buddhism,  I start to see my past actions, harm I caused others and myself, and actually be able to get to the root of it and stop that harm, reduce suffering. I don't think you can call that meaningless. 

 

Buddhism is not for everyone. And there is quite some work involved to understand it. And that work involves alot of adjustment in behavior and lifestyle to uncover hidden defilements, resolve it, to be able to understand these things at a personal level. Best I can do is answer questions about it, clear up and misunderstandings about it. Take it as you see fit. 👍. 

 

 

...right so I harken back to my previous claim.  "Nibbana" is a state of mind, or being.  What you are describing as the cessation of attitudes and habits is all it is... which is fine.  Actually is very good.  It makes sense literally, as the word "nibbana" means the extinguishment of something...  

 

Trust me, I've developed plenty of dispassion for the world and for striving towards ends.  

 

Thank you for the post.  But, has God ever reached out to you?  Thats what this thread was about.  

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

@Nungali the belief in “nibbana”, is this “white school” or “black school”.  Or can these terms not be used for other traditions?

 

 

That depends on your interpretation and adaption of that belief .  For example looking at the passage you cited  ; 

 

" ... what nibbana is. Then to simply put it, it is the end of suffering. It is the end of birth, aging, sickness and death. It is the abandonment of this world. "

 

When ones 'time' or 'cycles of incarnation' , on this plane / planet  are completed  then yes, that might be the end of birth aging sickness death and then if one 'went elsewhere'  then 'in a sense ' one  might seem to have abandoned  this world .   But abandoned smacks of rejection   and so I see it as tending towards the black.   Without that tendency another word can describe the process , something like 'transition'  from .    The 'black risk' is more in the denial of the experience while it is happening .  Also the overall purpose behind each view .   One could think of two people that you could potentially share a job with . One is happy to be there, wants to be there and do the work . The other doesn't  ... what's your pick?   

 

But let's not forget the idea of  the Bodhisattva  ( which also exists in some other traditions as well  )  . So, the 'end of suffering' etc might not mean the end of incarnations and a Bodhisattva does not abandon the world  even though they have achieved Nirvana .

 

" The question surrounding "where" you go after final nibbana, do you exist, not exist, etc, an unanswerable question. It is not something you can intellectually or verbally explain while in the world. It is only to be experienced. But where you do NOT end up is clear. You cannot be found in the world anymore upon final nibbana. "  

 

That seems to be saying the only thing sure is ;   if you are not here you are somewhere else .  Of course the answer to the  big question has always been  unknown / 'certain'  -  the basic human pondering   and root cause of trouble generated by people who are absolutely 'sure' about it .  Some might even 'help' you to get there . 

 

My belief  .... when you reach that stage of 'accomplishment '  , it may well be up to you ; 

 

' Unto them from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills'.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

...right so I harken back to my previous claim.  "Nibbana" is a state of mind, or being.  What you are describing as the cessation of attitudes and habits is all it is... which is fine.  Actually is very good.  It makes sense literally, as the word "nibbana" means the extinguishment of something...  

 

Trust me, I've developed plenty of dispassion for the world and for striving towards ends.  

 

Thank you for the post.  But, has God ever reached out to you?  Thats what this thread was about.  

 

Many Buddhists don't even have a belief in  a   God .    A lot of 'that type ' of Buddhism  is more like   a science of the  state of mind and its results . 

 

In my experience , when I received my 'illumination'   ( I'll use a word from a western tradition , other than the eastern flavoured 'enlightenment ' ... it's too 'loaded ' to use here )    in one aspect I could say it was 'God' reaching out to me ...  as long as one can conceive God as female  ....   a  wider  view however  might see it as a manifestation of 'higher self ' or archetype / 

super-conscious anima . 

 

[stirling]

37 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Many Buddhists don't even have a belief in  a   God .    A lot of 'that type ' of Buddhism  is more like   a science of the  state of mind and its results . 

 

In my experience , when I received my 'illumination'   ( I'll use a word from a western tradition , other than the eastern flavoured 'enlightenment ' ... it's too 'loaded ' to use here )    in one aspect I could say it was 'God' reaching out to me ...  as long as one can conceive God as female  ....   a  wider  view however  might see it as a manifestation of 'higher self ' or archetype / 

super-conscious anima . 

 

Of course Buddhism mentions MANY gods, but they are missing something that any being with enlightenment realizes and understands - even a god does not exist as a being with its own intrinsic existence, which completely changes the hierarchical landscape.

 

Despite having always been an agnostic, my experience is that gods are real... but they aren't what you might think they are. They certainly aren't in charge. As Ramana Maharshi suggests:

 

Quote

Devotee: Are the Gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, and their heavens, Kailas and Vaikuntha, real?

Ramana Maharshi: As real as you are in this body.

Devotee: I mean, have they got a phenomenal existence like my body, or are they pure fictions like the horns of a hare?

Ramana Maharshi: They do exist.

Devotee.: If so, they must be somewhere; where are they?

Ramana Maharshi: In you.

Devotee: Then they are only my idea?

Ramana Maharshi: Everything is.

 

[Nungali]

34 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Of course Buddhism mentions MANY gods, but they are missing something that any being with enlightenment realizes and understands - even a god does not exist as a being with its own intrinsic existence, which completely changes the hierarchical landscape.

 

Yes. I did however  say 'some types of '  Buddhism .  And I probably should have specified  ' God '  not Gods .  

 

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73/

 

I'm not saying its valid or not or traditionally right or wrong, I am saying some Buddhists don't believe in ' A GOD '  . 

 

Quote

 

Despite having always been an agnostic, my experience is that gods are real... but they aren't what you might think they are.

 

 

 

How do you know what I think they are  ?     

 

'Gods' are many things .  Ya know I have been studying  anthropology  ( and its related subjects , especially the religious philosophical spiritual  side  of humanity ) for sooooo long , I have a wider view of things than just my perceptions ... its like as time goes on , the 'human experience' is part of my experience . Going back to the very early ideas ( I get that from the still extant  Aboriginal system I learn  in ) , through the ancient Egyptian concept of 'Neteru'  - where  each God is more than a  human or animalistic  divinity but a whole range of  manifestations and forces  under each God , but also art of it and its identity . Through the ancient Greek , which often seem a projection of our higher and base psychological drives   (one part of the 'neter '  )   and so on .....  through  all sorts of developments  up to the present . 

 

In short , in regard  to your experience  that 'gods are real'   ,  I agree , as it is affirmed by my experience  as well .   Then again , I have a broad understanding of what 'reality' is .  Other have a narrow understanding that requires ruling out a lot of things .

 

 

 

Quote

 

They certainly aren't in charge. As Ramana Maharshi suggests:

 

 

 

No ... not 'the gods'     but perhaps he is right about 'God' as in some people's concept of God .... that God  , and here I will quote Crowley ;  "  God made Man , but Man made God "     its been this ongoing feedback loop 

 

Edited June 26 by Nungali

[stirling]

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

How do you know what I think they are  ?   

 

Well... I didn't mean you specifically, silly, but thanks for jumping in!

 

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

n short , in regard  to your experience  that 'gods are real'   ,  I agree , as it is affirmed by my experience  as well .   Then again , I have a broad understanding of what 'reality' is .  Other have a narrow understanding that requires ruling out a lot of things .

 

I consider reality to be what is perceived. That rules out a lot of things in some moments, and a lot of other things in others moments.

 

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

No ... not 'the gods'     but perhaps he is right about 'God' as in some people's concept of God .... that God  , and here I will quote Crowley ;  "  God made Man , but Man made God "     its been this ongoing feedback loop 

 

 

Any god that has a separate existence from everything else is ruled out for me. As a CONCEPT ONLY, an impersonal god that is inseparable but ALSO and has no separate will? Perhaps... well... something like that anyway.

 

Quote

The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love. - Meister Eckhart, Sermons of Meister Eckhart

 

[Krenx]

3 hours ago, Jadespear said:

But, has God ever reached out to you?  Thats what this thread was about.  

 

I have had personal experiences with entities that has the flavour of some higher consciousness. Giving some guidance, provide assurances and safety that things will be okay in hard times. But now as I understand phenomena a little more, it is cool, but I don't think there is anything particularly special about it. Devas if they ever interact with humans, are often in wholesome manners. Because they do recall how they ended up in heavenly realms, and are generally gracious and helpful. What interest me is how this all works, and how the concepts of gods developed in the minds of humans. And the a framework that answers all these questions.  

 

There is a deva the Buddha interacted with, Maha Brahma, a deva who resides in the highest heavenly form realms. He has the view/assumption that he created all of existence, and declares this to everyone. If a human happen to interact with such a deva, with such power, and hear him declare this, it makes sense to not question that declaration. It takes a very special kind of person like the Buddha to see what it is all about. The suttas has a really fun story about it. 

 

I have friends who has the eye to see spiritual realms. They are not buddhist, but describe to me what they see often when they practice in certain spiritual sites. How devas look, interact or move around spiritual sites, spiritual people. And it is surprisingly accurate to how the Buddha describes it. Specifically how devas sometimes change their sizes to become really small so thousands can flood into various spiritual sites to hang out.

 

Devas again, in the context of Buddhism, are beings that reside in heavenly realms. There is no teaching of some permanent God at the top that governs/ made this whole existence. 

 

Interesting stuff. Devas, heavenly realms. Good to know how it fits into the path. Not something to worship. But something to understand in the right context. 

Edited June 26 by Krenx

[Jadespear]

Cool.  

[Cobie]

 

On 25/06/2025 at 7:59 PM, Cobie said:

[ “white school” or “black school”] ... can these terms ... be used for other traditions?

 

so that's a 'yes'

 

On 25/06/2025 at 7:59 PM, Cobie said:

the belief in “nibbana”, is this “white school” or “black school” ...?

 

 

20 hours ago, Nungali said:

... I see it as tending towards the black.  …

 

righto

 

 

Edited Thursday at 07:04 PM by Cobie