To be free from existence

[cappuccino]

What becomes free from existence??

We cease to become anything.

[pegembara]

We realised we aren't anything and get freed from becoming(bhava). That is to be "freed" from death.

There is yet another law the understanding of which helps in the understanding of death. It is the Law of Becoming or bhava, which is a corollary to the Law of Change or anicca.Becoming, or bhava, is also one of the factors in the scheme of Dependent Origination. According to Buddhism the Law of Becoming, like the Law of Change, is constantly at work and applies to everything. While the Law of Change states that nothing is permanent but is ever-changing, the Law of Becoming states that everything is always in the process of changing into something else.

Not only is everything changing, but the nature of that change is a process of becoming something else. Not only is everything changing, but the nature of that change is a process of becoming something else, however short or long the process may be. Briefly put, the Law of Becoming is this: "Nothing is, but is becoming." A ceaseless becoming is the feature of all things. A small plant is always in the process of becoming an old tree.There is no point of time at which anything is not becoming something else.

The process is so gradual, one stage merging into the next so imperceptibly. It is a becoming. If you close your eyes to this process, if you see the bud one day and then see it a day later, then only will you see a change. Then only will you speak in the terms of "buds" and "flowers" and not in terms of a process of a becoming.

If you can keep on looking at a new-born babe without a break for ten years you will not perceive any change. The baby born at 10 a.m. appears just the same at 11 a.m. or at 12 noon. Each moment shows no difference from the next. One condition merges into the next so imperceptibly. It is a becoming, a continuous process of becoming. Close your eyes to this process and see the baby once a month. then only will you perceive a change. Then only can you speak in terms of "baby" and "boy" and not in terms of a process or a becoming.

If you think you can watch minutely the progress of time, see whether you can divide it into present, past, and future as do grammarians speaking of present tense, past tense and future tense. In the view of Buddhist philosophy, time is one continuous process, each fragmentary portion of time merging into the other and forming such an unbroken continuity that no dividing line can precisely be drawn separating past time from present, or present time from future.

The moment you think of the present and say to yourself "this moment is present time" it is gone — vanished into the past before you can even complete your sentence. The present is always slipping into the past, becoming the past, and the future is always becoming the present. Everything is becoming. This is a universal process, a constant flux. It is when we miss the continuity of action that we speak in terms of things (atta/self) rather than processes or becomings. Upadana pacaya bhava [Existence is dependent on clinging to a self/being]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el102.html

[badscooter]

What becomes free from existence??

We cease to become anything.

Ok.... Who or what are "we"?

[davidbrainerd]

We realised we aren't anything and get freed from becoming(bhava). That is to be "freed" from death.

There is yet another law the understanding of which helps in the understanding of death. It is the Law of Becoming or bhava, which is a corollary to the Law of Change or anicca.Becoming, or bhava, is also one of the factors in the scheme of Dependent Origination. According to Buddhism the Law of Becoming, like the Law of Change, is constantly at work and applies to everything. While the Law of Change states that nothing is permanent but is ever-changing, the Law of Becoming states that everything is always in the process of changing into something else.

It sounds to me like what you were quoting is being made up by its author out of thin air. Dependent Origination, or more properly Conditioned Arising, can only apply to the conditioned. The unconditioned is exempt from being conditioned, hence the name. Any scholar saying that Dependent Origination, or more properly Conditioned Arising, applies to everything is purposefully ignoring the unconditioned, which is quite common in this nihilist era.

[chownah]

applies to everything is purposefully ignoring the unconditioned

Many people do not consider the unconditioned to be a "thing" so they do not see it as being part of "everything".
chownah

[pegembara]

We realised we aren't anything and get freed from becoming(bhava). That is to be "freed" from death.

There is yet another law the understanding of which helps in the understanding of death. It is the Law of Becoming or bhava, which is a corollary to the Law of Change or anicca.Becoming, or bhava, is also one of the factors in the scheme of Dependent Origination. According to Buddhism the Law of Becoming, like the Law of Change, is constantly at work and applies to everything. While the Law of Change states that nothing is permanent but is ever-changing, the Law of Becoming states that everything is always in the process of changing into something else.

It sounds to me like what you were quoting is being made up by its author out of thin air. Dependent Origination, or more properly Conditioned Arising, can only apply to the conditioned. The unconditioned is exempt from being conditioned, hence the name. Any scholar saying that Dependent Origination, or more properly Conditioned Arising, applies to everything is purposefully ignoring the unconditioned, which is quite common in this nihilist era.

To me the author is clearly describing conditioned things and not nibbana. As long as we feel we are something, we are not freed from existence. Doesn't matter we call it the Mind or True Self whatever. We continue our existence as "Mind" or "the true self" or "Ultimate". For we are also not the unconditioned (sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta).

What is your response to this?

[Aloof]

If you know existence well… you would want to be free (from existence).

My experience is different. I feel I know the existence well and I am immensely enjoying it. The more I advance in my knowledge of existence more fun it becomes. It is ignorance which is a cause of serious trouble.

[freedom]

Without understanding dukkha, one delights in wonderful experiences. Only when one clearly understands dukkha and the way to end it, one can break samsara. Otherwise, just another up and down experience no matter how long it will be.

[binocular]

Without understanding dukkha, one delights in wonderful experiences.

Would you say that the majority of the population is in this category (ie. that they know how to enjoy life)?

[freedom]

Would you say that the majority of the population is in this category (ie. that they know how to enjoy life)?

Not knowing dukkha is ignorance. How many people in the world are free from ignorance?
Delight in wonderful experiences is neither wrong nor right; however, it will not let one to the end of suffering.
One day one can be a deva, but this will not guarantee that one will never end up in hell later.
After daytime, nighttime will come. That's how nature is.

[Goofaholix]

Would you say that the majority of the population is in this category (ie. that they know how to enjoy life)?

Not understanding dukkha does not equate with knowing how to enjoy life.

Not understanding dukkha means one thinks that pursuing and having pleasant experiences and avoiding unpleasant experiences is the remedy for the underlying feeling of unease or lack of fulfillment.

[santa100]

Everyone probably already know the first and most obvious form of dukkha, Dukkha-dukkha. But it'd take certain level of Dhamma contemplation and cultivation to really understand the other two: Viparinama-dukkha and Sankhara-dukkha.

[binocular]

Would you say that the majority of the population is in this category (ie. that they know how to enjoy life)?

Not understanding dukkha does not equate with knowing how to enjoy life.
Not understanding dukkha means one thinks that pursuing and having pleasant experiences and avoiding unpleasant experiences is the remedy for the underlying feeling of unease or lack of fulfillment.

My point is that there are many people who are into the pursuit of various material pleasures who are proponents of the view that those who are in any way dissatisfied with how life is usually lived, just haven't tried hard enough in thier materialistic pursuits.

How would you reply to that charge?

[Goofaholix]

My point is that there are many people who are into the pursuit of various material pleasures who are proponents of the view that those who are in any way dissatisfied with how life is usually lived, just haven't tried hard enough in thier materialistic pursuits.

How would you reply to that charge?

That's their opinion, if you agree with them try it out and see how it goes.

[binocular]

That's their opinion, if you agree with them try it out and see how it goes.

It's not possible to actually try it out. When do you decide that you've tried hard enough?
Whenever you remain dissatisfied, regardless of the effort you invested, those people can always say, "Well, you just didn't try hard enough" (or "There's something wrong with you, not with our advice").

You can see the same thing in some religions, where people are accused of things like "If you don't see that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, then you just haven't tried hard enough."

It's a piece of advice that is impossible to counter logically, unless we can show that it is illogical -- that it makes as much sense as "If you can't draw a square circle, then just haven't tried hard enough."