If, for a moment, we could consider that all of our wanting is from the same source, and that no one is absolutely unique in the essence of their wanting (perhaps only on the surface does the uniqueness exist), then the tension would relax a little bit, because our wantingness would be seen as a reflection, rather than as an opposing force. What is more opposing than the sensation that something or someone is “not me”? The alien, foreign, and especially invasive quality of something that threatens “me” is undesirable, to say the least.
Yet, there is also an enticing and attractive quality to some objects that are perceived as “not me”? What more classic an example than a man’s attraction to a woman, and vice versa? The woman has characteristics that the man does not, and that exotic difference can fuel the wantingness. If there is no threat of invasiveness, then the “not me” becomes something to be absorbed and integrated into the limited “me”, thereby expanding sense of self to reach a new texture of Being. And, the sameness between the two can also be a factor that does not interfere with the diversity, but rather enhances the interplay. Sameness and difference intermingling–a paradox.
If the “I” of awareness is inhabiting a body, does that “I” not have a vested interest in seeing that the body fulfills its best and utmost purpose? Similarly, if the “I” of awareness is witnessing the play of a personal mind, wouldn’t the “I” want to nurture and gratify the desires of its inquiring mind? On this note, how do we know that the personal nexus which joins awareness to the unique fraction of a person will ever be severed? We don’t. And if anyone ever told us that the connection will be severed, they would already be speaking from an individual perspective, thereby making their proclamation null and void–lacking truth and authenticity.
Of course we know that human body will die and wither away, but that fate is not so easily ascribed to the inner constructs of the mind, which after all, animate and move the body. The soul, or astral body, will outlast the body. But naturally, the question arises, won’t the astral body dissolve as well, even if across a much longer time span? Probably.
Even so, what seed will remain? What single thread or vestige of the individual will outlast countless bodies and minds, which have occupied unique shapes in the fabric of spacetime? Something will. We know it, even though it is so hard to prove. And maybe that “something” is not merely an ambiguous cloud of nothingness or everythingness, but also the individual seed itself…nestled in the bosom of the creative power. Maybe the uniqueness is as eternal as the essence after all.
It seems to be a mystery, hinging upon maybe. Is the maybe a definitely, or a not at all? Maybe the only definitely is maybe, and not at all is definitely a dream of maybe. How can we tell each other that we know, unless there is at least two to exchange the knowingness? Even One telling Itself something has a play of two. And what about zero–the empty number?
Oh, there you are…silence.
Thanks for sharing your silence Bodhi 
maybe when we forget to remember the only memmory is love. 
I like that. I’ll roll with it.
What is the sound of one hand clapping ?
Zero isn’t always the same zero, ambiguity exists in words and symbols, but none such in nature.
The universe exists, within the universe things have entropic decay. The cup shatters as it hits the floor. It is impossible for the cup to be the same cup again. The body dies and so does the consciousness that inhabited it.
The consciousness is bound in the structure as the cup is before it is smashed. It’s easy to imagine the cup restored by some process which can rearrange the atoms into the original order, but that isn’t possible. The inanimate cup might be restored to look as it did, but it will never be the original, it is a copy made from the constituent parts. It’s difficult for us to separate ‘cup’ from the exact one off item.
Consciousness is the exact one off item, it has no constituent parts that can be reassembled, the body is the only material manifestation that might-with an enormous leap in technology-be restored as a copy, but the consciousness and it’s interaction would be entirely different, even if it could be done.
What one desires can be clouded, that does not mean the desire is not real, but it can be corrupt.
Good point. Every single moment is unique, without exception. And yet, every single moment is connected, and therefore, in some sense, the same. We quickly arrive at the paradox: the One are the Many, and the Many are the One.
But just to clarify, are you of the mind that there is no eternal seed to individuality? (I know it is hearsay for either of us to conclusively say that we know what the bottom-line reality is, but maybe this dialogue is a kind of self-inquiry in itself, like the Zen koan you cited at the beginning of your post. 
)
The koan of (there it is…) silence?
We pass and rejoin the stew. Of this I am sure now that purification is underway (guru whispered it) and I no longer fear death, for it is homecoming after all. Our individuality favors the stew for the next go around of beings.
I’m getting hungry.
On that triumphant note, I am so very compelled to quote Uncle Walt (Whitman):
“All goes onward and outward, nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier.”
My English is not good enough to say what I would like to say in this. The causal body, the most delicate, only pure, only love is stored in this body. The most subtle individual body, form, or veil of manas. Storehouse of all stillness in action through many lives. The causal body is the seed, wherein this is stored for a next go around of beings on earth or elsewhere. By practicing yoga, you get more and more access to this causal body. Only love survives, like Kumar already mentioned.
Arthur Powell wrote very inspiring about the causal body.
Thanks all for sharing inspiring words. Helps remembering home… 
Good point. Every single moment is unique, without exception. And yet, every single moment is connected, and therefore, in some sense, the same. We quickly arrive at the paradox: the One are the Many, and the Many are the One.
But just to clarify, are you of the mind that there is no eternal seed to individuality? (I know it is hearsay for either of us to conclusively say that we know what the bottom-line reality is, but maybe this dialogue is a kind of self-inquiry in itself, like the Zen koan you cited at the beginning of your post. )
Everything is what it is without more complex form. In an unassembled state it is simply stuff. The universe was always, it's form and substance is subject to cause and effect. Things cluster in a certain way and grow in unique form. When living things die, then consciousness is gone. We are here for a brief time that's all. We may pass a proportion of what we are down to our children genetically and our actions of course continue to spread out like ripples in a pond. It's important to clearly understand that we are here for only this term and yet our effect on generations will be eternal. We should not concern ourselves with what comes after. Pure consciousness would have no reasoning ability and no emotion or senses so it is pointless to ponder if it somehow survives death. What we do here and now is what is important. We had better get busy finding heaven, nirvana or whatever right now. Here is where we make our stand, the now, not the past or the future. Our legacy will survive us, but we had better figure out how to be happy at this moment. "All these memories will be gone, like tears in rain"
Yes! It seems to me that samyama is accessing the causal body, since the sutras are essentially the essences which precede all form.
You have no idea how much I like that scene in Blade Runner. Have watched it many times on YouTube. So powerful. Truly a classic. The exact quote is: “All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”
But, I also like the aphorism: “Nothing lasts, but nothing is lost.”
So, I think all fades away, but somehow, it’s nicely stored in The Archives of Eternity. (Check out the tesseract scene in Interstellar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJio07EtKYc).
The universe is eternal, our legacy is eternal. Our bodies, consciousness, memories and moments are fleeting
Buddha was immortal in the sense that his ideas and actions have trancended thousands of years, he laughed at his failing health as he compared his body to a broken down ox cart. Just rotting wood, decaying leather and rusting iron. It is what the cart once carried that is important. It is a wasted effort to build a mausoleum for the dust of a decayed ox cart. There is more than enough dust already instead, build a new cart, but build it better.
Good ol’ Buddha humor. Thank you, karl.
for to that which is born ,death is certain ,and to that which is dead ,birth is certain .krishna .
Full circle, kumar. Thank you.
Not quite the full quotation. It’s also ambiguous when written in English. The conclusion-which you haven’t written-doesn’t follow the premesis either, but that is a lesser point.
We would have to know more exactly how it was meant to read. Does it suggest re-birth, or re-incarnation ? We cannot know from the premises if it does. It could simply mean birth and death are an everyday fact of life and therefore we should accept them without sorrow.
There are no factual instances of rebirth, or reincarnation, beyond anecdotal evidence such as the resurrection. There is however plenty of evidence of the transfer of genetic material from parent to child. Some anecdotal, but unproven evidence, exists for past life experience.
If we take the syllogism as many would interpret it:
All men are mortal
All men are immortal
Therefore do not grieve for the dead or the living.
Now the argument makes no sense at all. The premises does not follow the conclusion and the two premesis conflict. It would have been more meaningful to have simply made the simple statement that men are immortal, but Krishna did not.
I think it follows that he did not mean it in the way Buddhists choose to interpret it. He was simply stating a fact. Everything that lives eventually dies at some point and new births are occurring all the time and therefore we should accept this cycle with grace and not grieve over the dead.
Funnily enough that is almost the same thing modern soldiers are told in order that they carry out orders. And of course in Gita this was about Arjuna on the battlefield and Krishna his superior. As Krishna wasn’t a man and was invisible for most of the plot we can also infer that this was a battle in the mind of Arjuna. He was using reasoning against emotion. In effect he was justifying his coming actions against the natural disinclination to kill other men.
This begins to sound more like a military handbook to justify killing which is directly contrary to a religious faith. It could also be taken to mean the need to control fear and emotion and utilise reasoning as the arbiter. Telling the rope from the snake.
However it is possible with hindsight to go one step further. The Bible has a resurrection story implying rebirth/immortality which would help to unite religions in which resurrection was implicit take up Christianity. However the Christian and modern religions hold up heaven as the alternative to resurrection/rebirth.
Now, call me sceptical if you wish, but the promise of heaven probably trumps that of rebirth many times over-particularly when one considers the addition of Karma. Christian religion gives to alternatives, either heaven or hell.
I think we might see just how marvellous these inventions are for the control of a population. Work hard, go to heaven, do your duty on the battlefield, go to heaven. Rebirth is the same. Obey and you will be reborn a class higher ( in Indian culture the caste system was key as it is across much of the Western world ). The reward is always after the fact. It’s a pretty cheap way for a ruler to encourage his minions to work, die and obey. Meanwhile the ruler sets themselves above their people as divine rulers by whatever Gods they wish to promote.
Enlightenment is waking up
…and then you know every moment is dying, live and die.
NOW
grab
THAT
with words
fun to try
dance and
die
…and then you know every moment is dying, live and die.
NOW
grab
THAT
with words
fun to try
dance and
die
Every moment is perceived. Time Every perception is conceptualised. Space Every Conception is rationalised. Dimension. It is poetic to talk of a moment as dying, but they don't, it's just a point within perception. Once these multiples of points are brought into the mind they describe a concept. Once that concept is tested against reality it takes concrete form and therefore dimension. Time, space and dimension exist outside the mind, we just need our senses and minds to understand them. Within the mind thoughts have neither time, space or dimension. They are therefore infinite, boundless, timeless, dimensionless. They are a fluidity of conceptualisation and can be made manifest by physicality. There is no direct connection between dance and music. Yet we can conceptualise and then turn it into a pleasing motion. Ultimately it is all from the same source. :slight_smile:
enlightenment is love
…‘my’ energy react on music and ‘my’ body react with dance…
I like the poetic talks, but that is the personal I who says, in wholeness it doesn’t matter, it is all the same, words, concepts… All is one in one moment, one big pulsing No-thing.
I call it Love, like Kumar, because it feels Love
edit wording.