Email Remark:

 The pursuit of bliss realms or the clinging to bliss which arises spontaneously, just leads round and round from heavens to hells, so the masters of old have said.  The real culprit is the desire for existence.  I am seeing more and more that the Buddha's stress on the not-self anatta insight is absolutely necessary to conquer that (the desire to exist)..  However, all's well that ends well. 

Mi~Beloved’s Response:

That opinion about bliss realms is there as evidence from one set of ascetics, but there is evidence to the contrary from another set of ascetics, where clinging to particular types of bliss which arise spontaneously or from effort does not lead to round and round from heavens and hells.

The real culprit regarding desire for existence has to do with which or where the existence is located. In Bhagavad Gita we are told of a place where there is no birth and death which is free from trauma. So it is not all masters of old but some who gave the opinion that all bliss realms result in traumatic continuations in hell or mediocre realms.

Bhagavad Gita says this:

tataḥ — then; padaṁ— please; tat— that; parimārgitavyaṁ — to be sought; yasmin — to which; gatā — some; na — not; nivartanti — they return; bhūyaḥ — again; tam — that; eva — indeed; cādyaṁ = ca — and + ādyaṁ — primal; puruṣaṁ — person; prapadye — I take shelter; yataḥ — from whom; pravrttiḥ — creation; prasṛtā — emerged; purāṇī — in primeval limes

Then that place is to be sought, to which having gone, the spirits do not return to this world again. One should think: I take shelter with that Primal Person, from Whom the creation emerged in primeval times. (15.4)

nirmāna — devoid of pride ; mohā — confusion; jita — conquered ; saṅga — attachment ; doṣā — faults; adhyātmanityā = adhyātma — Supreme Spirit + nityā — constantly; vinivṛtta — ceased; kāmāḥ — cravings; dvandvaiḥ — by dualities; vimuktāḥ — freed; sukhaduḥkha — pleasure-pain ; saṁjñaiḥ — known as; gacchanti — they go; amūḍḥāḥ — the undeluded souls; padam — place; avyayam — imperishable; tat = tad — that

Those who are devoid of pride and confusion, who have conquered the faults of attachment, who constantly stay with the Supreme Spirit, whose cravings have ceased, who are freed from the dualities known as pleasure and pain, these undeluded souls go to that imperishable place. (15.5)

na — not; tat — that; bhāsayate — illuminates; sūryo = sūryaḥ — the sun; na — nor; sasaḥko = śaśāṅkaḥ — moon; na — nor; pāvakaḥ — fire; yat — which; gatvā — having gone; na — never; nivartante — they return; tat — that; dhāmā — residence; paramaṁ — supreme; mama — my

The sun does not illuminate that place, nor the moon, nor the fire. Having gone to that location, they never return. That is My supreme residence. (15.6)

There is no evidence from Krishna that the self can be eliminated in total, so if Buddha said that it could be then their viewpoints run contrary, which means that the student has to decide whom he or she will follow.

Personally I have found no evidence to support the elimination of the individual self (jivatma) but if someone else has evidence I am willing to look at it, and this evidence must be based on his or her experience, not on something a master of old said because what the masters of old said is there as their direct or indirect evidence for all to read in their literature or the literature given by their disciples.

One should be careful however to distinguish between the conventional self and the core-self or bare-self around which the conventional culturally-functional self is formulated.

I agree that the conventional self is a mock-up and is temporary and is continually mutating. But I am saying that there is a core which does not alter like this but which is there as the substantive identity.

Perhaps more important is the question of self-honesty, where each student has to make up his or her mind regarding what that person really prefers. It is what one really prefers which will determine what happens not what one says one prefers because of this or that.

An example of this is how so many humans appear obese even though those persons say that they do not want the extra fat in the body. In other words regardless of what a human says, it is what that human really prefers which is the result which nature awards.

If someone really prefers non-existence, that should be the thrust of the effort. If one really prefers material existence, then one should honest work to improve that. If one wants a heavenly life then one should work for that. And in either of these objective one has to be more specific to hone in on the objective. Once this is done one has the greater task which is to find out if nature will support the idea or if nature really has a match for one’s idea.

I grew up with people who were banking on going to heaven as it is described in the Bible. Question is was that something that nature supported for the any of the said relatives?