dwai

These are all phenomenal things...Consciousness is not. So your fine poem would be better articulated this way: Awareness is not separate from objects. Time is not separate from events. Blowing is not separate from wind. Mirror is not separate from reflection. And my addition: Not-Self is not separate from Self.

Anatta realization is rudimentary stage in neti-neti process...there is nothing groundbreaking or earth-shattering about it once one comes to terms with it. It does not remove the background because that which removes the background, that which thinks it is multiplicity is still the limited self/consciousness...

Just lie down in shavasana, let your entire body relax. As your body relaxes your mind becomes pronounced...observe the thoughts....simply be. At one point the thoughts will slow down and you will find the gap between the thoughts...as time goes that too will expand...be in that gap. That is meditation

Awareness is a function of consciousness, when presented with an object (so be it a thought or a material object to sense with a sensory apparatus), it is phenomenal. Consciousness simply is...it exists, has always existed and will always continue to exist. Awareness and Consciousness are not the same thing!

There in lies the "TWIST"...dear SB... Both are right! Again I give you David Loy's essay on this subject: Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?

It is not simply an opinion...it is a fact. The very fact that You and I and every other person is posting and writing, eating, sleeping and living is a testament to the fact that there is a subjective basis for all experience. One cannot say in a similar vein, that the subjective basis of all experience is a Not-Self. If they did, then the Self and Not-Self are one and the same.

me and wise ass? nah man...you got me mistaken for someone else. If it is so moot a discussion, why bother responding? BTW, I love you and everyone else (mostly)

Why do you have to let go? Who let's go?

I got exactly what you were trying to state. That the "You" had changed and the criminal "you" were no longer the repentent "You". This flies in the face of logic and is simply escapism, imho.

Let me assure you there is no paranoia here...while I can take your statements as pleas for respite. I agree...a lot of what is being discussed is simply pointless...on the other hand, my personal experiences support what I am positing, or rather repeating since many Taoists, Advaitins and Buddhists have also pointed to it. The important thing to realize is that all the difference lies in the labels and syntax, while it is accepted(?) that IT is non-syntactical (Tao cannot be named..if it is named, it's not the real Tao)

I think the Buddhist concept of Anatta is very apt for the physical individual, because the True Self is not evident...there is the limiting adjunct, obscuring it. The True Self is beyond individuality or multiplicity...it is simply, pure consciousness that exists for ever.

Karma doesn't work that way. It is beyond the rules of punishment and deterrence that we have in our mundane world. Karma works at a different (higher) level. Now let's say that you did murder someone when you were younger...it could very well be that person and your karmic history that had to be worked through. It could be that it was a life-lesson that you learnt through your victim, in the form of introspection and the nature of your act. It could also be that this act will carry forward into your next life and afflict you in some way. The fact that you turned yourself in doesn't absolve your previous act of murder. And the fact that you were sentenced to death despite your turning yourself in, simply perpetrated more Karma...something that your judge, your executioner and all involved besides yourself have to deal with in your next life. You missed the point of what the author was trying to make...his point was if the two incarnations are not the same "Self", then Karma doesn't make sense.

save your sarcasm for yourself...it goes to show what happens when your belief-system is rattled.

I like the idea of a True Self because it is congruent with my existing Self and the sense of Unity that pervades in meditative states. The "True Self" is nothing but pure Consciousness...unfettered by forms or names, that is what each of us should strive to remember. I like the idea of a True Self is because it is Absolute Reality, beyond names and forms. Let me ask you why you cling to the Non-Self?

Lucky m'boy, I don't think the focus of your attention should be me. Rather, you should start looking at your belief system and analyze why you believe that there is "No Self" and why it appeals to you. The nihilism that is rapant amongst your ilk is a very spectacular example of how The Teachings of Buddha have been distorted and retrofitted to justify a potential psychological pathology.

Part 1 on a continuing series on Meditation and the reasons behind

Actually you are saying exactly what I have said. The mundane "one-ness" or "other-ness" is unnecessary. But the intellectual realization has to happen before it can be accepted, especially for some of the intellectually oriented types. My existence is quite happy accepting that it is not one or another and also quite happy to accept that while it is neither existent nor non-existent, it does exist in a way beyond the dualistic mechanics of thought (otherwise we cannot ever refer to it -- even calling it Tao is a reference, giving it an existence in the dualistic world, as does calling it non-existent does...because "IT" is always there)

Greetings MH, From a text-book perspective, I can see your point. However, Tao is Being/existent...just not ephemerally existent like our limiting adjuncted selves. The problem is that of syntax...since Lao Tzu has said "The Tao that can be named..."... I wish more people would learn Vedanta. The whole understanding of this Duality/Non-Duality is very nicely and methodically articulated in Vedantic thought, through the concept of Nama-Rupa (or Name-Form) aka Categorical Frameworks. Nama-Rupa is the root cause of Duality and conditions our understanding and awareness of the universe that we can sense. Tao is beyond Nama-Rupa because any attempt to describe Tao leads to absurdity and contradiction (just like this attempt at showing the ontological status of Tao demonstrates). Nagarjuna's Madhyamika too shows the same thing...and actually has a very good demonstration of why it is pointless to show that the Self exists, Does not Exist, both exists and does not exist and neither exists nor does not exist (replace Self with Tao and you have the same result). The point of both Vedanta (Advaita) and Madhyamika is to show that "IT" cannot be grasped by Dualistic methods (such as sensory or intellectual faculties)..but only via direct experience (prajna or intuitive knowledge). I hope this makes my position (maintained since several months, maybe even more than one year) here more clear.