doc benway

http://www.holisticshop.co.uk/articles/mahaparinirvana-sutra-buddha If you ask most Buddhists whether there is any doctrine of a soul or eternal Self within the teachings of the Buddha, they will reply with a very definite "no!" And yet a closer study of Mahayana Buddhism (one of the two main divisions of Buddhism) reveals that this is quite simply inaccurate. The Buddha teaches both the non-Self and the Self. Let us look at these two facets of his "Dharma" (Truth). The misunderstanding by most Buddhists arises from the fact that the Buddha usually places the greatest emphasis on what is NOT the Soul or Self. Thus, the physical body, feelings, thoughts, impulses, and ordinary consciousness are labelled as "non-Self" or "non-Soul" (anatman). These elements of our worldly being are impermanent and subject to change and dissolution, so cannot sensibly be deemed our Soul. They make up our "mundane self", and that mundane self is dismissed as "a lie" by the Buddha. This fictitious worldly self or ego has no enduring reality - it is a constantly mutating stream of reincarnating desires which never find lasting satisfaction. Our worldly self is one big and painful illusion. Most Buddhists stop here and preach this as the highest truth about selfhood. This, however, is only half the story. In the final phase of his teaching career, the Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death. He called this "the True Self" or "True Soul" (satya-atman). He also termed it the Buddha-Dhatu - the "Buddha-Principle" - or the tathagata-garbha, the "embryonic Buddha" latent within us. Yes, but this Buddha-Dhatu cannot be what Aaron is referring to because it cannot, by definition, carry the karmic debt forward as it is clearly outside of samsara. I share Aaron's skepticism on this point. It's ironic that Buddhists work hard to underline the differentiation Buddhism and Hinduism, and yet the very thing that I find most off-putting about Buddhism is this refusal to let go of the concept of reincarnation which makes much more sense in the context of Hinduism than it does in the context of Budhhism...

Before answering that question we first need to define what is the difference between the mind and the heart? 心 = both

I agree and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was in a hurry earlier but wanted to respond because I've been a away for a few days. A similar argument can be made extending to what it is that perceives and interprets and so on, it's just another layer. Nevertheless, I'm going to let it go. Be well.

The pure sensory experience is already mind. It might be useful to look at what the sensory experience is: Sight happens when specialized cells in the eye are stimulated and send patterns of impulses to the optical cortex in the brain. Those patterns of electrical impulse in the optical cortex are as random as a printout of 0's and 1's from a computer. They need to be recognized somehow for sight to exist. That recognition involves comparing the random patterns to previously stored patterns and Voila!, it's a candlestick no faces, no a candelstick, whatever. Sight occurs in the optical cortex, not the eye. Same thing for hearing (tympanic vibration stimultes electrical signals.. blah, blah) and taste, touch, etc... So the sensory experience is a part of mind, not the environment. Take away the brain and there is no sight, hearing, or touch. An eye without the brain does not see, etc... And without interpretation of pattern, there is no sight or hearing, etc... So the human organism is a complex antenna that makes sense out of a random mess of energy. And even the organism is a random mess of energy. And even the energy is just flux, movement, no inherent stuff or substance. So the insightful scientist is not a materialist at all. They understand that there is no stuff. But it's very useful to use the paradigm and at a relative level everything does exist, just not independently. Sorry for the delay but I had a very busy weekend.

Dear InfinityTruth, One reason to not commit suicide is the absolute beauty and wonder of being alive. All of our problems arise from our illusion that we are not good enough. No matter what we have or don't have, it is the nature of our mind to desire more of what we like and less of what we don't. With practice it is possible to see how the brain works in always judging, creating preferences, and telling itself that this (here and now) is not good enough, that we must become something else, rather than just be. Once we see that clearly, it is possible to find a place where it is OK to just be, for a while. Nothing is needed, nothing is missing, I am just here, now, and that is enough. When you reach this place, there is an amazing awareness of just how precious this gift of being is and it is worth the game. You should not live because of fear, shame, or guilt. Life is a gift that you may cherish or throw away, it is your choice. I agree that your posts have been reflective of insight and growth. Pleasant experiences make life delightful, painful experiences stimulate us to grow. I genuinely hope you find your way, wherever it may lead. With genuine love and support

Here is an oxymoron that hinders awakening from another thread: Important Daoist

There is another thread titled: Oxymoron's that hinder awakening, and here is one: Important Daoist

I agree. I also agree that Gauss's views and those he is promoting amounts to racism, elitism, and homophobia. Master Li and his cult are more suited to a eugenics forum than a Daoist forum. Just my two cents, no truth offered whatsoever.

This is the only way to move forward - for each of us as individuals to open ourselves to everything in and around us. Through a sincere opening and acceptance we can touch one another and feel and understand our common bond. There is no hope of this happening through politics, social action, religious leadership, or any other organized format. It must start with me, inside, where I can find my connection to you and everything else.

Do you feel like going further into this? What is a pure sensory experience in your view? How does it occur? I'm not trying to be patronizing - I think this is an interesting area to explore.

Please accept my sincere condolences hagar. This is the first I've heard of your tragedy. Some friends of mine just moved to Oslo a few weeks ago, I need to check on them. After 9/11 here in the USA, I became somewhat engrossed in news. I then started following news organizations around the world because what I was reading here in the states felt biased. After doing this for a while, I saw how each saw what was happening through their own bias and used it to further their agenda. I completely gave up following news a few years ago now. I have no idea how or why things like this happen. I've come to release that I can't affect meaningful change in society through politics or social action. The only thing I can affect is myself. So rather than get wrapped up in news and politics, I've taken a path of personal cultivation. Only through looking deeply into myself and finding the way to love and compassion inside, can I ever hope to bring any sense of healing to those around me and to my community and beyond. When things like this happen, I'm reminded of Zhuang Zi's parable of The Empty Boat... It doesn't really help but it is interesting to see how when tragedy occurs as a consequence of natural disaster it somehow feels different than when it is at the hand of a human being. Somehow we distance ourselves from nature and yet we are nothing more (or less) than a manifestation of Dao in our actions. Dao is beyond my understanding as is this insanity. Again - I'm deeply disturbed that you and so many others are suffering as a result of this tragedy and my heart goes out to you in a spirit of support and friendship.

This is worth a read for anyone interested in Demello: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication. His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality. In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc. But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void. To see God it is enough to look directly at the world. Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence. In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel. Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one's own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. "God" is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied. Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality. Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ. With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication. Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist. + Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect Ironically, John Paul II also said of Demello: " his theological compassion for humanity, passion for faith & belief in Christian values are a forward light for our collective future "

I disagree with much that is in the bible. That which is beyond mind and ineffable is not subject to reason or rationality. It is not subject to mind or knowldege or understanding. Perhaps this is why faith is appropriate in discussing such things. It doesn't matter - it's just a word, we can do away with it if you wish.

Great posts Seth - your taxonomy of spiritual traditions is insightful and interesting. Anyone who feels that Christianity does not offer a path to liberation and has an open mind should familiarize themselves with the works of Father Anthony Demello - an Indian Jesuit psychotherapist. After listening and reading his works, I finally saw the truth through Christian scripture for the first time and I'm not, nor have I ever been Christian. But I understood how the mystics interpret them and access truth through them. I then learned that the present pope banned all of Demello's works as heresy while in his capacity as official censor for the Catholic church. Most religions have value in their mystical traditions. Unfortunately, nothing is safe from human corruption and exploitation. Regarding some of Vmarco's comments on faith and belief, there is an alternative way to look at it. With respect to most knowledge, there is a possibility for the mind to know things. When approaching the spiritual, it is important to ask ourselves whether or not it is possible to know. The mind is finite and composed of it's contents. The mind can never know what is beyond itself because then that would be part of the known. So there is a realm beyond mind, beyond knowing. I agree that it is unhelpful to replace that un-knowable with belief, that is, a gratuitous assertion of what is the nature of the un-knowable. This is where I define faith differently. Belief is the fervent hope that a gratuitous assertion explains the un-knowable. Faith is not having confidence that a belief is true, in my lexicon. Faith is the confidence that when all belief is abandoned, what remains is what is. It can give us the confidence to open ourselves to pure being and "experience" beyond mind and knowing. I believe I picked this up from Osho so you should be familiar with this Vmarco - it was probably from one of his Zhuang Zi books though I'm not certain.

I'm not real good with the philosophy and marginally better at the physics. The basis is in Einstein's Special Relativity, I believe. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/srelwhat.html Here's a nice quote from the wiki that says it better than I can: "The present is contrasted with the past and the future. Modern physics has not yet been able to explain the perceived aspect of 'the present' as 'eliminator of possibilities' that transfers future into past. A complicating factor is that whilst a given observer would describe 'the present' as a spatial structure with a zero-length time lapse, other observers would associate both time and space to this structure and therefore disagree on what constitutes 'the present'. The direct experience of the present for each human is that it is what is here, now. Direct experience is of course subjective by definition yet, in this case, this same direct experience is true for all humans. For all of us, 'here' means 'where I am' and 'now' means 'when I am'. Thus, the common repeatable experience is that the present is inextricably linked to oneself. In the time aspect, the conventional concept of 'now' is that it is some tiny point on a continuous timeline which separates past from future. It is not clear, however, that there is a universal timeline or whether, as relativity seems to indicate, the timeline is inextricably linked to the observer. Thus, is 'now' for me the same time as 'now' for you on a universal timeline, assuming a universal timeline exists? Adding to the confusion, in the physics view, there is no demonstrable reason why time should move in any one particular direction." And more from the wiki on the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity And finally, a bit about the Hawking and the no boundary proposal. http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

Actually, if you look at the nature of time from the perspective of both physics and philosophy, he is accurate. Check it out for yourself if you're interested in the topic. The wiki is a convenient place to start.

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, there is no absolute present. It is relativistic.

And equally dead... I resent being called typical - I try very hard to be different! To be clear, I'm not terribly connected to my explanation, it's just what makes the most sense to me at this point in time given my conditioning and bias. When something comes along that makes more sense I would like to think that I would be comfortable embracing something new.

I agree it is more skillful to have some grasp on individual perspectives before combining. On the other hand, I'm not really combining, I'm looking at the same "reality" through the different perspectives and seeing the similarities between the views and how each reflects the same truth. On the other hand, I defy you to show me pure Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism in China. They are as combined as one could imagine and have been so for centuries... Thanks for the clarification of Wu.

I'd also like to here V elaborate. There is the "time delay" effect in which everything you experience, even thought, has to be stored in memory and then reviewed as memory to register in awareness. For that reason you are always reviewing a memory of what just happened, rather than experiencing anything instantaneously. I suspect that breaks down during unconditioned awareness where there is no experience or experiencer, no record or review of memory, but that is a gratuitous assertion because such concepts break down and are immeasurable at such times. V?

To clarify - this theory proposes the idea of "imaginary time" which is at right angles to "normal time." There are no boundaries or singularities in this model because time becomes a surface or a wave function rather than a line. This theory does not say that the Big Bang did not occur and does not say anything positive or negative about creation or a creator. To quote Hawking: "I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics. One wouldn't have to say that God chose to set the universe going in some arbitrary way that we couldn't understand. It says nothing about whether or not God exists - just that He isn't arbitrary." Don't get me wrong, I don't really understand this stuff all that well but I do find it fascinating.

So what is the nature of color in the absence of an eye? It is a vibration of a particular wavelength. Color does not exist until there is a sensory organ that is stimulated by the energy which in turn is interpreted in your cerebral cortex. A related question - how do you know that when you say you are seeing something that is green that I have the same experience as you? What is the nature of sound in the absence of an ear? Vibrational disturbances in the air are nothing more than just that. It is not until the tympanic membrane is disturbed and creates an electrical signal in the auditory cortex that sound exists.

I like your words V, welcome

Yeah, tough stuff to reconcile. We don't need to see things the same way. A few other ways to think about it - without an eye to see, is there sight? Without an ear to hear, is there sound? It's not so much that the brain creates something that was not there. The brain makes sense out of potential or flux that otherwise is "no-thing". Another perspective is to think about what it is that separates the brain from what is outside of it. We have this illusion of separation from our environment but any biologist or ecologist will agree that there is no such thing as an organism independent of its environment. The separation is created by the sensory apparatus and the apparent boundary of skin, shell, bark, whatever. And the question of independent existence is not limited to the Buddhists. The Chan/Zen traditions are perfused with Daoist philosophy and sensibility. The Dao De Jing talks about things in a way that is wholly consistent with the Buddhist concept of Dependent Origination. Some have argued to the contrary but Taiji, that is Yin Yang, is an expression of just that. And the Dao is said to be change, movement. Dao is a verb, not a noun. Actually, heartmind is more a Buddhist concept (the Daoist concept is very different), so I sort of saw this as a "Buddhist" thread to begin with.