Simple_Jack

‘Is’ is holding to permanence, ‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view. Because of that, is and is not are not made into a basis by the wise. - Nagarjuna

Buddha rejects self-inquiry as explained here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase. "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive selfarises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

http://www.francislucille.com/advaita_channel_item.php?id=269 A question on no-Self, Bernadette Roberts, Advaita, Buddhism - Francis Answers - 138 Dear Francis, Thank you very much for giving me your address. What a beautiful way of starting the new year. Some time ago I sent you a question to which no answer ever appeared on your website. Probably there was an error and my question did not reach you, or perhaps you had some reason not to answer. The question was about one Bernadette Roberts, who is a Christian mystic, and who to her astonishment discovered that what is regarded as the final 'stage' in her tradition -- which she thinks is the same as the Sat-Chid-Ananda of the Advaitins -- dropped away one day, swallowing up and dissolving completely everything that could ever be called the true Self, 'I AM' or God. She calls it the 'state' of 'No Self'. Since she could not find anything about this in the Christian mystic literature, she started studying Hinduism and Buddhism, and she says that the only place in literature where she found anything pointing to this was one reference of the Buddha. She says that it is very easy to confuse the state of no ego with the state of no Self, but that it is entirely different. It happened to her totally unexpectedly, 25 years after the ego had dropped away. To Bernadette it seems that all the books and enlightened ones talk about the no-ego state, not about the stage of no Self. Though she is convinced that it has been reached by many. I know, that at my total-ego stage it is of no immediate consequence. I have to free myself of this hypnosis. Still, the question sits deep inside and I cannot help asking for your comment. This age old discrepancy between Hinduism and Buddhism as to the eternal existence vs. the non-existence of Self. Is it, as is often said, rhetorical, or is it real after all? Here is a part of an interview with Bernadette: Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center - the coin, or "true self" - suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine." Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist's insistence on no eternal Self - be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman. Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the "no-self experience"; it lends itself to no other possible articulation. Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole. Bernadette also wrote very detailed book on this, parts of which are available to read online: http://books.google.be/books?id=-ujxTTC7vjQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bernadette+Roberts I'm sorry to trouble you once again with the same question. If for some reason you do not wish to comment on it, please let me know. Many thanks and greetings and the best wishes for the new year (though to you there are no wishes and no time :-)) Om Vishvarupa

As far as I know, I've been taught in school that consciousness is a product of the brain/CNS.

Regardless, physicalist science represents mainstream academic opinion.

I don't think they will lock you up in an insane asylum, but your research will largely be shunned in the academic community. Your career and funding for research may also suffer as a result.

Obviously, mainstream physicalist science doesn't agree with your reasoning, because Ian Stevenson's research carried on by others in The Division of Perceptual Studies at UVA, are not taken seriously by mainstream academia. http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/

The thread title is an oxymoron, but that's good summary from that excerpt.

I'm aware of that, but until that time when scientists can quantify abstract meditative experiences beyond physicalist frameworks, much of what is discussed on this forum will be regarded as superstition by mainstream secular academia.

Cultivate the 4 immeasurables http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html.

As it shouldn't, because mainstream physicalist science regards anything being discussed on TTB's as superstitious nonsense.

Equanimity is the 4th of 4 brahmaviharas/immeasurables, which are wholesome mental states that can be used to cultivate the 4 form realm jhanas which are refined realms of experience. This doesn't uproot ignorance itself.

"Neutrality to all things" is equivalent to ignorance in Buddhism.

"Insight meditation" aka. vipassana/vipashyana. This video gives instructions on how to apply this technique from the perspective of the Theravada/Hinayana tradition: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32345-vdo-sound-effect-meditiation-and-mindfulness/?p=490442

You ever heard of Sutra Mahamudra? It's basically a systematized application of what RongzomFan posted.

Start of new topic here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32980-why-so-much-emphasis-on-dukkha/

The bold is beginning to scratch the surface of dukkha in Buddhism. I'm going to create a thread in the Buddhist sub-forum which will delve into this further. I will also address the 12 links of dependent origination in that thread also.

I indicated here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=503998 that we were all hypocrites. The amusement from this thread stems from the fact that the theists are just as fervent in attempting to prove the validity of their arguments to the 'antitheistic fundamentalists'. Yet, people are insisting that RongzomFan must be sympathetic/agnostic towards their position, but so far, no one has insisted that the theists must be sympathetic/agnostic towards RongzomFan's position. Furthermore, Gatito has been unable to admit to his logical fallacies and double standards made in this thread.

Contributing factors which, in Buddhism, are also listed among the 8 worldly dharmas, the 8 leisures and 10 endowments of a 'precious human rebirth' [http://www.thubtenchodron.org/GradualPathToEnlightenment/O_PreciousHumanLife.html] and the degree to which the kleshas obstruct progress on the path. In any case, regardless of the differences in tenet systems and what narrative we ultimately follow: all of us are searching for happiness in some way. So we should rejoice, that unlike the average person: we have accumulated enough merit for the right conditions to look for happiness outside of mundane pursuits. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Aryadeva Those with little merit will not Even wonder about these things. But merely to entertain doubts About saṃsāra will make it fall apart. ~ Āryadeva, Four Hundred Verses, VIII, 5

The reverse can be said by RongzomFan. Perhaps, this video from a Hinayana perspective, could help you understand Buddhist tenet systems better: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32345-vdo-sound-effect-meditiation-and-mindfulness/?p=490442

Specifically, 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas.

This is misrepresenting Buddhist tenet systems.

It's really not about someone's intellectual capacity. I would say, based off of my interactions with them on this board, that ralis, gatito, adept, Jetsun, etc. don't have the capacity to want to understand much less accept Buddhist tenet systems.

"Dharma is not the same as religion" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/dharma-religion_b_875314.html "...The reduction of dharma to concepts such as religion and law has harmful consequences: it places the study of dharma in Western frameworks, moving it away from the authority of its own exemplars. Moreover, it creates the false impression that dharma is similar to Christian ecclesiastical law-making and the related struggles for state power...."

So, you admit you are engaging in hypocritical apologetics?