The Eternal Self of the Buddha

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Part of me wonders if this negates free will. Or did the Buddha say free will is an Ego illusion too?

Did Buddha speak directly on this? Are there Pali and Sanskrit Suttas that speak of this?

*ponders*

 

I always get a bit of a perk when I see your posts for some reason? Is it the blue, kind of a favorite color, though they all share each other. But, Blue is very nice, especially cobalt or lapis.

 

Anway... yes we do have free will, but it's kind of complex, because we don't as well. It's simultaneous and probably one of the hardest questions to answer in an absolute sense of is or is not.

 

Those that see past their own personal mind stream more and more through introspection, of which the desire arises due to causes and conditions from the past, reflective most likely of how many selfless actions one did, which is also caused by another infinite regress... Whew... Which is why it's so important to teach the Dharma, so that it's seeds spread.

 

But, the more one introspects and free's oneself of the causes and conditions of being a real "me"... the more free that mes "will" get's because the level of information taken in, starts expanding past the self, so the choices that "me" makes are taking in and ordering more of the seeming chaos through understanding connections on faster and subtler planes of comprehension.

 

until one realizes that the only free will is the will offered to all beings as a servant of the sanatana dharma. One may even enter another religion and make it more Buddhist through the concepts that are available. Seems like Jesus did that, and others in other religions.

 

Anyway... yes free will is possible, but not in the way that most Western definitions apply.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

1) If the Adi Buddha/Dharmakaya had Self, he/she/it would be some kind of God.

2) Fuck God!!!1 Fuck Buddhas too, those bastards! If I found any of those losers I wouldn't waste a second chopping them into the tiniest bits possible...

 

==> Adi Buddha is a strong concept/abstraction/archetype present in my mind (and everyone else's) without inherent reality. (except the reality which is contributed by it's presence in our minds, of course)

Q.E.D.

 

Let's see you get around that one.

Edited August 4, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha said, he who sees dependent origination sees the Dharma, and he who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.

 

Right, which basically means that the Buddha and the display of his teachings are really not-two. So, find Buddha in Buddhadharma, or even better, your own Buddha-nature realized through studying the Buddhadharma.

 

1) If the Adi Buddha/Dharmakaya had Self, he/she/it would be some kind of God.

2) Fuck God!!!1 Fuck Buddhas too, those bastards! If I found any of those losers I wouldn't waste a second chopping them into the tiniest bits possible...

 

==> Adi Buddha is a strong concept/abstraction/archetype present in my mind (and everyone else's) without inherent reality.

Q.E.D.

 

Let's see you try and get around that one.

 

O.M.G.!! I am laughing pretty loud right now... hope to not wake the roommate. ssssshhh.

[ralis]

Uh hu... a context that you are severely lacking study and experience in.

 

So be it!

 

I know it's a self satisfying and smug place to be. Everything is the Self, all this talk of this and that is nonsense. Buddhists feel that the truth can be explained and that non-conceptuality is not an ultimate truth. But, of course... Buddhism has always been more complex of an explanation of things than Vedanta, then at the same time, much simpler too. That's just objectively speaking.

 

Pratitsamutpada/Shunyata... so simple, though an infinite regress of explanation is possible from this very simple comprehension.

 

Ciao.

Yes, and Yes... I am a fundimentalist, as in it's very good to understand the fundamentals of one's path and tradition.

 

Pointless to you is not everyone dear ralis. That's a good thing.

 

Oh.. Prove intactness? It's quite good to practice and see directly. You can decide for yourself. It's not so contradictory as such to think so through direct experiencing of the truths revealed in the texts.

 

Yes, I do absolutely feel that Buddhism is the clearest path to the true nature of things on the planet. I do. This knowledge doesn't come from not studying incessantly and practicing diligently for periods of intensity.

 

Prove it to you though? Why bother... You don't even follow the line of reasoning.

 

How can one follow circular reasoning ( petitio principii). Your so called reasoning proceeds from incorrect conclusions.

 

ralis

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

How can one follow circular reasoning ( petitio principii). Your so called reasoning proceeds from incorrect conclusions.

 

ralis

ralis

 

Yeah... uh hu... everything is circular, and so is all logic. Read some Nagarjuna. But, if you follow it experientially, which you'd probably need to have at least some beyond the 5 senses experience and not be so earth bound. You might be able to see how my words are being defined contextually and they won't appear arcane or mysterious to you anymore. You can always look the words up in the dictionary?

 

p.s. I'm not to into Western definitions of logic and reason. I find them quite limited.

 

Like I said, you don't even follow the reasoning.

 

EDIT: Arcane from Archaic

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Edited August 4, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Believe me, long before there were scholars in Tibet, there were in India and they spent a longer duration of time debating and finessing the philosophies. Buddhism is still within the domain of reason, because one has to use it to get to a certain point.

I meant there's little chance of Tibetan Buddhists having missed the sutra extracts you quoted. Every word in every Buddhist sutra has been thoroughly studied and taken into account in their analysis. Bah.

 

If there is no self in Buddhism, who is seeking Nirvana?

Nice koan. Who's asking the question?

 

There is no dichotomy between the Buddha-state being empty yet being The Self. Brahman is exactly like that...empty but full of potentiality.

Let me restate my position using Hindu terminology: Of course God exists. I mean, whose head have I been sharpening my katana for all this time? It's just that the moment I see him doing anything other than helping all sentient beings, *slash* he'll find his divine head rolling down into the fiery pits of hell. Me and an uncaring God: There isn't enough room in the universe for the both of us. And the God of nature is incredibly lazy, otherwise why for instance, do laissez-faire economies result in such horrible, unjust societies like Chile, Hong Kong and pre-depression US? Nope, God can go on "existing" all he likes, as long as he's prepared to meet sudden death as soon as I set my eyes on him. There's a long line of morons waiting to be God. The position comes with no privileges.

 

I'm serious. Doesn't matter if it's God, Brahma, Jesus, Buddha, Zen patriarchs, Adi Shankar, Dawkins or the Dalai Lama, or any other ideal, it comes down to the same thing. Sure, all of these "exist" in different ways, but none of them are God God. In fact, there is no single coherent dharma, real or imaginary, in heaven or earth, natural or artificial, that meets the exalted moral and other criteria required in order to sit on God's throne without being an impostor to some extent. We must always make do with whatever ideal minimizes the suffering of sentient beings the most at the moment. Just as the "perfect" human being (platonic ideal) is only an abstraction, the common, perfect meme... I mean, divinity doesn't really "exist" either. (And I'll be damned before I let someone dictate how to be a perfect human being!)

 

No divine retribution, visions or warnings, or anything of the sort, see? Presence in the mind... that's how shaky God's so-called Self is. Even our puny mortal selves appear stronger by contrast, though you'll find we're just as ephemeral upon closer observation. But you'll never discover God's true nature by philosophising, meditating or talking about it, only by scientific experimentation and accumulating evidence. Hence, this discussion is basically a waste of time. Metaphysics has been destroyed several times by Lin Chi, Kant, and many, many others.

 

You know, I used to think Buddhism is an idealist school of philosophy and Hindus are realists. In this discussion, it seems the other way around. Hindus seem to think their idealistic "God"/"gods" are "real", while Buddhists consider them to be mental constructions/projections with no sharply definable, unconditional "real" or "unreal" existence. Guess which one western schools of realism are more likely to ally themselves with?

 

PS. I think you should give up, Vajrahridaya. Madhyamaka-nature of reality is an ideal which cannot be logically justified within the context of Indo-Tibetan mythology and cosmology as far as I can see.

Edited August 4, 2009 by nac

[mat black]

I actually do get plenty of PM's from people that don't want to get into the thick of a debate for whatever personal reasons, who actually do enjoy my writings, then ask me more questions in private. Your just going to have to believe me on this because I will respect their privacy.

 

I'm just blatantly honest about what I feel about things, and people and blatantly honest about the fact that I could be wrong about any number of things, except the fact that it's dependently originated, LOL! I'm also absolutely sure that I absolutely love everyone, no matter how I may be feeling about that person in any given moment. Because I see through my neurosis to some degree. How is that possible? Through experiences that disengage static identity to karmic baggage.

OK, I'm one of them I don't chime in to these topics because arguing with others is the last thing I want to do. Still, to me, Vajrahridaya's posts are wonderful. Always good to read.

 

I might some time put them all together.

Edited August 4, 2009 by mat black

[Sunya]

Edited August 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

I meant there's little chance of Tibetan Buddhists having missed the sutra extracts you quoted. Every word in every Buddhist sutra has been thoroughly studied and taken into account in their analysis. Bah.

 

you make a good point. the Tibetan Canon basically contains all of the Theravada as well as the Mahayana, and of course the Vajrayana. they are able to have so many different viewpoints without argument because they are able to see each in its respective context.

 

You cannot take one sutra like the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, take some quotes, and discard the rest of the Mahayana teachings. you also cannot take this sutra out of context and not understand the audience that the sutra was meant for. This particular Sutra was meant for people who grasp at an eternal self and need that sort of teaching. It is skillful means, and paradoxical like much of Buddhist teaching, because since Buddha Nature is just potentiality like a hidden seed, how can one call that a self and identify with that potentiality? theres no substance to potentiality, its an abstraction. just like how you cant' say I am compassion, or I am wisdom. this is sort of like the methods of Vajrayana where dieties are used and one identifies with what they represent. What they truly represents are abstractions and one cannot grasp at those since there is nothing there.

[nac]

you make a good point. the Tibetan Canon basically contains all of the Theravada as well as the Mahayana, and of course the Vajrayana. they are able to have so many different viewpoints without argument because they are able to see each in its respective context.

I don't like it. TBH I think Tibetan Buddhism takes up strange, lopsided positions because it draws from such widely divergent sources.

[ZenStatic]

Vajrahridaya,

 

These discussions are pointless! To quantify or even attempt to define any phenomenon, whether in the realm of science or religion is an exercise in futility. The end point is always "my religion is better and more subtle than yours". Your arguments beg the question and always proceed from insubstantial evidence. e.g. You site the Pali Canon, use arcane terms and other sources as absolute evidence of every word the Buddha uttered. Can you prove the Pali Canon has been passed down intact? Are you any different than a fundamentalist of any faith asserting their scriptures are absolute? I think not.

ralis

 

Really? Do you just not bother to do any research on your own? The Pali Canon is widely considered one of the best kept sets of religious texts ever.When do you hear about "newly discovered" texts that contradict the major teachings that are done? We're not talking about the bible here. The assertion that the scriptures are absolute, should be taken in the context of the discussion. This whole thing started by talking about what 1 of the suttas said. So, of course, the sutras would be considered accurate in the course of this discussion.

 

If you can't be assed to read everything and know wth you are talking about, maybe you should just keep your ignorance to yourself. Take your hate of religion elsewhere.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't like it. TBH I think Tibetan Buddhism takes up strange, lopsided positions because it draws from such widely divergent sources.

 

I can understand this position. But, I do feel that all the different schools meet certain peoples needs at different times in their developments. They are in a way kind of complimentary contradictions which help to balance out the minds subtle ability to hold paradox lightly without overly shadowing or illuminating one side over the other, within the context of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent-co-arising) as the empty basis of all these dichotomous seemingly divergent perspectives. As the words of the teaching aren't the entire teaching, as the experience that they allude to is though equal in emptiness, is subtler as far as how much divergent information the experience can hold at one time without labeling with delineating process of thought.

 

Thanks so much guys for the support by the way. My ego needed some chiming in from at least one of the 10 or so people who PM me from time to time.

 

The problem I have with Theism is that it's a fixed view and generally leads to rock like behavior like we have with Islam and Christianity. Buddhism is such a water like philosophy who's logic takes up so many forms of that water, from vapor, to liquid, to solid without fully being any one of these, but all the way through is water/dharma. So, generally speaking within history. Buddhism is the disarmarmament spiritual tradition or if you are so inclined, religion.

 

Yes, Buddhism is in all, the most cohesive and provable religion within the sense of science, and scriptural intactness.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

OK, I'm one of them I don't chime in to these topics because arguing with others is the last thing I want to do. Still, to me, Vajrahridaya's posts are wonderful. Always good to read.

 

I might some time put them all together.

 

Thanks so much brother. God bless you! As in, may your personal universe bless you as a reflection of an auspicious state of mind.

 

I'm actually thinking of the same thing as I could get credit for some of it if I take the Program for Experienced Learners which gives one credit for life experience towards what your studying.

[dwai]

1) If the Adi Buddha/Dharmakaya had Self, he/she/it would be some kind of God.

2) Fuck God!!!1 Fuck Buddhas too, those bastards! If I found any of those losers I wouldn't waste a second chopping them into the tiniest bits possible...

 

==> Adi Buddha is a strong concept/abstraction/archetype present in my mind (and everyone else's) without inherent reality. (except the reality which is contributed by it's presence in our minds, of course)

Q.E.D.

 

Let's see you get around that one.

 

God is a mental construct of the limiting adjunct of the limited self (Jiva).

Fuck whomever you want...that's your prerogative.

 

Who's mind is your mind? And how can a concept in the mind be unreal? It can be non-physical, but if it's in your mind it has to be real...

Let's see you get around that...

Edited August 4, 2009 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

I had ear-marked a response for Lucky7Strikes and will post it right here:

 

I don't have objections with different traditions taking different angles to tackle Spirituality. The fact of the matter is if there is "One truth" that is to be realized, then all of them have to be pointing to the same thing.

 

The Unity of all serious spiritual traditions is in the fact that they all more or less point to the same thing. It is especially true of Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism. No matter how blue in the face you turn in vehement denial of this fact, but the fact remains nonetheless.

 

They all point to the same thing because we all exist. Yet immortality doesn't mean Buddhahood and going to a Christian heaven is not the realization of Brahma. The main reason I like Taoism though is because it stresses observing the ways of nature and learning from direct experience.

 

The notion of the Self, consciousness, Wu-wei are all "tackled" by Buddhists from a different perspective. Seeking the truth in the sutras and doctrines itself is the problem. Use them to see if they fit your module of reality and not worship them. That's how you become a lazy fundamentalist.

 

It's been made clear over and over again the difference between the approach of superimposition and dependent origination. I honestly think your long held beliefs are genuinely being threatened and about to be broken through. Perhaps this is the reason why you keep this struggle going.

 

Belief has strong connections to doubt. .

 

 

 

 

Yes, my narcissism is appalling. Which is why I'm Buddhist because the idea of God is very narcissistic. He's so narcissistic that he becomes this mass of suffering just to what... know himself better?

 

HAHHAHAHAHAA

 

That just made my morning. .

[dwai]

They all point to the same thing because we all exist. Yet immortality doesn't mean Buddhahood and going to a Christian heaven is not the realization of Brahma. The main reason I like Taoism though is because it stresses observing the ways of nature and learning from direct experience.

 

The notion of the Self, consciousness, Wu-wei are all "tackled" by Buddhists from a different perspective. Seeking the truth in the sutras and doctrines itself is the problem. Use them to see if they fit your module of reality and not worship them. That's how you become a lazy fundamentalist.

 

It's been made clear over and over again the difference between the approach of superimposition and dependent origination. I honestly think your long held beliefs are genuinely being threatened and about to be broken through. Perhaps this is the reason why you keep this struggle going.

 

Belief has strong connections to doubt. .

 

 

You still dont' get it do you?

 

There is nothing that will change my mind except my mind. And so far all the "logical" arguments posited are empty and therefore unworthy of being valid knowledge claims.

 

On contrary, the fact that a large number of buddha-boys have swarmed in for "a kill" indicates that it's there pre-(mis?)conceptions about Buddhism that is being challenged and might be broken.

 

Believe you me...it will happen...one day. You will realize that you are Atman...

[nac]

God is a mental construct of the limiting adjunct of the limited self (Jiva).

Fuck whomever you want...that's your prerogative.

 

Who's mind is your mind? And how can a concept in the mind be unreal? It can be non-physical, but if it's in your mind it has to be real...

Let's see you get around that...

It was a joke.

 

Anyway, the noumenon of experience is only a meme which exists within our minds. When we die, it will utterly disintegrate along with our brains unless it's passed on to someone else's mind. That's all it is. It's not somehow special, primary, more fundamental or even more useful (like science and maths) than other ideas. Upon death, subjective experience will probably disintegrate too. In that case, not only will there be no afterlife, we won't even be "at rest" like we're conventionally told. We won't "be" at all, and there will be no self to note that we're not. I can't see anything logically incongruous about that. I really don't understand how you're trying to make experience immortal through philosophical arguments.

 

"Unreal" in the sense of being imaginary. Not having an external counterpart justifying the mental construct. Real in that sense. Unreal in that sense.

Edited August 4, 2009 by nac

[ralis]

I can understand this position. But, I do feel that all the different schools meet certain peoples needs at different times in their developments. They are in a way kind of complimentary contradictions which help to balance out the minds subtle ability to hold paradox lightly without overly shadowing or illuminating one side over the other, within the context of pratityasamutpada (inter-dependent-co-arising) as the empty basis of all these dichotomous seemingly divergent perspectives. As the words of the teaching aren't the entire teaching, as the experience that they allude to is though equal in emptiness, is subtler as far as how much divergent information the experience can hold at one time without labeling with delineating process of thought.

 

Thanks so much guys for the support by the way. My ego needed some chiming in from at least one of the 10 or so people who PM me from time to time.

 

The problem I have with Theism is that it's a fixed view and generally leads to rock like behavior like we have with Islam and Christianity. Buddhism is such a water like philosophy who's logic takes up so many forms of that water, from vapor, to liquid, to solid without fully being any one of these, but all the way through is water/dharma. So, generally speaking within history. Buddhism is the disarmarmament spiritual tradition or if you are so inclined, religion.

 

Yes, Buddhism is in all, the most cohesive and provable religion within the sense of science, and scriptural intactness.

 

 

Give me some examples that prove Buddhism "within the sense of science".

 

ralis

[ralis]

Really? Do you just not bother to do any research on your own? The Pali Canon is widely considered one of the best kept sets of religious texts ever.When do you hear about "newly discovered" texts that contradict the major teachings that are done? We're not talking about the bible here. The assertion that the scriptures are absolute, should be taken in the context of the discussion. This whole thing started by talking about what 1 of the suttas said. So, of course, the sutras would be considered accurate in the course of this discussion.

 

If you can't be assed to read everything and know wth you are talking about, maybe you should just keep your ignorance to yourself. Take your hate of religion elsewhere.

 

Exactly, where did I state that I hate religion? Ignorant? Not a chance!

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

You still dont' get it do you?

 

There is nothing that will change my mind except my mind. And so far all the "logical" arguments posited are empty and therefore unworthy of being valid knowledge claims.

 

On contrary, the fact that a large number of buddha-boys have swarmed in for "a kill" indicates that it's there pre-(mis?)conceptions about Buddhism that is being challenged and might be broken.

 

No I..I...just..don't get it. I guess I held higher hopes for you .

 

It's a matter of balancing skepticism and open mindedness.

 

The number of Buddha boys swarming in for a kill could as well mean how blatantly wrong you are in your interpretations of the Sutras.

 

Go, go realize the Self (as if it is even possible to "attain" it). Then comeback and tell us about it. Apparently Vh and Thusness and all these Buddhist practitioners have gone though the "I Amness" tunnel and saw some sort of folly.

 

Your opinions might be different.

[nac]

No I..I...just..don't get it. I guess I held higher hopes for you .

 

It's a matter of balancing skepticism and open mindedness.

 

The number of Buddha boys swarming in for a kill could as well mean how blatantly wrong you are in your interpretations of the Sutras.

 

Go, go realize the Self (as if it is even possible to "attain" it). Then comeback and tell us about it. Apparently Vh and Thusness and all these Buddhist practitioners have gone though the "I Amness" tunnel and saw some sort of folly.

 

Your opinions might be different.

I honestly want to understand dwai's position. Despite reading pages and pages of discussion, I'm only getting confused. He certainly sounds more confident and rational than most of the Buddhists here, but when I'm trying to understand his reasoning, I sense a philosophical gulf whose nature I cannot fathom. And the discussion goes on non-stop for months. All that I've actually understood so far is that he disagrees with the Buddha's pressentation of the dharma and it has something to do with reality, unreality and illusion. That's it. I haven't been able to progress a single step further than that.

Edited August 4, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

No I..I...just..don't get it. I guess I held higher hopes for you .

 

It's a matter of balancing skepticism and open mindedness.

 

The number of Buddha boys swarming in for a kill could as well mean how blatantly wrong you are in your interpretations of the Sutras.

 

Go, go realize the Self (as if it is even possible to "attain" it). Then comeback and tell us about it. Apparently Vh and Thusness and all these Buddhist practitioners have gone though the "I Amness" tunnel and saw some sort of folly.

 

Your opinions might be different.

 

I have had glimpses of the Self...in the Turiya state.

But have you been able to prove to yourself beyond reasonable doubt that there is No Absolute Self?

 

All you might have possibly done (as it is what anyone can do) is use Neti-neti to tell you what is NOT the Self. If you meditate you will get to a stage where there are no objects in it (no thoughts, mental constructs, etc) but consciousness is self-aware. This state is very vibrant, dynamic. That is the first glimpse of the True Self.

 

I don't buy VH's experiences even for one minute. Someone who is so egotistical cannot possibly have insights of any intrinsic value to offer to others. I don't know thusness, never interacted with him. But it seems to me like you are relying on the testimony of others to support YOUR arguments about something that you haven't experienced yourself.

 

I honestly want to understand dwai's position. Despite reading pages and pages of discussion, I'm only getting confused. He certainly sounds more confident and rational than most of the Buddhists here, but when I'm trying to understand his reasoning, I sense a philosophical gulf whose nature I cannot fathom. And the discussion goes on non-stop for months. All that I've actually understood so far is that he disagrees with the Buddha's pressentation of the dharma and it has something to do with reality, unreality and illusion. That's it. I haven't been able to progress a single step further than that.

 

It boils down to the understanding of "I am". The Pure Subject. You don't even have to meditate. You will intuitively know this as soon as your realize that all your Awareness is dependent on This "I am". Without "I am" nothing can exist, subjectively for you.

 

Since you are a sentient being, your reality truly is your subjective experience. The whole rigamarole about the "non-self" is simply an exercise to show you that you are not what you identify yourself with. You simply are "You"...the "I am".

 

Don't mistake this for Ego...it is different..."I am" is pure awareness of the Self...the Subject with no predicates associated. Ego is Subject Predicate (I am this, or that...).

 

I will post a summary of my locus standii very soon (not that too many folks will be interested in reading what I have to say...but I'll do it nonetheless).

[ralis]

Do Vajrahridaya et.al. have religious backgrounds going back to childhood? Perhaps Catholicism? Are their religious (fundamentalist) views just a reaction to childhood training? I wonder why one would be so desperate to prove the unprovable.

 

As for myself, I had fundamentalist religious doctrine (which is always based in fear) forced on me when I was growing up. It has literally taken me 45 years to liberate myself from their propaganda. Which by the way is a very painful process. Facing one's cherished belief systems (BS) is not an easy thing to do.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 4, 2009 by ralis