What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Birch]

Oooh, am I being a bad poster?

 

You know, I'd really love to have a conversation about this stuff with folks who are above my level and not feel I have to play intellectual swordfighting just to be able to post. Although that kind of debate can be fun in person.

 

Vajra is a fascinating guy. Actually Vajra, I will address you directly as it is much more polite - I never know how much stuff you're just quoting from scripture and how much you have realized of it yourself.

 

I am wondering to myself whether MORE support from an established text or discourse is an illustration of LESS personal understanding (see my post above LOL) . Or MAYBE you are just using them as common references for people who do know them already? In which case I have been feeling quite left out because haven't read them (yet).

 

Don't get me wrong, I love a LOT of the Buddhist discourses - especially on mindfulness and compassion. In fact I've come across a few folks that are able to present Buddhist teachings in a very simple, clear and compassionate manner.

 

I don't suggest you dumb down for me, and again I would love to read more on your OWN insights as gained in meditation and practice (well, I guess reading is a practice;-))

[Sunya]

from what he told me, everything that he talks about is through experience. he was actually a pretty crazy Hindu back in the day, I remember reading his debates on E-Sangha and he was very very much dogmatic in his way of thinking, no doubt from his experiences and insights on the Vedanta and Shiva path.. but then something changed. that sort of change doesn't come from reading a book or meeting someone who is really convincing, that sort of change can only come through experience. like how can a really fundamentalist Baptist every get past their attachment to the 'true' interpretation of the Bible and seeing Christ as a dualistic savior? how can the Baptist get beyond that?

 

only through an experience that is beyond... beyond the ordinary reasoning of the dualistic mind, i think the same happened for Vajra, he had direct experiential insights and he's confirming them through Buddhist scripture.

 

Vajra met and connected with a great Master, and through the mind to mind transmission realized something wonderful, I think....Me... i haven't done that. though i'm trying to connect to the Master, my path to dharma has been the slow kind of study and reasoning. this is how it happens for most people I think, not everyone has the karma to connect with a living master and receive experiential insights right away.

 

Lighten up, Buck-o. We got the message: Buddhism (Vajrayana only) rocks!

 

Did Vajrahridaya ever consider himself wrong?

 

The Buddha is an asshole. Who gives a flying fig what he said?

If I meet him on the road, I keel heem!

G'day!

 

All schools of Buddhism rock actually and so do all religions that attempt to lift the veil of mystery and give human beings more than a life full of suffering and attachment.

 

I'm going to guess that since you have nothing valuable to add to the discussion you chime in with sarcasm and attempt to feel smart and bold? How does that benefit you or others in any way?

 

oh and in your attempt to appear clever you took a Zen teaching completely out of context since you have no clue what it truly means. that teaching is about attachment to form and not getting caught up in visions and other phenomena that occur during meditation.

Edited August 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

Face it, dwai. There's no obviously discernible "core of being". Logic or evidence doesn't demand there has to be either. Each resulting phenomenon which arises is like a cross-section cut through several layers of "external" and "internal" essentia in Dependent Origination, if you know what I mean. This is not a matter of "subjectivity" or "objectivity", simply cause and effect at work. The feeling of "being" is just another one of these mundane phenomena arisen via causes and consequences. It's not somehow more special/primary/higher/deeper/.. than other phenomena, or some kind of a basic fact of existence more than anything else is...

 

The concept of Alaya Vijnana was soundly refuted and packed away for a good millenium by Shankaracharya in India. And despite what some "Buddhists" would like to claim, he did debate and defeat some of the best Buddhist minds. Alaya Vijnana as it stands cannot explain the continuity of experience or memory. Forget about across lifetimes...even to the most casual observer, when thinking about an experience continuing in first-person across millions of discrete quanta of a chain reaction (cause and effect) is a complete logical absurdity. All this is simply a back-pedaling to try and logically disprove the existence of the self. They fail completely. As I have shown in the thread discussing the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, The Buddha himself states that Buddha-dhatu/tathagata is the Absolute Self.

 

Shankaracharya

His critique was of the SarvAstivAdins and specifically of their claim of the momentariness of reality, and that being a flow of discrete momentary realities progressing forward via causality. He only criticizes the Sautantrika version of Nirvana.

 

His other critique is of the NairAtmyavAda (anatta) as posited by Buddhism. His position is that Buddhism is unable to explain how the "self" is brought together by to be the self-conscious entity it is by chance (of atoms leading to the physical body + the four skandas). In other words, How can a basically non-conscious entity (material atom) lead to a conscious entity without a conscious entity putting these together in the first place?

 

To counter this, Buddhists introduce Alaya vijnAna, to postulate the concept of "Stream of Consciousness". This was posited to be the "glue" that threads the momentariness together. But Shankara's criticism of this is as follows:

 

Alaya can neither be identified with nor distinguished from the particular cognition. Besides, if it is momentary, it cannot be considered a unifying center. If not, it is just the self under another name.

 

His critique of Dependent Origination being posited as sufficient cause for existence (without the action of a conscious agent) is based on the fact that it presupposes "a stream of consciousness" being responsible for the operation of the various conditions (including avidya) that DO claims as being the explanation.

 

[xabir2005]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

I'm going to guess that since you have nothing valuable to add to the discussion you chime in with sarcasm and attempt to feel smart and bold? How does that benefit you or others in any way?

 

oh and in your attempt to appear clever you took a Zen teaching completely out of context since you have no clue what it truly means. that teaching is about attachment to form and not getting caught up in visions and other phenomena that occur during meditation.

 

 

Yes! You have nailed me! But, oops, too late... I have already keel the Buddha on the road, and in doing so, I have attained Satori! I now have clue what it truly means! Thank you for the opportunity to progress on Buddha's Royal Road to Enlightenment! I am now Buddhist, like you my brother!

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. Can I borrow $50?

 

 

Bonus Question: Is the Self the source of consciousness? What happens to the Self during deep anesthesia? What happens to Self during severe Alzheimer's? Where does it reside?

 

 

 

 

.

[Sunya]

Yes! You have nailed me! But, oops, too late... I have already keel the Buddha on the road, and in doing so, I have attained Satori! I now have clue what it truly means! Thank you for the opportunity to progress on Buddha's Royal Road to Enlightenment! I am now Buddhist, like you my brother!

P.S. Can I borrow $50?

Bonus Question: Is the Self the source of consciousness? What happens to the Self during deep anesthesia? What happens to Self during severe Alzheimer's? Where does it reside?

 

didn't you have your fun on jesusfreak? you really aren't funny at all so I don't understand your purpose in posting. if you were actually making me laugh I would appreciate it, but you try too hard man.

 

 

The concept of Alaya Vijnana was soundly refuted and packed away for a good millenium by Shankaracharya in India. And despite what some "Buddhists" would like to claim, he did debate and defeat some of the best Buddhist minds. Alaya Vijnana as it stands cannot explain the continuity of experience or memory. Forget about across lifetimes...even to the most casual observer, when thinking about an experience continuing in first-person across millions of discrete quanta of a chain reaction (cause and effect) is a complete logical absurdity. All this is simply a back-pedaling to try and logically disprove the existence of the self. They fail completely. As I have shown in the thread discussing the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, The Buddha himself states that Buddha-dhatu/tathagata is the Absolute Self.

 

LOL it's as if you just talk to yourself and never read and learn from the replies of others Dwai, maybe you would have more fun talking to a mirror instead of participating in a discussion forum.

 

how does alaya vijnana not explain the contuinity of experience and memory? alaya vijnana by definition IS continuity

 

and as people have explained to you in that thread, the Buddha never said that Buddha Nature was the Absolute Self, he was speaking about the innate potentiality of Buddhahood that is inherent to all beings. he was speaking to an audience of eternalists who needed to hear that teaching at that time, and the teaching is paradoxical because if you truly understand what Buddha Nature is, there is nothing to grasp, no Self at all, so its paradoxical. Buddha nature isn't experienced as an absorption meditative state like the Hindu Self is.

 

you cherry pick Buddhist teachings and take them out of context to further your agenda.

Edited August 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

didn't you have your fun on jesusfreak? you really aren't funny at all so I don't understand your purpose in posting. if you were actually making me laugh I would appreciate it, but you try too hard man.

 

 

I guess that means 'no' on the $50?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what about my other questions? Why do you diss me, sister?

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

What do achievements mean anything anyway? If there is No Self, nothing makes any sense...everything is hollow and empty.

 

 

Dwai,

 

What your not understanding is that, it's not that we Buddhists stop having such experiences that you call the Self, it's that we view the experience differently, we interpret it differently, thus handle the experience differently. Because it's not the experience that's in the way of liberation, it's the reification and deification of the experience that leads to re-absorption and recycling at the end of a cosmic eon.

 

It's because we study the right view as presented by the Buddha that we don't make the mistake of attaching self identity to a transcendent experience. We consider the experience that you consider Turiya and transcendent true Self as a subtle phenomena, and nothing more. We also experience the bliss of Turiya, but we interpret it differently and we don't reify it as the meaning of life. Which is what Vedanta does, thus get's stuck in some sort of rooftop self definition.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I don't suggest you dumb down for me, and again I would love to read more on your OWN insights as gained in meditation and practice (well, I guess reading is a practice;-))

 

I use scripture in order to show that I'm not lying or making up my own Buddhism. Scripture just validates my experiential insight for others in writing, and for me personally as I don't want to mis-interpret an experience that I might have or an insight that I might stumble upon, I wish to see what the historical Buddhas have had to say about such things.

 

Also, what you said about having that thought in the mind about, "I exist", is actually what it is, since the mind is dependently originated out of endless causes and conditions, parents, and previous parents, and previous parents, as well as your parents, parents... so you have your mind streams history as well as your physical history coming together, all just reflective of dependent origination. Then the mind has these really deep experiences based upon meditative absorption and focus techniques, and then this dependently originated mind goes... "OH, That's my Self!!" but really it's just a dependently originated experiencing, having another type of relative experiencing, maybe seemingly beyond concepts, but non-the-less, beyond concepts is just the flip side of concepts and vice versa, both are interdependent, like yin and yang. So, formless infinite concepts, are just the flip side of formed finite concepts.

 

So, to mistake an experience as the SELF as the Vedantin's do, is considered a mis-interpretation of experience according to Buddhism.

 

This is both direct insight and scripturally supported... thank you very much.. have a wonderful day!!

Free from attachment to, "I" and "Mine"...

Edited August 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Old Man Contradiction]

We consider the experience that you consider Turiya and transcendent true Self as a subtle phenomena, and nothing more. We also experience the bliss of Turiya, but we interpret it differently and we don't reify it as the meaning of life. Which is what Vedanta does, thus get's stuck in some sort of rooftop self definition.

 

You may be generalizing every individual involved with vedantic teachings. After monistic being is, there is still a deepening that can continue. I don't believe that Vedanta preaches that one quits at nonduality. Then again, I don't practice a la vedanta nor buddhism nor taoism, I just listen to them all and try to keep quiet. I would love to talk to you after I read your suggestion of Book 1 of the Treasury of Knowledge, maybe I could hear you through your words better than I can now after I get more fundamental knowledge of your style.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[Vajrahridaya]

You may be generalizing every individual involved with vedantic teachings. After monistic being is, there is still a deepening that can continue. I don't believe that Vedanta preaches that one quits at nonduality. Then again, I don't practice a la vedanta nor buddhism nor taoism, I just listen to them all and try to keep quiet. I would love to talk to you after I read your suggestion of Book 1 of the Treasury of Knowledge, maybe I could hear you through your words better than I can now after I get more fundamental knowledge of your style.

 

Ah, it might help. Of course, my interpretation of book 1 comes from lots of other sources, including inner, but supported by outer.

 

I appreciate your interest though.

 

Vedanta doesn't preach that conventional knowledge stops at the realization of the godhead, but they do preach that realization of the Self of all is the end all be all of transmigration. Which makes no sense when you look at their cosmology which suggests that at the end of the cosmic eon, all is re-absorbed back into the one godhead.

 

So... how is that eternal liberation for an individual? They basically say that liberation is a realization that all is already just one being, and that at the end of the cosmic eon, all beings realize that they are just one being and merge back into one being... only to what? Sit in a formless bliss for a while, then re-express as another cosmos once again to do the whole cycle over? This is exactly why the Buddha said that the path of the Veda's was not the path to total liberation from Samsara. Also, Nagarjuna was very clear when he said that the paths of Theists leads to the edge of Samsara, but not to the complete realization of Nirvana.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Now you are being literalistic. Te surely means virtue, but it is not Virtue in the sense of regular usage. Te is the piece of Tao that all sentient beings carry with them. There is a difference between Confucian influenced Taoism and Lao Tzu's version (which I'm afraid is completely mystical in nature).

 

Many Taoists would disagree. One shouldn't just rely on Lao Tzu to study what Taoism is.

 

What do achievements mean anything anyway? If there is No Self, nothing makes any sense...everything is hollow and empty.

 

If there is the Absolute Self, then having existed forever, none of the little things (such as achievements of one lifetime) will hold any meaning.

 

Worldly achievements are momentary. That doesn't mean one should not accomplish anything. That is the role we all have to play as samsarins. Wake up in the morning, take a dump, eat breakfast (or not), go to school/office (replace with your favorite daily activity), eat, sleep, wake up. Yes...there is pleasure and pain in this living...but for some this is not enough. There is a deep unrest, a sense of dissatisfaction that doesn't go away. But one cannot identify it's cause. It leads to wanting, externally focused, possessing material objects...jumping from one thing to another...one fad to another. The inward focus that meditation brings, is the most plausible solution to the outwardly cravings that we have. If you meditate, you will know what I say is true.

 

None of what you wrote about samsara hold any meaning. Yes, meditate, but also know that whatever you do, be it for joy, ultimate bliss, etc. is no better or worse than any other action you observe in this world. Why think of all this? Why not think of all this? One way or another, all is the play of Consciousness.

 

The Universe is not where you can find joy. The Universe is a projection of the Self. The nature of the Self is Joy.

 

That's why people are so unhappy...because they haven't realized the Self. The sadness, craving, hunger, lust, they are all indicative of the limited selves lacking in Joy that is the Self. The sorrow is because they all know that there is Such a Joy...but have forgotten where to get that Joy, or how.

 

Let me get this right. The Self projects out a Universe filled with suffering. But its nature is joy?

 

Or if all is the projection and of the Self, who is there to be happy or sad? Who can do anything? How can "they"'ve forgtten, when all things happen according to a divine plan. There can "be" no one except this Self. No choice, no direction, no purpose.

 

I hate to say this, but you will realize this as your insight deepens (without meaning it in any patronizing sense whatsoever...I don't know your background and don't know you personally...I am reading off what you write).

 

I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies and noticeable uncertainties in your posts. .

Edited August 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

QUOTE

DWAI:

I hate to say this, but you will realize this as your insight deepens (without meaning it in any patronizing sense whatsoever...I don't know your background and don't know you personally...I am reading off what you write).

 

See, that won't matter if one has the right view, the first step on the 8 fold noble path. It's not that we don't have the experiences, it's just that we contextualize them differently. We don't interpret the experience of the Self as the Self.

 

To put it simply.

 

 

There is no deeper experience to be had that will compound an identification with an experience in meditation or otherwise, if one firmly understands dependent origination on an intuitive level.

[Old Man Contradiction]

Ah, it might help. Of course, my interpretation of book 1 comes from lots of other sources, including inner, but supported by outer.

 

I appreciate your interest though.

 

Vedanta doesn't preach that conventional knowledge stops at the realization of the godhead, but they do preach that realization of the Self of all is the end all be all of transmigration. Which makes no sense when you look at their cosmology which suggests that at the end of the cosmic eon, all is re-absorbed back into the one godhead.

 

So... how is that eternal liberation for an individual? They basically say that liberation is a realization that all is already just one being, and that at the end of the cosmic eon, all beings realize that they are just one being and merge back into one being... only to what? Sit in a formless bliss for a while, then re-express as another cosmos once again to do the whole cycle over? This is exactly why the Buddha said that the path of the Veda's was not the path to total liberation from Samsara. Also, Nagarjuna was very clear when he said that the paths of Theists leads to the edge of Samsara, but not to the complete realization of Nirvana.

 

So you may be right about this. But I also thought that it was common practice for every individual in any tradition to let go of that tradition once it has served it's guidance and to head forth in confidence. Didn't Buddha realize what he did without assistance from a physical guru? If what I say is true then the real way is either Buddhism, or eventually an original creation of the enlightened one.

[Vajrahridaya]

So you may be right about this. But I also thought that it was common practice for every individual in any tradition to let go of that tradition once it has served it's guidance and to head forth in confidence. Didn't Buddha realize what he did without assistance from a physical guru? If what I say is true then the real way is either Buddhism, or eventually an original creation of the enlightened one.

 

The Buddha reached the level of neither perception nor non-perception through having a physical guru. Which is the very highest state of meditative absorption... it's the space that Vedantins and the Upanishadin's consider the end all be all, the start of things, the end of things... the space of the lord of all.

 

He went off on his own because he intuitively felt that there was something deeper. He explains later that he found an ancient path, and not anything new. He also say's that there were wheel turning Buddhas on Earth before him. He also said in Mahayana Sutras that he had already realized the path in a higher realm and came down here to just go through the motions in order to have the karmas to show the path as a wheel turning Buddha. Basically, he consciously planned the whole thing. Which is why he had such a design for creating a path that was clear and accessible to all sorts of different mental developments.

 

In a previous life he had a Guru. Plenty of Hindu Saints say this too, the ones that are supposedly born highly realized that they had Guru's in past lives... These are rare beings.

 

Tibetan Vajrayana is set up so that it doesn't matter if your already enlightened from past lives, you will have a Guru in this life and many of them maybe... just because conventional reflections of the nature of enlightenment is endless really. So, even being enlightened is just coming from a state where you can learn endlessly from the space of no more psychological suffering. That, it's all just new reflections of "eureka" experiencing.

 

Edited August 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Old Man Contradiction]

zis is good.

 

By the way, just watched Amongst White Clouds, have you seen it?

[Vajrahridaya]

zis is good.

 

By the way, just watched Amongst White Clouds, have you seen it?

 

No I haven't, I hadn't even heard of it! I just looked it up, saw a trailer and now I'm into it!

 

Thanks for the information... I'm a big time Buddhist movie buff. I'd be into some Taoist movies too! If they get into the spiritual meanings behind the martial arts and not just the martial arts.

[Sunya]

zis is good.

 

By the way, just watched Amongst White Clouds, have you seen it?

 

I have. it's quite good

check out Yogis of Tibet too

[Marblehead]

I'd be into some Taoist movies too! If they get into the spiritual meanings behind the martial arts and not just the martial arts.

 

The meanings are there, it is just that they are very, very subtle and I think that this is because most producers/directors think that Westerners are ready for it yet just like they thought that we weren't ready to have an oriental hero when Bruce Lee was in his prime. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was a good start though.

 

Be well!

[nac]

(sorry, double post)

Edited August 17, 2009 by nac

[nac]

Look, dwai. Despite the way I've answered your topics recently, I have a deep and abiding respect for the Hindu tradition and it's saints, especially Adi Sankara. He is said to have been kind, gentle and humble, and if nothing else, he's like a mirror showing me an alternative outlook I might have had greater faith in under different circumstances. As things stand however, honesty demands that I confess IMHO the quote you posted is utter crap. Seriously, it's your business if you think that sort of "argument" "soundly refutes and packs away" the Buddhist framework, but here's my (not so perfect) deconstruction of the so-called arguments presented therein, for what it's worth: (note: I don't think for a second that this will convince anybody, but what the hell, I keep trying...)

 

First off, I'd like to say that the Indian system of logical discourse is quite obfuscated compared to the modern equivalents. Hence "proving" something through nyaya barely means anything nowadays, especially regarding the scientific aspects of the dharma. You cannot "prove" something in science by the way, that's only applicable to maths and logic. Science rests wholly on evidence. At any given moment, "science" indicates whatever it's collective body of evidence appears to indicate.

He only criticizes the Sautantrika version of Nirvana.

Great, we have something in common. I'm not a big fan of Sarvastivada myself.

His position is that Buddhism is unable to explain how the "self" is brought together by to be the self-conscious entity it is by chance (of atoms leading to the physical body + the four skandas).

Shankaracharya obviously needed a lesson in evolution. No one can blame him for that.

In other words, How can a basically non-conscious entity (material atom) lead to a conscious entity without a conscious entity putting these together in the first place?

Where does this difference between conscious & non-conscious activity come from? I can't see this fundamental split. Consciousness is a scale starting from randomness then building up to greater levels of complexity, not an atomic, unanalyzable existent. Conscious entities are eddies of randomness on a very large scale, or Newtonian laws on a large scale. Things don't necessarily have to start at one end or the other, but non-conscious is simpler and hence more likely in terms of probability, although it takes longer.

To counter this, Buddhists introduce Alaya vijnAna, to postulate the concept of "Stream of Consciousness". This was posited to be the "glue" that threads the momentariness together.

Yes...

Alaya can neither be identified with nor distinguished from the particular cognition.

Right.

Besides, if it is momentary, it cannot be considered a unifying center. If not, it is just the self under another name.

Here's where things fall apart again. What does he mean by "momentary" in post-Abhidharmic Mahayana? I doubt it's supposed to be a conscious "unifying center" at all, just a tangled mass of interconnected dharmas which are all self-less, empty and translucent. If you want to call that the Self, then isn't it just the Alaya under another name?

His critique of Dependent Origination being posited as sufficient cause for existence (without the action of a conscious agent) is based on the fact that it presupposes "a stream of consciousness" being responsible for the operation of the various conditions (including avidya) that DO claims as being the explanation.

Doesn't apply, considering the argument it rests on.

 

I mean it goes without saying that Hinduism is the superior doctrine within the context of traditional Indian science, just as Confuscianism is the most reasonable philosophy if you go by traditional Chinese culture, science, methods of logical reasoning and philosophical analysis. In light of modern science however, Buddhism has completely superseded either of these doctrines IMHO. As a matter of fact, if you keep applying the reasoning you presented in the OP, you'll find the need for a "glue" tends to disappear altogether. There's no function which a mysterious, atomic, Higher Self serves which can't be handled by lesser dharmas. The world doesn't revolve around any single thing or person forever.

 

For instance, take your ultimate self/source/reality: what is it, precisely? (I hope you haven't enshrouded it in mystery too) If it really has no qualities (nirguna) other than "being", what's the point of insisting that it's higher than other phenomena? How would the world be different if it lacked something which had no properties whatsoever? And isn't being the source of phenomena a "quality"? We might as well break up these functions of the Self and assign them to different causes, phenomena and noumena, until the need for this atomic "Self" becomes a redundant ideal. Like I said, I don't see why any dharma would be more special or primary compared to others in any way or such thing as the final, highest or deepest reality. As for what is perceived as the self, what makes you think that is this self itself?

 

Frankly speaking, this subject looks like a relatively minor point to me. I don't understand why we're still quibbling over it. What exactly changes if all phenomena appear from a single, ultimate Self? What would you do differently if, depending on what you believe, this were or weren't the case? I'm not trying to make anyone reject Advaita. (the world isn't nearly that dramatic ) The strongest criticism I could make against it is that the Buddhist presentation subjectively looks more appropriate and workable to myself. Either way, it's better to quit identifying with doctrinal positions whenever possible and find the truth on your own.

 

What do achievements mean anything anyway? If there is No Self, nothing makes any sense...everything is hollow and empty.

What on earth..?? So life is not worth living unless it's solid and comes from an ultimate Self? Stand on your own two

, man! I had no idea that I wasn't the only one with this kind of emotional bias. Rest assured, this isn't what Buddhism teaches at all. In fact, it may be precisely the kind of attitude Buddhism stands against. What don't achievements mean? You certainly "exist", in a sense, but only in perfect, core-less translucence. On a lesser plane, from The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever:

A real man-real in all the ways that we recognize as real-finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situation which could not possibly exist: sounds have aroma, smells have color and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitch and timbre. There he is informed by a disembodied voice that he has been brought to that place as a champion for his world. He must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world -the real world- will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive.

The man refuses to believe that what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no "real" danger exists. He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparent situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world.

Question: is the man's behavior courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics.

Then again, this is not so surprising once I remember that the "people" we see here on the net are only fronts, after all. Not only is our behavior with family and friends also a front, but even the way we see ourselves (with or without qualities) are also fronts. This is unavoidable, although it can be minimized and adjusted for maximum benefit.

 

PS. I'm just curious, do you still think this universe is eternal? All scientific evidence points to the contrary, you know. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Unless our Selves exist somewhere outside this universe, that's when all this charade ends for sure.

Edited August 17, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

Look, dwai. Despite the way I've answered your topics recently, I have a deep and abiding respect for the Hindu tradition and it's saints, especially Adi Sankara. He is said to have been kind, gentle and humble, and if nothing else, he's like a mirror showing me an alternative outlook I might have had greater faith in under different circumstances. As things stand however, honesty demands that I confess IMHO the quote you posted is utter crap. Seriously, it's your business if you think that sort of "argument" "soundly refutes and packs away" the Buddhist framework, but here's my (not so perfect) deconstruction of the so-called arguments presented therein, for what it's worth: (note: I don't think for a second that this will convince anybody, but what the hell, I keep trying...)

 

First off, I'd like to say that the Indian system of logical discourse is quite obfuscated compared to the modern equivalents. Hence "proving" something through nyaya barely means anything nowadays, especially regarding the scientific aspects of the dharma. You cannot "prove" something in science by the way, that's only applicable to maths and logic. Science rests wholly on evidence. At any given moment, "science" indicates whatever it's collective body of evidence appears to indicate.

 

Great, we have something in common. I'm not a big fan of Sarvastivada myself.

 

Great.

 

Here's an article I'd written a long time back on the topic Science, Scientific method and it's limitations:

 

The Battle between Science and Yoga

 

Shankaracharya obviously needed a lesson in evolution. No one can blame him for that.

 

Where does this difference between conscious & non-conscious activity come from? I can't see this fundamental split. Consciousness is a scale starting from randomness then building up to greater levels of complexity, not an atomic, unanalyzable existent. Things don't necessarily have to start at one end or the other, but non-conscious is simpler and hence more likely in terms of probability.

 

Yes...

 

Right.

 

Here's where things fall apart again. What does he mean by "momentary" in post-Abhidharmic Mahayana? I doubt it's supposed to be a conscious "unifying center" at all, just a tangled mass of interconnected dharmas which are all self-less, empty and translucent. If you want to call that the Self, then isn't it just the Alaya under another name?

 

Precisely my point (and Shankara's) -- Alaya Vijnana is Atman.

 

Doesn't apply, considering the argument it rests on.

 

But you just agreed with Shankara

 

I mean it goes without saying that Hinduism is the superior doctrine within the context of traditional Indian science, just as Confuscianism is the most reasonable philosophy if you go by traditional Chinese culture, science, methods of logical reasoning and philosophical analysis. In light of modern science however, Buddhism has completely superseded either of these doctrines IMHO. As a matter of fact, if you keep applying the reasoning you presented in the OP, you'll find the need for a "glue" tends to disappear altogether. There's no function which a mysterious, atomic, Higher Self serves which can't be handled by lesser dharmas. The world doesn't revolve around any single thing or person forever.

 

For instance, take your ultimate self/source/reality: what is it, precisely? (I hope you haven't enshrouded it in mystery too) If it really has no qualities (nirguna) other than "being", what's the point of insisting that it's higher than other phenomena? How would the world be different if it lacked something which had no properties whatsoever? And isn't being the source of phenomena a "quality"? We might as well break up these functions of the Self and assign them to different causes, phenomena and noumena, until the need for this atomic "Self" becomes a redundant ideal. Like I said, I don't see why any dharma would be more special or primary compared to others in any way or such thing as the final, highest or deepest reality. As for what is perceived as the self, what makes you think that is this self itself?

 

But it is mysterious. It is beyond percepts and concepts (even if we do have to name it for the sake of convenience, just as Taoists name Tao). It is non-phenomenal because it is eternal, infinite and non-dual. You do agree that Alaya Vijnana is eternal right?

 

BTW, there is complete compatibility between Evolution and Shankara's thoughts. Because Evolution is the lower Truth realm, the realm of the material universe. All non-dual systems posit that Consciousness is the source and matter simply a creation/projection/superimposition on Consciousness (depending on which system it is). So if Non-duality is the Higher Truth, then it is beyond the laws of nature (as we know it in the general and scientific sense). I have been keeping Science out of this discussion simply because I don't want to mix the two. Science is a Categorical framework that is applied to the Infinite to come up with a limited reality. As is any religion. The Universal laws of nature are not universal beyond the view provided by the framework (Science). That's why you find a discord between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. They are two completely different Categorical frameworks.

 

Frankly speaking, this subject looks like a relatively minor point to me. I don't understand why we're still quibbling over it. What exactly changes if all phenomena appear from a single, ultimate Self? What would you do differently if, depending on what you believe, this were or weren't the case? I'm not trying to make anyone reject Advaita. (the world isn't nearly that dramatic ) The strongest criticism I could make against it is that the Buddhist presentation subjectively looks more appropriate and workable to myself. Either way, it's better to quit identifying with doctrinal positions whenever possible and find the truth on your own.

What on earth..?? So life is not worth living unless it's solid and comes from an ultimate Self? Stand on your own two

, man! I had no idea that I wasn't the only one with this kind of emotional bias. Rest assured, this isn't what Buddhism teaches at all. In fact, it may be precisely the kind of attitude Buddhism stands against. What don't achievements mean? You certainly "exist", in a sense, but only in perfect, core-less translucence. On a lesser plane, from The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever:

 

Then again, this is not so surprising once I remember that the "people" we see here on the net are only fronts, after all. Not only is our behavior with family and friends also a front, but even the way we see ourselves (with or without qualities) are also fronts. This is unavoidable, although it can be minimized and adjusted for maximum benefit.

 

There has never been any dichotomy there. Vedantic thought doesn't teach anything different. The ideal human being is fully committed to the workings of Samsara without being attached to anything. He works, aims for material, physical and spiritual prosperity. Gives it all up when it's appropriate and renounces to focus on the Spiritual. After (if) having realized what there is to be realized, he comes back and shares his wisdom compassionately.

 

I see that you get my "Point" afterall. There IS no difference between what Advaita or other Vedantic systems teach and what Buddhism or Taoism teach. They are all different ways to point to the same moon.

 

They are all mules that carry you up to the summit of the same mountain. My issue was with some friends here arguing that Buddhism is better or the best way and that it teaches something completely and diametrically opposed to what Vedanta or Taoism teach.

 

PS. I'm just curious, do you still think this universe is eternal? All scientific evidence points to the contrary, you know. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Unless our Selves exist somewhere outside this universe, that's when all this charade ends for sure.

 

Like I pointed out, Science is simply a Categorical Framework. The Universe is not the Absolute Reality. It is a projection. It is real but in a limited sense. The Universe therefore may not be eternal. That does not mean The Self is not eternal.

 

Believe me, I have a very strong scientific background, am a trained electrical and computer engineer. That doesn't prevent me from seeing it's limitations and biases.

Edited August 17, 2009 by dwai

[nac]

I disagree that consciousness is the atomic core of all existence. Other than that, I more or less agree with Advaita. Either way, it's a minor issue for me. BTW how do we relate to world except by means of categorical frameworks?

 

PS. I'll post a detailed response later. Sorry, I access the net from my bother's PC.

Edited August 17, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

[Wayfarer64]

Hi All,

 

I think, therefore I am. Yeah, I know. Somebody else said that a few years ago.

 

I feel my 'self' is my unconsciousness, soul and spirit, if you will.

 

However, without this manifest body there would be no 'self' would there?

 

Be well!

 

 

Cognito ergo sum- Decarte coined that one I think...

 

But...there would be a self without the body in my experience...

 

several here have had out of body experiences that deny the body/mind construct as non- dispersable...

 

also,

too much thinking can do real harm in some folks' minds....let go of all this banter and LIVE!!!

 

 

just go out side and do somethiong vigorous and healthy-

 

 

love to all-Pat