What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Vajrahridaya]

Is it possible to be free from the unconditioned consciousness? Or are we talking about freedom from the concept of the substance of universal Self, unconditioned consciousness, etc.?

 

We don't consider the realization of a universal Self as the same as our ultimate unconditioning. We still see this as a very subtle condition which leads to recycling.

[dwai]

Is it possible to be free from the unconditioned consciousness? Or are we talking about freedom from the concept of the substance of universal Self, unconditioned consciousness, etc.?

 

Why would someone want to be free from (unconditioned) consciousness? Without it nothing will matter...

There is freedom IN unconditioned consciousness. When the realization dawns that The Self is that which is not Not-Self.

 

Actually the freedom is in realizing the Self and then going back into Samsara. That's why many Realized Masters go back into society (out of compassion, to guide genuine seekers) and then finally when their work is done, they take Maha-samaadhi.

Edited August 20, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

I've read quite some Buddhist polemics, and especially the mind/consciousness-body split never made sense to me.

To prove the existence of a mind apart from a body, Buddhists say that a material cause (ia body or a brain) can't have an immaterial result (a thought or moment of consciousness).

If this is so, how does the mind interact with the body? I never got that, and never saw an explanation of it.

 

Saying self is a combination of consciousness and body is a gross oversimplification imho. Self is a combination of so many factors (biological, historical, social, to name few) it boggles the mind.

 

Cheers.

I was just telling mikael a few moments before you posted (I don't know why I told him) that a few days ago, I was contemplating on the nature of the life principle. And just a while later, while searching on the internet for something totally unrelated, I found a relevant article that answers my questions very well, as if my intentions brought me the article I wanted. (there have been similar occurrences recently like that but won't go into details)

 

Anyway here's the link: http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha205.htm

 

Basically the mind/consciousness and body in Buddhism are not seen as identical, nor different, but mutually dependent while we are still alive, however is not destroyed at death. Consciousness is not treated as a substantial Self or soul in Buddhsm. It is different from the materialist nor the eternalist's interpretation of it. See "The 'Life-principle' (Jiva) and the 'mortal body' (Satira)"

 

This is basically in line with principle of dependent origination as taught by the Buddha:

When there is this, that is.

With the arising of this, that arises.

When this is not, neither is that.

With the cessation of this, that ceases.

 

Gee. If you want clarifications on minute details of Far Eastern Buddhist doctrine, there's nothing else for it, you have to visit E-Sangha and talk to people like Huifeng, Huseng, Astus, etc. in the East Asian Buddhism subforums. xabir2005 is the only doctrinal expert we've got here.

lol I'm nothing close to that.

 

However, Thusness told me a few times to do a Ph.D in Buddhism. So 10 years down the road, who knows...

Edited August 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Is it possible to be free from the unconditioned consciousness? Or are we talking about freedom from the concept of the substance of universal Self, unconditioned consciousness, etc.?

I think this passage I wrote is relevant, especially the underlined...

QUOTE

...The word 'source' by itself isn't a problem but how we understand it. Thusness told me that in Buddhism, though it sometimes talk about Source, it is refering to an individual source. Having a universal consciousness and having the same metaphysical essence is different. In buddhism, there is no such source, there is however individual stream of awareness.

 

Therefore one must still awake to the witness and later realize that it has nothing to do with a universal consciousness, nor seek to merge with it. Then one realizes anatta, non-dual, then one realizes the Dependent Origination. It is plain and simple and can be directly experience now, nothing mystical, just that when we read too much yet without the support of real time and direct experience, we conjure out all sort of nonsense. And as Thusness said, first experience the Witness, then realise that it's nondual Witnessing, then realise dependent origination. There is no denying of nondual witnessing, so one should keep the experience, don't deny that experience but also keep refining one's views, as Rob Burbea and Thusness have said.

 

There is no denial of one's individual stream of consciousness, and one has to have direct experience of it, and then one realizes it's non-dual nature. And one realizes when one is freed from the dichotomy of subject/object duality, it is anatta. Experience has always been so. And each moment of manifestation is luminous yet empty, there is nothing extraordinary. In hearing, only sound... if there is sound without efffort, how can it not be dependently originated? When we become bare and naked in awareness and not react to dogmas, it is plain, direct and simple...

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why would someone want to be free from (unconditioned) consciousness? Without it nothing will matter...

There is freedom IN unconditioned consciousness. When the realization dawns that The Self is that which is not Not-Self.

 

Actually the freedom is in realizing the Self and then going back into Samsara. That's why many Realized Masters go back into society (out of compassion, to guide genuine seekers) and then finally when their work is done, they take Maha-samaadhi.

 

Nothing matters if all is One. There is no free will. There is no destination. We are all in the hands of a cynical universe that creates itself, destroys itself, causes suffering, mends suffering. There are no masters and there are no seekers. Meditation is fruitless. No you, no I, no enlightenment. Just this one giant monster separating and uniting over and over. You cannot unite with it because there is nothing but this giant creature. Joyful? I think not.

 

There are no realized masters in this paradigm of reality. No responsibility. No karma. It is nihilism at its finest. This is why you don't know why you meditate. If you truly adhere to the universal consciousness, you must also recognize that there is no such thing as you to do anything. Compassion? Guide people?

 

This is freedom?

 

.

 

Why don't you strip down your beliefs of all the fancy language and see that it contradicts how anyone experiences reality.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Nothing matters if all is One. There is no free will.

 

Thought I would pop in and say "Hi" so y'all know I am reading the thread.

 

To the quote I suggest: Nothing matters but everything matters. I have free will (within my own personal limitations).

 

And life goes on.

 

Be well!

[nac]

To the quote I suggest: Nothing matters but everything matters. I have free will (within my own personal limitations).

 

And life goes on.

The point is, All is One doesn't necessarily => everything matters, or vice-versa. It doesn't logically follow at all.

 

And this doesn't have to be their motivation either:

Actually the freedom is in realizing the Self and then going back into Samsara. That's why many Realized Masters go back into society (out of compassion, to guide genuine seekers) and then finally when their work is done, they take Maha-samaadhi.

Edited August 20, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

The point is, All is One doesn't necessarily => everything matters, or vice-versa. It doesn't logically follow at all.

 

But I never made that connection, did I?

 

Yes, I do often say All is One. This suggests that I hold to the belief that everything and every non-thing is a manifestation of Tao. So I suppose it would be fair to say that everything matters as far as Tao is concerned.

 

In the Mystery (wu) nothing matters (to me). In the Manifest (yo) everything matters (to me). (Well, we have to disregard a lot of stuff because it just doesn't apply to our life. But everything matters to some one or some thing, even if it matters only to itself.)

 

Be well!

[nac]

But I never made that connection, did I?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, dwai did.

Edited August 20, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

Nothing matters if all is One. There is no free will. There is no destination. We are all in the hands of a cynical universe that creates itself, destroys itself, causes suffering, mends suffering. There are no masters and there are no seekers. Meditation is fruitless. No you, no I, no enlightenment. Just this one giant monster separating and uniting over and over. You cannot unite with it because there is nothing but this giant creature. Joyful? I think not.

 

There are no realized masters in this paradigm of reality. No responsibility. No karma. It is nihilism at its finest. This is why you don't know why you meditate. If you truly adhere to the universal consciousness, you must also recognize that there is no such thing as you to do anything. Compassion? Guide people?

 

This is freedom?

 

.

 

Why don't you strip down your beliefs of all the fancy language and see that it contradicts how anyone experiences reality.

 

Wow...looks like you don't like this model. I respect that. But that doesn't mean that it signifies the same thing to those who do.

 

All is One means one sees the Self in Everything. This is the source of Love and compassion, because nothing is separate from the self. The separation is the illusion...there isn't really any separating or uniting. The Self always exists...it is simply a realization that's all.

 

And to claim that this is Nihilism is the most oxymoronic statement I have heard till date. How is Nihilism? Nihilism is claiming that there IS no Self. That is the most nihilistic statement made, especially when people who make it don't have context of what it really signifies.

 

I have never claimed that this can be experienced in the "normal" way everyone experiences reality. This has to be experienced, period.

 

For you it is sufficient cause to think I am misguided in my quest because I don't know why I meditate. Why don't you tell me why YOU meditate (or do you?)?

Edited August 20, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Wow...looks like you don't like this model. I respect that. But that doesn't mean that it signifies the same thing to those who do.

 

All is One means one sees the Self in Everything. This is the source of Love and compassion, because nothing is separate from the self. The separation is the illusion...there isn't really any separating or uniting. The Self always exists...it is simply a realization that's all.

 

I have never claimed that this can be experienced in the "normal" way everyone experiences reality. This has to be experienced, period.

 

For you it is sufficient cause to think I am misguided in my quest because I don't know why I meditate. Why don't you tell me why YOU meditate (or do you?)?

 

so...when I'm hungry, can you eat for me?

[nac]

Marblehead: See?

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually the freedom is in realizing the Self and then going back into Samsara. That's why many Realized Masters go back into society (out of compassion, to guide genuine seekers) and then finally when their work is done, they take Maha-samaadhi.

 

And then what's next? I don't recall Hinduism much talking about what happens after Maha-samadhi except getting to sit in bliss in some bliss realm.

 

 

All is One means one sees the Self in Everything. This is the source of Love and compassion...

 

 

Highly realized Buddhists of which there have been more than highly realized Hindu's seem to do just fine without an ultimate Self of all. We still manifest deep compassion, and unconditional love.

 

We see that we are all connected, not one. We see that we all have the same potential, but we are not one Self.

[nac]

Highly realized Buddhists of which there have been more than highly realized Hindu's seem to do just fine without an ultimate Self of all.

Eh?

[Vajrahridaya]

Eh?

 

Yes, because Hinduism never really spread outside of India and India just became Hindu again, or a new type of Hinduism that is somewhat a crypto-Buddhism called Advaita Vedanta turned the country Hindu again after the Muslims destroyed various Buddhist schools and temples 1,200 years ago? Buddhism during it's big conquests took China, Japan, and Buddhism was way up north past India, and was all of India, Shri Lanka, lots of the small Islands all around Asia including Korea, Thailand, Vietnam. The amount of Buddhas over the years vastly outnumbers the amount of Siddhas of Hinduism.

 

I'm not saying that Hinduism brings people to full enlightenment, though maybe some people did realize full enlightenment by transcending the Hindu concepts... who knows how one internalizes concepts?

 

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Highly realized Buddhists of which there have been more than highly realized Hindu's seem to do just fine without an ultimate Self of all. We still manifest deep compassion, and unconditional love.

 

 

 

You are a "highly realized Buddhist"? Really!!!? Get outa town!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 20, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

You are a "highly realized Buddhist"? Really!!!? Get outa town!!!!!!!!

.

 

Sometimes you actually do make me laugh out loud. Thanks!

[nac]

Humans [or any other sentient creatures] build models of their environment, and also future possible or desirable environments. So heuristic drives [wants and needs] tends to conflate the imagined environment or entity with a feeling that the environment or entity is real. In this way, the want of a heaven creates the illusion that heaven exists. The desire for god creates the illusion that god exists.

I saw this recently and just thought it might be relevant to this topic...

[Sunya]

I saw this recently and just thought it might be relevant to this topic...

 

 

mm nice quote..thats very good... yes.. i've been thinking about that too. how desire creates illusion and due to wrong view that illusion becomes seemingly reality! which is quite scary. so the Muslim martyrs who blow themselves up believing they will go to heaven and have 99 virgins.. will actually experience that!!! but only temporarily of course. and then they have some suffering to go through for all the suffering they caused

Edited August 20, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

mm nice quote..thats very good... yes.. i've been thinking about that too. how desire creates illusion and due to wrong view that illusion becomes seemingly reality! which is quite scary. so the Muslim martyrs who blow themselves up believing they will go to heaven and have 99 virgins.. will actually experience that!!! but only temporarily of course. and then they have some suffering to go through for all the suffering they caused

 

Indeed... or they don't actually experience what they thought they believed in, because in that moment of pulling the wire... most likely... tons of fear comes in and they realize their blind faith as their bardo body floats through all their regrets and unfulfilled desires. Who knows... each individual is very complicated.

[nac]

The quote is taken from the Richard Dawkins forum. It was written by a hardcore atheist moderator.

Edited August 20, 2009 by nac

[Fruitzilla]

I was just telling mikael a few moments before you posted (I don't know why I told him) that a few days ago, I was contemplating on the nature of the life principle. And just a while later, while searching on the internet for something totally unrelated, I found a relevant article that answers my questions very well, as if my intentions brought me the article I wanted. (there have been similar occurrences recently like that but won't go into details)

 

Anyway here's the link: http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha205.htm

 

Basically the mind/consciousness and body in Buddhism are not seen as identical, nor different, but mutually dependent while we are still alive, however is not destroyed at death. Consciousness is not treated as a substantial Self or soul in Buddhsm. It is different from the materialist nor the eternalist's interpretation of it. See "The 'Life-principle' (Jiva) and the 'mortal body' (Satira)"

 

This is basically in line with principle of dependent origination as taught by the Buddha:

When there is this, that is.

With the arising of this, that arises.

When this is not, neither is that.

With the cessation of this, that ceases.

lol I'm nothing close to that.

 

However, Thusness told me a few times to do a Ph.D in Buddhism. So 10 years down the road, who knows...

 

I read the article, but it was pretty hard to make heads or tails of it. Anyway, it was pretty much based on antiquated concepts of the nature of the world/human beings, while the Allan Wallace stuff I read has a more contemporary outlook. Too hard to lay one over the other for me.

 

And it still doesn't answer how an immaterial consciousness can interact with a material body. Unless it proves somewhere that the question is not appropriate, which I didn't get from it.

 

Anyway, thanks for the trouble!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

And it still doesn't answer how an immaterial consciousness can interact with a material body. Unless it proves somewhere that the question is not appropriate, which I didn't get from it.

 

 

The immaterial consciousness thought the material into it's vessel...

 

It's quite simple.

 

Like electricity and wires...

 

We produce electricity but are also products of it. interdependent origination.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Wow...looks like you don't like this model. I respect that. But that doesn't mean that it signifies the same thing to those who do.

 

All is One means one sees the Self in Everything. This is the source of Love and compassion, because nothing is separate from the self. The separation is the illusion...there isn't really any separating or uniting. The Self always exists...it is simply a realization that's all.

 

And to claim that this is Nihilism is the most oxymoronic statement I have heard till date. How is Nihilism? Nihilism is claiming that there IS no Self. That is the most nihilistic statement made, especially when people who make it don't have context of what it really signifies.

 

I have never claimed that this can be experienced in the "normal" way everyone experiences reality. This has to be experienced, period.

 

For you it is sufficient cause to think I am misguided in my quest because I don't know why I meditate. Why don't you tell me why YOU meditate (or do you?)?

 

It signifies exactly what I wrote. If this world that you see is an ever joyful and playful world, people might disagree. But it isn't.

 

Furthermore, "you" can't see the Self as everything. Everything already IS the Self. You can't "see" anything because you are already it. You have no choice but to be it even in this very state of whatever feelings or thoughts that may arise in you. All meditative states you go through don't bring you closer to the Self, because every living moment is its manifestation. You can't get close to that which you already are.

 

Why do "I" meditate? Hmm...so that I can get off Krishna's chariot. Clever, eh?

Edited August 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Why do "I" meditate? Hmm...so that I can get off Krishna's chariot. Clever, eh?

 

Very good!!

 

Ha! Considering my diksha name given to me at 10 years old is Hari (A name for Krishna). HAHA!!! GET OFF MY CHARIOT YOU BUDDHIST SCOUNDREL!! HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE IS NO SUPREME SOURCE TO EXISTENCE, I AM THAT SOURCE>>> DARN IT!!

Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya