What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[nac]

Blue haze? If your talking about seeing into the blue space of infinite... you'd have to meditate deeply for a long time to get there...

I'm talking about the blue haze around Hubble photographs of galaxies being called Chi.

 

The supermundane substance is infinite consciousness' co-creating... all inherently empty of any self substance, and also co-dependently originated.

If Buddhism teaches the existence of such a "substance", then I'm not a religious Buddhist either.

 

Think 12 links simultaneously, throughout endless time... rounding and rounding through infinite beings.

How's that a substance? As far as I know, consciousness is not an eternal base for everything else in Buddhism. Now if you're going to call the laws of physics "substances" too, just because they're "infused" in everything so to speak... (well technically, they're not contained within matter/energy, but only found in interactions between them, but still...)

 

You'd have to meditate deeply for a long time, not just talk some book stuff.

I don't even meditate these days. You can probably tell from my increasing lack of wisdom as the days go by. It began as an experiment to see how depressed I get if I quit meditating. Now I'm trying to build up the motivation to start again.

Edited August 21, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm talking about the blue haze around Hubble photographs of galaxies being called Chi.

Ah... well... the blue haze I'm talking about is the spiritual energy light that Rinpoche and even my Siddha Shaivite Master taught was the light that the Enlightened beings use to travel through and give from, and see through infinitude with.

 

Jnaneshwar calls it the blue lotion over the eyes. He's a deeply realized Hindu saint actually... it's the same experience except they reify it a bit more than Buddhists. As dependent origination is the non-reifying salve.

 

But if your going to disbelieve mystical experiences... because you've never had them. Oh boy, you'll have a hard time with Mahayana.

 

If Buddhism teaches the existence of such a "substance", then I'm not a religious Buddhist either.

 

Not as a self sustained substance, it's all subject to D.O. But, the creative matrix is a good metaphor for co-creative consciousness' (plural).

How's that a substance? Now if you're going to call the laws of physics "substances" too, just because they "infuse" everything...

 

Well exactly, not really... that was supposed to empty out consciousness too... for you. It's just the flow, but the consciousness aspect is the key aspect to realizing all the links, even beyond consciousness.

I don't even meditate these days. You can probably tell from my increasing lack of wisdom as the days go by. It began as an experiment to see how depressed I get if I quit meditating. Now I'm trying to build up the motivation to start again.

 

Ah, yes a great daily help. It should be like brushing your teeth. I hope you do that every day. LOL!

Edited August 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

But if your going to disbelieve mystical experiences... because you've never had them. Oh boy, you'll have a hard time with Mahayana.

Either that, or "mystical experiences" simply don't matter to me.

 

Not as self sustained substance, it's all subject to D.O. But, the creative matrix is a good metaphor for co-creative consciousness' (plural).

Sure. That may be a Tibetan Buddhist view, but I seriously doubt that supramundane substance-related metaphors occur in the (esp. Japanese) Zen view, which strictly focuses on "nothing else". (beyond what is sensed, etc)

 

Well exactly, not really... that was supposed to empty out consciousness too... for you. It's just the flow, but the consciousness aspect is the key aspect to realizing all the links, even beyond consciousness.

Of course, how does one go beyond consciousness by ignoring consciousness itself?

Edited August 21, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Either that, or mystical experiences simply don't matter to me.

Based on a lack of experience.

Sure. That may be the Tibetan Buddhist view, but I seriously doubt if supramundane substance-related metaphors are found in the (esp. Japanese) Zen view, which strictly focuses on "nothing else".

Yes Tibetans think that Zen reifies emptiness to much and doesn't see it as it should be merely relative.

How can one go beyond consciousness by ignoring consciousness itself?

By seeing the causes of consciousness one is consciously "aware" of it's own dependently originated nature. Thereby one's awareness transcends one's consciousness...

[nac]

Based on a lack of experience.

TBH this is not even a factor for me. If they can be sensed, they can be sensed, and that's that. But if they can be sensed, then with sufficient ingenuity, they can also be analysed. If they can be analysed, they're no longer "mystical", but scientific fact. No one has claimed that scientific knowledge is complete.

 

Yes Tibetans think that Zen reifies emptiness to much and doesn't see it as it should be merely relative.

Well that complicates matters, doesn't it?

 

By seeing the causes of consciousness one is consciously "aware" of it's own dependently originated nature. Thereby one's awareness transcends one's consciousness...

Yeah, badly phrased rhetorical question, sorry.

[Vajrahridaya]

Zen has the Buddha mind metaphor. If that's not a metaphor for the co-creativeness of all consciousness' (pural), than... well... shoot.

 

TBH this is not even a factor for me. If they can be sensed, they can be sensed, and that's that. But if they can be sensed, then with sufficient ingenuity, they can also be analysed. If they can be analysed, they're no longer "mystical", but scientific fact. No one has claimed that scientific knowledge is complete.

Ok, indeed your right... which is why Buddhism de-mystifies everything. Very good!

 

Well that complicates matters, doesn't it?

Sure might.. I suppose, not for me... Unless I really try to think about it as such. Nah! I'm Vajrayana through and through... Dzogchen Jalus, here I come!!...

Edited August 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Zen has the Buddha mind metaphor. If that's not a metaphor for the co-creativeness of all consciousness' (pural), than... well... shoot.

The Buddha mind isn't something else.

 

To me, Taoism looks almost like the intersection of Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism. That is, the part which both sides fairly agree on. That's the reason both sides claim that it's closer to their own doctrine than the other side's. (an instance of the optimistic half-full glass ) What do you think?

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha mind isn't something else.

Nah... really? Well, not to me...

 

Because it's still seeing the relativity of all manifestations through infinite consciousness' (plural)

 

Buddha mind is merely just being aware of all dat-a... relative.

To me, Taoism looks almost like the intersection of Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism. That is, the part which both sides fairly agree on. That's the reason both sides claim that it's closer to their own doctrine than the other side's. (an instance of the optimistic half-full glass ) What do you think?

I agree... Taoism play's a good game.

 

It' doesn't reify/deify the Tao nearly as much as Hinduism, but not nearly as less as Buddhism.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Ok, indeed your right... which is why Buddhism de-mystifies everything. Very good!

But you see, there is often more than one correct way to analyse any given experimental data. In that case, we apply Occam's Razor and follow the least complicated analysis, until future data invalidates it and forces us to choose another one. Hence clinging to one's favorite interpretation of how things work is never a good idea. It's best to just keep an open mind, no matter how good a certain doctrinal perspective looks. (yeah, I know everyone knows this already; just wanted to explain why I distrust the "mystical" label)

 

Sure might.. I suppose, not for me... Unless I really try to think about it as such. Nah! I'm Vajrayana through and through... Dzogchen Jalus, here I come!!...

 

Nah... really? Well, not to me...

 

Because it's still seeing the relativity of all manifestations through infinite consciousness' (plural)

 

Buddha mind is merely just being aware of all dat-a... relative.

Just quoting. I have no experiential understanding of what the Buddha Mind is. As far as I remember, (I'm a little shaky here) Buddha Mind is just this moment according to Japanese teachers. Just sit down, shut up, and see it arising here and now.

 

I agree... Taoism play's a good game.

 

It' doesn't reify/deify the Tao nearly as much as Hinduism, but not nearly as less as Buddhism.

I don't think Taoism has an opinion on how much "it" should be reified, if at all. As for me, I distrust talking about "it" in the first place, as there's no "it". "It" is an imaginary concept IMHO. I don't belong to the "perfect agnosticism about everything all the time" school.

Edited August 21, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

But you see, there is often more than one correct way to analyse any given experimental data. In that case, we apply Occam's Razor and follow the least complicated analysis, until future data invalidates it and forces us to choose another one. Hence clinging to one's favorite interpretation of how things work is never a good idea. It's best to just keep an open mind, no matter how good a certain doctrinal perspective looks. (yeah, I know everyone knows this already; just wanted to explain why I distrust the "mystical" label)

I do agree...

Just quoting. I have no experiential understanding of what the Buddha Mind is. As far as I remember, (I'm a little shaky here) Buddha Mind is just this moment according to Japanese teachers. Just sit down, shut up, and see it arising here and now.

It can be explained through a complicated set of seemingly paradoxal equations. Either that or just say... "pratityasamutpada/shunyata"

I don't think Taoism has an opinion on how much "it" should be reified, if at all. As for me, I distrust talking about "it" in the first place. There's no "it"; "it" is an imaginary concept IMHO.

 

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

 

That's pretty reified.

[nac]

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

 

That's pretty reified.

Not enough for me. IMO if there was indeed "something" "existing before Heaven and Earth", whatever that means, how could we say "it" was "formless" and "complete", let alone "reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted", etc? Sorry, but this is idealism extravaganza. I'll change my mind if I find that it's somehow a better categorical framework to work in.

 

Besides, idealistic positions like this are often used (by Indians, at least) to make claims like: the universe is conscious, evolution is deterministic, etc... Taoism doesn't say how much "it" should be reified at all, so I suppose it keeps an open mind about all possibilities without giving preference to any of them. This isn't necessarily either a good thing or a bad thing... an indecisive thing? a "don't care" mind? Dunno.

Edited August 21, 2009 by nac

[Old Man Contradiction]

There was something formless and perfect

before the universe was born.

It is serene. Empty.

Solitary. Unchanging.

Infinite. Eternally present.

It is the mother of the universe.

For lack of a better name,

I call it the Tao.

 

It flows through all things,

inside and outside, and returns

to the origin of all things.

(Chapter 25, Tao Te Ching)

 

To my mind, this translation is not reified.

 

Just my observation. But I'm one of those crazy people that think that buddhism, advaita, taoism, etc. all lead to enlightenment if in the end even they are let go of. If the phrase "the Tao" is correctly translated as "the way", then there is really no way to reify the term unless it's meaning is ignored.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[nac]

There was something formless and perfect

before the universe was born.

Yang.

 

It is serene. Empty.

Yin.

 

Solitary. Unchanging.

Infinite. Eternally present.

Double yang.

 

Saying that the Tao, a mysterious, omnipresent entity or substance, does exist and it has existed before all mundane phenomena, pushes Taoism far away from materialism and towards idealism. Of course, Taoism is also completely non-dogmatic. If you want, you can reify the Tao as much as you like. This is probably the reason why the actual beliefs and practices of the different schools of Taoism vary even more than those of Buddhism.

Edited August 21, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

But for your guys there is a mysterious source.

 

 

This is true but we don't pretent that we 'know' what it is. How can one 'know' something that has not yet manifested itself?

 

Be well!

 

 

 

Yes, you have questions, I have answers, ...

 

You have opinions, my friend. There are no answers.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

There was something formless and perfect

before the universe was born.

It is serene. Empty.

Solitary. Unchanging.

Infinite. Eternally present.

It is the mother of the universe.

For lack of a better name,

I call it the Tao.

 

It flows through all things,

inside and outside, and returns

to the origin of all things.

(Chapter 25, Tao Te Ching)

 

To my mind, this translation is not reified.

 

Just my observation. But I'm one of those crazy people that think that buddhism, advaita, taoism, etc. all lead to enlightenment if in the end even they are let go of. If the phrase "the Tao" is correctly translated as "the way", then there is really no way to reify the term unless it's meaning is ignored.

 

and this one:

 

THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminate chaos.

All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

-- Rig Veda, 10th Mandala, 129th Hymn

[Marblehead]

Do non-living objects have Chi?

 

Good question, I think.

 

In my understanding, non-living objects do not have what I refer to as 'personal Chi'. However, universal Chi (the energy of the universe) permeates all things so in an indirect way all things, living or not, have Chi. Personal Chi is a scientific fact. All living things radiate energy. But then some non-living things radiate energy also but this is a different form of energy.

 

BTW you don't believe the blue haze around galaxies theory that's been going around this forum, right?

 

I'm not sure what you are fererring to here. Apparently I have not read any of those threads that comment on this subject.

 

A 'blue haze' around galaxies is probably a reality. That is, gases that are observable, with mechanical aid, to the human eye likely exist. If we were to discuss the subject I would probably lean toward an understanding that this (the gases) is a transition of the potential of the Mystery transmutating into the Manifest.

 

Be well!

 

 

 

Well,

 

He has to see how it applies to practical everyday life.

 

NIHLIST!

 

 

Yes, that is a condition I always have to contend with whenever I discuss philosophy with a Buddhist and most religious people.

 

Be well!

 

 

Nac,

 

Blue haze? If your talking about seeing into the blue space of infinite... you'd have to meditate deeply for a long time to get there...

 

Anyway,

 

The supermundane substance is infinite consciousness' co-creating... all inherently empty of any self substance, and also co-dependently originated.

 

Think 12 links simultaneously, throughout endless time... rounding and rounding through infinite beings.

 

You'd have to meditate deeply for a long time, not just talk some book stuff.

 

So many words and nothing was said. He did try though.

 

Be well!

[Marblehead]

No, No, NO!

 

There was something formless and perfect before the universe was born.

Yang.

 

Tao

 

It is serene. Empty.

Yin.

 

Tao

 

Solitary. Unchanging. Infinite. Eternally present.

Double yang.

 

Tao

(The word 'solitary' is not a good translation. This chapter speaks to the state of Tao prior to any manifestations - when One was undifferentiated All.)

 

Saying that the Tao, a mysterious, omnipresent entity or substance, does exist and it has existed before all mundane phenomena, pushes Taoism far away from materialism and towards idealism. Of course, Taoism is also completely non-dogmatic. If you want, you can reify the Tao as much as you like. This is probably the reason why the actual beliefs and practices of the different schools of Taoism vary even more than those of Buddhism.

 

Tao is NOT a mysterious, omnipresent entity or substance. You, and many before you have misunderstood the chapter.

 

In very simple terms, Tao is All (every thing and every non-thing) and the processes that cause things and non-things to do what they do.

 

We Taoists do not reify anything. That action is the realm of Tao and Tao alone. It is Tao (its processes) that transmutate the Mystery into the Manifest. No man (nor man-made god) has the ability to do this.

 

Be well!

[rene]

To nac:

 

... Of course, Taoism is also completely non-dogmatic. ...

 

Tao - is completely non-dogmatic.

 

Taoism - can be as dogmatic as any other ism.

 

********************

 

To Marblehead:

 

Marblehead - agree. Nice posts.

Edited August 21, 2009 by hfd

[Marblehead]

Tao - is completely non-dogmatic.

 

Taoism - can be as dogmatic as any other ism.

Marblehead - agree. Nice posts.

 

Hehehe. Okay. So I am hard-headed. Big deal.

 

(Actually, I am rather flexible [and actually take pride in this fact] and have been known to change my mind on numerous occasions. It is just that I am still establishing myself in this forum so it is necessary for me to make sure others understand that I already have quite a few opinions of my own.)

 

Be well!

[rene]

Hehehe. Okay. So I am hard-headed. Big deal.

 

(Actually, I am rather flexible [and actually take pride in this fact] and have been known to change my mind on numerous occasions. It is just that I am still establishing myself in this forum so it is necessary for me to make sure others understand that I already have quite a few opinions of my own.)

 

Be well!

 

Marblehead - the first part of my post was directed to nac, the second part to you. Nothing wrong with opinions, and from what I've read of your contributions, mine pretty much line up with yours.

 

Sorry my post was unclear; I've edited it to remove that confusion.

 

Warm regards

[Marblehead]

Marblehead - the first part of my post was directed to nac, the second part to you. Nothing wrong with opinions, and from what I've read of your contributions, mine pretty much line up with yours.

 

Sorry my post was unclear; I've edited it to remove that confusion.

 

Warm regards

 

Thanks, My Friend.

 

Your post presented an opportunity for me to make a statement so I made one. (Missed opportunities never repeat themselves.)

 

But you are right. Taoist philosophy can easily be grown (best word I could come up with) into a dogmatic belief system.

 

Be well!

[dwai]

No, No, NO!

Tao

Tao

Tao

(The word 'solitary' is not a good translation. This chapter speaks to the state of Tao prior to any manifestations - when One was undifferentiated All.)

Tao is NOT a mysterious, omnipresent entity or substance. You, and many before you have misunderstood the chapter.

 

In very simple terms, Tao is All (every thing and every non-thing) and the processes that cause things and non-things to do what they do.

 

We Taoists do not reify anything. That action is the realm of Tao and Tao alone. It is Tao (its processes) that transmutate the Mystery into the Manifest. No man (nor man-made god) has the ability to do this.

 

Be well!

 

Why would accepting something mysterious be considered reification? And what is wrong with reification? Different strokes for different people and all that...

 

Taoism in it's highest level is about Merging with Tao, a non-dual idealism. Internal Taoist alchemy specifically deals with this topic. Just the same as Tantric traditions do in Indic traditions. Literally the same thing...only names are different that's all (this is my humble opinion of course).

[nac]

Sorry. I was using Yang and Yin in their Positive and Negative connotation. As in whether "something" really exists from which everything else originated.

 

Different strokes for different people and all that...

Yup, lots of scientists are Neoplatonists. There's nothing wrong with idealism in itself.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why would accepting something mysterious be considered reification? And what is wrong with reification? Different strokes for different people and all that...

 

Taoism in it's highest level is about Merging with Tao, a non-dual idealism. Internal Taoist alchemy specifically deals with this topic. Just the same as Tantric traditions do in Indic traditions. Literally the same thing...only names are different that's all (this is my humble opinion of course).

 

Well then you can't merge with the Tao, because you are already it. It is not mysterious because it is all there is. You, I, We, This, That, are all one. Future, present, past all a play of the Tao.

 

Note: I'm using your interpretations of the Tao, not mine.

 

Why aren't you answering my questions on free will (I actually dislike that term, so let's go with individual choice)???

Edited August 21, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Well then you can't merge with the Tao, because you are already it. It is not mysterious because it is all there is. You, I, We, This, That, are all one. Future, present, past all a play of the Tao.

 

Note: I'm using your interpretations of the Tao, not mine.

 

Why aren't you answering my questions on free will (I actually dislike that term, so let's go with individual choice)???

 

 

You are right...but the merging is used in the relative sense...where there is an illusory difference between you and Tao. The merging in the absolute sense is simply a realization that you are Tao.

 

Free Will is a mechanism by which Karma can be actuated. Without free-will, Karma won't work. Without Karma, the relative world cannot be maintained.

 

Let me give an example:

 

The Taoist tries to harmonize with Nature/Tao so that his/her actions are in conformity with Tao.

The reason the Taoist tries to harmonize with Tao, is because he/she wants to minimize the impact his/her action has on his/her Karma. The farther one's action goes against the Tao, the more Karmic debt is accumulated.