What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I'm very sorry if I made the matter sound more extreme than it really is. That's breaking the precept of not exaggerating. Thankfully we have you to correct us when we step off the path of truth.

 

 

LOL! Ok... I apologize if I was being over bearing. It's just that my experience of TB is that it's so darn cheap. I was raised in African American and Mexican areas with very little money and compared to my birth tradition of Hindu Tantra, Tibetan Buddhism is extremely reasonable. They all work on sliding scales. They would not turn a poor person away because they had very little money, they would work something out with them.

 

 

OMG!!! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that pic!!!!

 

 

Yeah, that's funny!

[chicultivation]

LOL! Ok... I apologize if I was being over bearing. It's just that my experience of TB is that it's so darn cheap. I was raised in African American and Mexican areas with very little money and compared to my birth tradition of Hindu Tantra, Tibetan Buddhism is extremely reasonable. They all work on sliding scales. They would not turn a poor person away because they had very little money, they would work something out with them.

Yeah, that's funny!

 

You could have said: Tibetan Buddhism is reasonable and does not drive others away for lack of money.

 

But you and Mikaelz both make it a point to bring in Hindu guru or some other one as if to say they all charge money and drive those without money away but Tibetan Buddhists don't. Why not just stick to your point? Or is it not permitted by Buddha?

 

That you two need to speak low of something else to elevate your own religion or practice and cannot explain its worth on its own merit speaks of the depth of understanding of whatever path you claim to tread.

 

Nac was clever and made peace when he sensed he was about to be based, but I didn't learn from his mistake and had to comment here I think I am not clever enough to sense when and when not to express ones convictions like him. For Christ sake, there is a lot to learn from you Buddhists for every aspect of life, especially for the boardroom.

Edited August 28, 2009 by chicultivation

[Vajrahridaya]

 

That you two need to speak low of something else to elevate your own religion or practice and cannot explain its worth on its own merit speaks of the depth of understanding of whatever path you claim to tread.

 

 

I was bringing up my own experience, which is true and valid.

Your blowing things out of proportion.

 

I have said how my time as a Hindu elevated me, but it cost me a heck of a lot of money. Not that being a Hindu costs money per say. But getting transmissions were and are expensive in other traditions it seems, including Hinduism and Taoism when compared to Tibetan Buddhism. This is my opinion and it's right within the scope of my experience. If you have another experience, or if you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Then go ahead.

[chicultivation]

I was bringing up my own experience, which is true and valid.

Your blowing things out of proportion.

 

I have said how my time as a Hindu elevated me, but it cost me a heck of a lot of money. Not that being a Hindu costs money per say. But getting transmissions were and are expensive in other traditions it seems, including Hinduism and Taoism when compared to Tibetan Buddhism. This is my opinion and it's right within the scope of my experience. If you have another experience, or if you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Then go ahead.

 

You can't buy quality for cheap

[Vajrahridaya]

You can't buy quality for cheap

 

Hey... I'm glad I don't live inside your head. You can live with your perspective, that's fine and if it works for you, wonderful. It doesn't work for me.

[chicultivation]

Hey... I'm glad I don't live inside your head. You can live with your perspective, that's fine and if it works for you, wonderful. It doesn't work for me.

 

What makes you think I would allow trash in my head?

[Vajrahridaya]

What makes you think I would allow trash in my head?

 

That's a pretty good one.

[nac]

Well, take the lead. I know how to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

I recall that place. I was there a couple times in my youth. Hehehe.

 

So, anyhow, from what I have read of this thread it seems to me that the "Self" is a bit like Tao. It really can't be defined and described but we can talk about some of its characteristics.

 

Therefore I will suggest that if one's essential "Self" is at peace all definable externals will naturally find their proper resting place.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

I recall that place. I was there a couple times in my youth. Hehehe.

 

So, anyhow, from what I have read of this thread it seems to me that the "Self" is a bit like Tao. It really can't be defined and described but we can talk about some of its characteristics.

 

Therefore I will suggest that if one's essential "Self" is at peace all definable externals will naturally find their proper resting place.

I'm glad you understand!

 

I just can't bring myself to start preaching or sermonizing, sorry. Suffice it to say that I have no trust in nature, balance, harmony, Self or any of the other stuff you mentioned.

 

PS. Hmm, perhaps that wasn't expressed very well. It's not like I don't believe in the existence of certain balances, etc, let's just say I have a somewhat post-structuralist attitude towards these concepts. Eg. I disagree with notions such as: everybody gets equal opportunity because the essence of life pervades all, etc. I think we must work hard and establish artificial, human organizations that provide conditions of equal opportunity to all. These things don't come for free through a laissez-faire attitude towards nature. If you agree with this, then we're in almost complete agreement:

 

Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labelling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks. Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you.

...

Ayn Rand is wrong: individuals don't prosper all by themselves. They owe their success to the other people that help them, and to the government that provides them with opportunities, reduces risks, and provides public goods. Evidently ours does a good enough job that Americans think that these things come free, like the air.

In fact, this sort of forms the crux of my disagreement with pure Daoist philosophy: it's creates too much of an artificial natural-artificial dichotomy, encourages laissez-faire and naturalistic non-interference way too much for me to swallow. See this thread for more info: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic....=18&t=90280 If you don't have time to read it all, here's a randomly chosen post that's rather typical of it's tone:

 

I have been reading a fun little book on Taoism called "The Tao of Pooh" that analogizes Taoism as similar to the western childhood story ( it explains it simplistically enough).

I think it mostly only focuses on the philosophy of life in Taoism and not Taoism in folklore or tradition.

 

Overall it shows that Taoism is to a degree the belief in just being, and that nature is beautiful in itself when not interfered with by the human mind. Thus it holds that the order is nature is only distorted when interfered with by arbitrary rules such as those imposed by civilization. It views the world quite accurately as a reflection of the heavens. Thus it holds to a degree of simple-mindedness, and believes that the nature of the universe can never be explained by humanity and that trying to do so would be against the human intellect.

 

My questions to Taoists are,:aren't we inseparable from nature, thus isn't are "interfering" mind as well a part of nature? So would it not only be natural for us to establish civilization and try to explain the nature of the universe?

 

Thus human desires can't be unnatural.

 

You can't separate the self from natural phenomena.

Keep clearing away accumulated opinions and rationalizations. Revisualize everything with each step. (Don't grasp that the wrong way!) Other than that, I'm all for the Dao! Told you it would result in excessive nitpicking...

Edited August 29, 2009 by nac

[nac]

BTW could you also clarify your conception of "nature"? (along with the metaphysical aspect which looks like a forced duality to me?) IMO the entity Taoists traditionally called "nature" is largely imaginary and has no true "existence", except in the shallowest sense. Where's that quote again? Here it is:

 

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.

More or less the same applies to the Self.

Edited August 29, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

I'm glad you understand!

 

Well, we have been conversing long enough for my to have a little understanding.

 

I just can't bring myself to start preaching or sermonizing, sorry. Suffice it to say that I have no trust in nature, balance, harmony, Self or any of the other stuff you mentioned.

 

I don't think it is about sermonizing and preaching. I look at it more at my voicing my opinions and understandings, hopefully getting feedback, analyzing the fedback to see it I need change any of my opinions ot strengthen my understandings.

 

Ah! Trust! What a concept. I most of the time trust myself (but not always). All others I question. I don't even fully trust Nature because she has oftentimes presented me with conditions I was totally unprepared for. Self? Yes, I trust the fact that I have free will; that my Self can cause me to be happy whenever I want it so or I can cause myself to be in a really crappy mood if I allow it.

 

Like I have mentioned, I don't speak of balance but rather of harmony. I love harmony in all aspects of life. Harmony is to me like the sounds of the universe all coming together and creating a very inspirational song that I can dance to.

 

PS. Hmm, perhaps that wasn't expressed very well. It's not like I don't believe in the existence of certain balances, etc, let's just say I have a somewhat post-structuralist attitude towards these concepts. Eg. I disagree with notions such as: everybody gets equal opportunity because the essence of life pervades all, etc. I think we must work hard and establish artificial, human organizations that provide conditions of equal opportunity to all. These things don't come for free through a laissez-faire attitude towards nature. If you agree with this, then we're in almost complete agreement:

 

I agee with what you are saying. Somewhere else on this forum I identified myself a a Neitzschian-Taoist. I also consider myself to be a Realist. I do not confuse the ideal with reality. Yes, we sometimes have to work very hard in order to get what we need. I have done that. I now have what I need. Nothing was given to me. But opportunities were presented and I took advantage of the presents.

 

In fact, this sort of forms the crux of my disagreement with pure Daoist philosophy: it's creates too much of an artificial natural-artificial dichotomy, encourages laissez-faire and naturalistic non-interference way too much for me to swallow. See this thread for more info: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic....=18&t=90280 If you don't have time to read it all, here's a randomly chosen post that's rather typical of it's tone:

 

Remember, Taoist philosophy is only a guidebook. I think I have mentioned that I am retired Army. In the Army we have technical manuals and field manuals. The technical manuals are similar to the man-made laws of the part of the world where one lives. These must be complied with. The field manuals are guides as to the different things one can do when there is no technical manual governing the condition or when there is someone who is not complying with the technical manuals. There are also SOPs (standard operating procedures) that specify a best way of doing something under ideal conditions. When conditions are not ideal we modify the SOP in order to deal with the abnormal conditions. We learn how to do this through the field manuals.

 

Keep clearing away accumulated opinions and rationalizations. Revisualize everything with each step. (Don't grasp that the wrong way!) Other than that, I'm all for the Dao! Told you it would result in excessive nitpicking...

 

So for me my Taoist philosophy is my field manual. It tells me that I need to be prepared for non-normal conditions. It suggests things I shouldn't do as doing those things will likely cause me problems. It teaches me to be flexible. It doesn't tell me that I can't have opinions; it rather tells me that I need remain flexible because I may have to change my opinion because of changing conditions and we all know that everything is constantly changing. My field manual tells me that I shouldn't try to run until after I have learned to walk. It teaches me about cause and effect and that there are process in Nature (and in human nature) and that I should pay attention to and learn the processes so that I don't end up having to walk against the wind or try to swim upstream.

 

Enough for now!

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

So for me my Taoist philosophy is my field manual.

Great!

 

It teaches me about cause and effect and that there are process in Nature (and in human nature) and that I should pay attention to and learn the processes so that I don't end up having to walk against the wind or try to swim upstream.

We might have to find a way to do that, if necessary. Giant machines that tear the natural stuff to pieces! Cause and Effect are out there of course, just don't let them become an excuse.

Edited August 29, 2009 by nac

[nac]

But opportunities were presented and I took advantage of the presents.

The gift of being able to take advantage of subtly presented oppurtunities is not given to everyone.

[Marblehead]

Great!

We might have to find a way to do that, if necessary. Giant machines that tear the natural stuff to pieces! Cause and Effect are out there of course, just don't let them become an excuse.

 

Yes. There needs be a policy of limitations, accountability and restoration. But that's another story.

 

 

 

The gift of being able to take advantage of subtly presented oppurtunities is not given to everyone.

 

And that too is another story. But true none-the-less. And the increasing world population is only making the problem worse.

 

Happy Trails!

[JustARandomPanda]

I think maybe now I finally understand what "Alaya Consciousness" is thanks to a post by a Buddhist (I presume) on a Skeptic Society forum.

 

This person said Alaya Consciousness is one of the 8 Levels of Consciousness described in Buddhism. To quote this person's description:

 

Buddhism defines eight distinct levels of consciousness, the eighth one being the 'alaya consciousness'. This alaya is described as the 'storehouse consciousness' where all the seeds of your past thoughts and actions (good and bad) are stored....kind of like a karma garden. At the time of death all other seven levels are said to cease and it is only this alaya or 'stream consciousness' that continues, determining whether one will have a favourable or unfavourable rebirth. I know that many do not buy rebirth. People claim if there is rebirth why can I not remember any previous lives? Perhaps we have not learned to develop our minds to this advanced level? The Buddha recollected more than 500 of his previous lives!

 

Is this a good way to describe it? I take it this is what Hinduism rejects as being true? Hindus say this 8th layer is either misunderstood by Buddhists or else simply doesn't exist?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

I think maybe now I finally understand what "Alaya Consciousness" is thanks to a post by a Buddhist (I presume) on a Skeptic Society forum.

 

This person said Alaya Consciousness is one of the 8 Levels of Consciousness described in Buddhism. To quote this person's description:

Is this a good way to describe it?

 

Yes, that's a fine way to describe it to a certain point.

 

I take it this is what Hinduism rejects as being true? Hindus say this 8th layer is either misunderstood by Buddhists or else simply doesn't exist?

 

 

Hindu's say that this is the Self of all so it's criticized as being just another way to say "atman". But Buddhists say that the Alaya originates dependent upon a very subtle and formless grasping to an "I", so is not an independent "atman" either. It's the very subtle knowledge obscuration. The Alaya is also NOT absolute in Buddhism. Hindu criticism falls short from actually understanding how we Buddhists think of the Alaya Vijnana in Buddhist ontology. The Alaya is merely a deeply subtle relativity. The space of deeply subtle grasping at "I" and "mine" on a level that holds the impressions on a deeply "unconscious level" in the individual mind of most beings. It's not a universal presence. The Alaya becomes liberated when this grasping ceases and it transforms from the experience of unconscious grasping into the conscious experience of dharmakaya, or all pervasive body of your own Buddha state of being. It actually explodes and liberates from a limited field of vision and fills the entire cosmos in infinite directions and one experiences that this is a liberated consciousness that experiences no internal limitations or clogging identifications. The stream of consciousness does not coagulate anymore, so the stream flows freely as appropriately articulate in it's expression with the here and now. There are no more clots, damns, stiff mental joints. Total openness!!

Edited August 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

Yes, that's a fine way to describe it to a certain point.

Hindu's say that this is the Self of all so it's criticized as being just another way to say "atman". But Buddhists say that the Alaya originates dependent upon a very subtle and formless grasping to an "I", so is not an independent "atman" either. It's the very subtle knowledge obscuration. The Alaya is also NOT absolute in Buddhism. Hindu criticism falls short from actually understanding how we Buddhists think of the Alaya Vijnana in Buddhist ontology. The Alaya is merely a deeply subtle relativity. The space of deeply subtle grasping at "I" and "mine" on a level that holds the impressions on a deeply "unconscious level" in the individual mind of most beings. It's not a universal presence. The Alaya becomes liberated when this grasping ceases and it transforms from the experience of unconscious grasping into the conscious experience of dharmakaya, or all pervasive body of your own Buddha state of being. It actually explodes and liberates from a limited field of vision and fills the entire cosmos in infinite directions and one experiences that this is a liberated consciousness that experiences no internal limitations or clogging identifications. The stream of consciousness does not coagulate anymore, so the stream flows freely as appropriately articulate in it's expression with the here and now. There are no more clots, damns, stiff mental joints. Total openness!!

 

Interesting...this sounds almost like a higher level version of the same process one goes through when the Ego dissolves and "ordinary" Enlightenment is achieved. Except this time it is dissolving of the non-dual Atman itself.

 

That sounds scary as hell. You are delving (and dissolving!) "God" at that point!

 

Damn...that's one deep rabbit hole into the Matrix.

 

 

Must go meditate to investigate...

 

 

edit: It occurred to me - what is to prevent someone from coming back and saying "what is storing all these good and bad karma seeds?" I take it Hindus (and I would presume Muslims and Christians too) would say this "storing" is proof something (the Universal Divine Soul?) is doing the storing. I imagine Buddhists would reply this question is the subtle urge to grasp at "I" and reify by this one particular 'bag of karma' so to speak?

 

What "glues" the "bag of karma" together so that this collection uses that action as proof it is part of a Universal Divine Soul? Is that "bag of karma" mistaking assorted "pressures" exerted from other causes that coalesce to one spot as proof of possessing independent solidity? (By pressures I imagine it like squeezing a tube of toothpaste. The toothpaste will end up on the other side simply because that's where it's been squeezed to.) I see Buddhists as saying this "squeezing pressure of karma" explains the glue and is the Occam's Razor explanation of the 'gluing action'?

 

 

 

 

 

P.P.S. Final Fantasy 10 Spoiler Alert!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what's really bizarre? This is all sounding too much like everyone is a coalesced "Dream of the Fayth" just like Tidus was in Final Fantasy 10!

Edited August 30, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Vajrahridaya]

But there's no ultimate dreamer either... just interdependency. It's actually really simple. We make it all seem so complex but really it's just that simple, no independent self, no entirety whole SELF, just interdependency and clinging to I and Mine which is the actual gluing force.

 

When we liberate we are turning our attachments to offerings. So... the infinite regress of attachment turns to an infinite progress of offering as a Buddha. It's just the flip side of the same process, from binding to liberating.

 

But, one is free from the positive and negative as one see's the interdependency and thus is free and see's through it all, even while acting as a glued together balancing beam master walking over an endless abyss perfectly at peace.

 

What you said above is very beautiful. I didn't think I had to say anything as your insight is quite nicely put.

Your Buddha Naga is zapping you well!!

[Creation]

P.P.S. Final Fantasy 10 Spoiler Alert!!!!

I was listening to a classical guitar cover of To Zanarkand when I read this (still am)

 

You continue to endear yourself to me SB.

[nac]

SereneBlue: Read up on Dependent Origination and you'll realize that no additional "glue" is necessary so long as all phenomena are interdependent upon each other. However, I don't think Buddhist and Hindu doctrines like this should be understood intellectually. ("dissolving God", etc) IMO the more you learn intellectually, the more you'll have to unlearn once you truly grasp their meaning.

[JustARandomPanda]

SereneBlue: Read up on Dependent Origination and you'll realize that no additional "glue" is necessary so long as all phenomena are interdependent upon each other.

Was my understanding of the issue completely off or wrong?

[Vajrahridaya]

Was my understanding of the issue completely off or wrong?

 

No, it wasn't completely wrong. It wasn't at all wrong either, but understanding the nuances of dependent origination happens through direct meditative insight and not through intellectual comprehension. It's intuitive.

[JustARandomPanda]

I was listening to a classical guitar cover of To Zanarkand when I read this (still am)

 

You continue to endear yourself to me SB.

 

Why thank you Creation! Blessings to you too.

[Sunya]

LGqTA2Uae3s

mq6C10bgZKw

3CAHJ1e2k9w

ssGdJNe2PHE

final fantasy music is the best music ever made by anyone ever. Edited August 30, 2009 by mikaelz