What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Vajrahridaya]

.....there was something else that 'saved me': the teachings of CC... particularly 'the way of the warrior' was the one that shifted my view permanently.

 

Some of my first spiritual readings as well. Very nice.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

So an optimistic nihilist? Oh wait... no sorry... a Nihilistic Optimist!

That's sort of what I thought Buddhists are! Not that Buddhism is nihilistic from the Buddhist POV, but it rejects both "eternalism" and "nihilism", doesn't it?

 

I mostly agree with Marblehead, although I'm not sure what we agree on is Buddhism or Nihilistic Taoism! (the parts common to both, perhaps?)

 

Oh! I would never call it that. That would allow Vajrahridaya the opportunity to pounce on me.

Why? Both fatalism and determinism are grave misunderstandings of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't teach "everything is as it should be," it teaches "things are Just So and undergoing constant change." ...now move on and work for the benefit of all sentient beings. Instead of having grandoise dreams about how things Should be, think about how sentient beings Could suffer less, starting from the Just-So-ness of the present. To quote caritas from E-Sangha: "no, ripening (of karma) that is already ripening does not stop ripening just because some person's administrations help to alleviate suffering."

 

Is Humanistic Buddhism the same as Taoism in your opinion? I recall a Taoist parable (maybe it's from a subschool like Chinese hedonism?) about a man being very happy because his wife had died and achieved reunion with the Tao. A corresponding Zen story says that a famous teacher of Buddhism became very unhappy when his wife died, but he eventually let it go once he got it off his chest. I hope this illustrates what I mean by rejection of idealism.

 

Here are a couple of other misunderstandings you might have:

* Emptiness is not the void.

* There is no primary thing (dharma) or ultimate source in Buddhism. Neither the void nor emptiness is this "source" of all manifest phenomena. Eg. I personally don't believe in eternal return as an absolute truth. Maybe certain things "return", but others don't... Nothing has to.

* Buddhism instructs: Let it go; develop it again. Over and over.

 

Exactly. Nothing wrong with idealism as long as we keep a proper mix of reality in with it.

So the "reality" aspect of your philosophy comes from Nietzsche? Do you believe in metaphysical evil? Anyway, as the great Taoist sage in this forum said, (I can't remember what he's called) you tend towards the "both" extreme view of Nagarjuna's tetralemma, while I tend towards the "neither" view. We're both working to overcome our respective blind spots.

Edited August 31, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Here are a couple of other misunderstandings you might have:

* Emptiness is not the void.

* There is no primary thing (dharma) or ultimate source in Buddhism. Neither the void nor emptiness is this "source" of all manifest phenomena.

* Buddhism instructs: Let it go; develop it again.

 

 

YAY!! Nac made a nice little chart to help people. Thanks Nac... a bodhisattva point to ya!!

 

I'm serious, the most brilliant is sometimes the most simple, with clarifying asterisk next to each point! Perfect!!

[nac]

Nac made a nice little chart to help people.

Either that or I'm giving free reign to my ego. I don't know.

[Vajrahridaya]

Either that or I'm giving free reign to my ego. I don't know.

 

Well, we gotta use something to get these high truths down into the mud.

[Marblehead]

When i was younger, i thought camus's question was a smart one.

Now i think his view maybe a bit selfish.

We don't have anything: our bodies and our energy is borrowed from our parents and nature.

And the spirit belongs to the divine.

I went thru a Nietzchean phase myself, but instead of existentialism there was something else that 'saved me': the teachings of CC... particularly 'the way of the warrior' was the one that shifted my view permanently.

 

Hi Little1,

 

This is one of the few places I get to use the word "balance".

 

This is where we balance the Mystery with the Manifest. Yes, Camus' and Neitzsche's views are selfish. This is because they speak only to the Manifest. IMO what they spoke of was excellent. But, as I pointed out above, after reading their work I felt there was something missing. What was missing was the Mystery! Taoism addressed that. So now, while holding to both I have all the pieces to the puzzle.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

Marblehead: I'll be completely honest with you. I don't like Neitzsche or Camus (or Heinlein) much, sorry. The reason I chose Buddhism is because IMO, it's the philosophy which makes the least celebration out of involuntary suffering. That's the one thing I can't stand.

Edited August 31, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Hi Nac,

 

WoW! You got heavy on me this time. Hehehe. Let's see how well I do in responding.

 

Both fatalism and determinism are grave misunderstandings of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't teach "everything is as it should be," it teaches "things are Just So and undergoing constant change." ...now move on and work for the benefit of all sentient beings. Instead of having grandoise dreams about how things Should be, think about how sentient beings Could suffer less, starting from the Just-So-ness of the present. To quote caritas from E-Sangha: "no, ripening (of karma) that is already ripening does not stop ripening just because some person's administrations help to alleviate suffering."

 

I don't think it can be said that Taoist philosophy speaks directly to the subject of "working for the benefit of all sentient beings" although the concepts of "compassion" and "thrift" do indirectly as well as the concept of "having enough".

 

Is Humanistic Buddhism the same as Taoism in your opinion? I recall a Taoist parable (maybe it's from a subschool like Chinese hedonism?) about a man being very happy because his wife had died and achieved reunion with the Tao. A corresponding Zen story says that a famous teacher of Buddhism became very unhappy when his wife died, but he eventually let it go once he got it off his chest. I hope this illustrates what I mean by rejection of idealism.

 

That story is one that Chuang Tzu made up about Lao Tzu's wife dying. The story speaks to both sides of reality. First Lao Tzu sat and cried because of his loss. Then he realized that his wife had moved on to become useful once again in the processes of Tao so he got himself a pan and started playing a happy song upon it.

 

I think that this speaks to the Buddhist concept of suffering. The sadness was because of Lao Tzu's attachment to his wife - the happiness was a result of realizing the his wife had returned to the source.

 

Here are a couple of other misunderstandings you might have:

* Emptiness is not the void.

* There is no primary thing (dharma) or ultimate source in Buddhism. Neither the void nor emptiness is this "source" of all manifest phenomena. Eg. I personally don't believe in eternal return as an absolute truth. Maybe certain things "return", but others don't... Nothing has to.

* Buddhism instructs: Let it go; develop it again. Over and over.

 

V. already complimented you on this so I won't. Hehehe. (Don't want to pump your ego too much.)

 

1. Yes, there is nothingness and absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness is the area beyond the bounds of Tao - that is the void. Nothingness is the Mystery - potential everything.

 

2. We disagree here. No energy is ever lost. It simply takes different form - some are detectable, some are not (those that are not have returned to the Mystery and are therefore undetectable).

 

3. Agree. The past is the past. Let it go. Change and move on. Your essence will be reused over and over again. And don't forget to dance!

 

So the "reality" aspect of your philosophy comes from Nietzsche?

 

Short answer - "Yes". However, it is also supplimented with the guidance from Chuang Tzu. This mellows Neitzsche a little bit.

 

Do you believe in metaphysical evil?

 

No. As Neitzsche stated, we have gone beyond good and evil. That is a concept for 'civilized' man. The 'civilized' man can never be Superman. Actually, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both speak to being 'beyond good and evil' except they say being beyond 'duality'.

 

Anyway, as the great Taoist sage in this forum said, (I can't remember what he's called) you tend towards the "both" extreme view of Nagarjuna's tetralemma, while I tend towards the "neither" view. We're both working to overcome our respective blind spots.

 

Yes, I think we will never stop trying to clarify our understandings. We must, IMO, acknowledge the existance of the extremes. (Afterall, they are those who live and act in those places.) But if we hold to the 'middle path' we can personally avoid those places.

 

Yes, I tend to the 'both'. For me, trying to tend toward the 'neither' is too confusing.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

You got heavy on me this time.

I hope not. That blank page was an expression of the same spirit, even if the manifestation was different.

 

I don't think it can be said that Taoist philosophy speaks directly to the subject of "working for the benefit of all sentient beings" although the concepts of "compassion" and "thrift" do indirectly as well as the concept of "having enough".

I'm not opposed to this. If I'm not mistaken, this would be a question of relative truth in Buddhist philosophy.

 

That story is one that Chuang Tzu made up about Lao Tzu's wife dying. The story speaks to both sides of reality. First Lao Tzu sat and cried because of his loss. Then he realized that his wife had moved on to become useful once again in the processes of Tao so he got himself a pan and started playing a happy song upon it.

Woah, really? I've got to read Chuang Tzu again. Taoist philosophy is a spring-like sine wave, while Buddhism is more asymptotic.

 

I think that this speaks to the Buddhist concept of suffering. The sadness was because of Lao Tzu's attachment to his wife - the happiness was a result of realizing the his wife had returned to the source.

It's been nearly a decade since my father passed away, but for some reason I can't summon much enthusiasm to celebrate his reunion with the Source. Probably just my personality.

 

We disagree here. No energy is ever lost. It simply takes different form - some are detectable, some are not (those that are not have returned to the Mystery and are therefore undetectable).

Maybe energy is not eternally lost, but it's forms and manifestations are? I disagree with the assertion that energy is not lost, however. What about entropy? Energy is always being lost. Eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe moving.

 

Short answer - "Yes". However, it is also supplimented with the guidance from Chuang Tzu. This mellows Neitzsche a little bit.

Great!

 

No. As Neitzsche stated, we have gone beyond good and evil. That is a concept for 'civilized' man. The 'civilized' man can never be Superman. Actually, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both speak to being 'beyond good and evil' except they say being beyond 'duality'.

I was under the impression that Taoism (at least the religious variety) believes in good and evil. I'm glad to see that you don't.

 

Yes, I think we will never stop trying to clarify our understandings. We must, IMO, acknowledge the existance of the extremes. (Afterall, they are those who live and act in those places.) But if we hold to the 'middle path' we can personally avoid those places.

 

Yes, I tend to the 'both'. For me, trying to tend toward the 'neither' is too confusing.

_/\_

 

things are Just So and undergoing constant change

I'd like to rephrase this as: All things are undergoing constant change, Just So!

Edited August 31, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

I hope not. That blank page was an expression of the same spirit, even if the manifestation was different.

 

Hehehe. I was just messing with you.

 

Woah, really? I've got to read Chuang Tzu again. Taoist philosophy is a spring-like sine wave, while Buddhism is more asymptotic.

 

Yeah. I was amazed by how much I had missed in the TCC after I read Chuang Tzu. That is why I always recommend reding a couple-three different translations of Lao Tzu, then reading Chuang Tzu, then going back to read Lao Tzu again.

 

It's been nearly a decade since my father passed away, but for some reason I can't summon much enthusiasm to celebrate his reunion with the Source. Probably just my personality.

 

Yeah, that's a hard one. And the closer the realtionship while a loved-one was alive the harder it is to get go.

 

Maybe energy is not eternally lost, it's forms and manifestations are? I disagree with the assertion that energy is not lost, however. What about entropy? Energy is always being lost. Eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe moving.

 

Yes, there is conflicting thoughts on this. I hold to the concepts of reversion and cycles so, for me, one day the universe will stop expanding, reverse its movement, collapse into itself and a new big bang will happen.

 

I was under the impression that Taoism (at least the religious variety) believes in good and evil. I'm glad to see that you don't.

 

Yep. The pure philosophy does not consider the mythology prior to Lao Tzu and any references to the possibility of such in either Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu or anything that was written after Buddhism came to China.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Edit to add:

 

I'd like to rephrase this as: things undergoing constant change, Just So.

 

Hey! You like it, you keep it.

 

Be well!

Edited August 31, 2009 by Marblehead

[nac]

Yeah. I was amazed by how much I had missed in the TCC after I read Chuang Tzu. That is why I always recommend reding a couple-three different translations of Lao Tzu, then reading Chuang Tzu, then going back to read Lao Tzu again.

Will do!

 

Yeah, that's a hard one. And the closer the realtionship while a loved-one was alive the harder it is to get go.

Isn't it possible to truly let go without feeling joy at their passing? Isn't wabi-sabi enough?

 

Yes, there is conflicting thoughts on this. I hold to the concepts of reversion and cycles so, for me, one day the universe will stop expanding, reverse its movement, collapse into itself and a new big bang will happen.

I don't think that's possible anymore. This is no longer a subject of philosophical speculation. This universe will almost certainly undergo a heat death. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe For more info, try Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything.

 

The pure philosophy does not consider the mythology prior to Lao Tzu and any references to the possibility of such in either Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu or anything that was written after Buddhism came to China.

I would've thought the influence of Buddhism would make Taoism even less dualistic, not more.

[Marblehead]

Isn't it possible to truly let go without feeling joy at their passing? Isn't wabi-sabi enough?

 

That seems to be a reasonable way of looking at it. I have always (well, since I realized it) felt that we should express our emotions. Nothing wrong with feeling sadness over loosing someone we care about. But we also need understand that it had to be and we must continue with our life.

 

I don't think that's possible anymore. This is no longer a subject of philosophical speculation. This universe will almost certainly undergo a heat death. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe For more info, try Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything.

 

Yep. I am fully aware of the theory of a cold death of the universe. I don't accept it - I won't be around if it does or does not happen - I opt for my theory. Hehehe.

 

I would've thought the influence of Buddhism would make Taoism even less dualistic, not more.

 

I did not express myself properly. Buddhism was a positive influence in China. It filled some empty places that Chinese beliefs did not satisfy for many. What I was referring to was that Buddhism also brought along with it the older Hindu concepts of gods and the duality of 'good and evil' and I believe that it is because of this that religious Taoism was able to develop and become an established belief system. (I know many would disagree with me here but I accept that fact.)

 

Lao Tzu really is a good representation on non-dualistic thought in and of itself.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

That seems to be a reasonable way of looking at it. I have always (well, since I realized it) felt that we should express our emotions. Nothing wrong with feeling sadness over loosing someone we care about.

I wonder if a healthy human being has ever felt glad when someone close to them passed away. Maybe it's possible to feel happy because their suffering has come to an end, but outright joy because they're now one with the Source? Dunno.

 

But we also need understand that it had to be and we must continue with our life.

Yeah, this is one of the core teachings of Buddhism. I doubt anyone will say that never moving on, just obsessing over it for the rest of your life is the best way to deal with it.

 

Yep. I am fully aware of the theory of a cold death of the universe. I don't accept it - I won't be around if it does or does not happen - I opt for my theory. Hehehe.

Okay, but remember, all scientific evidence indicates that a heat death is the most likely outcome for this universe.

[Marblehead]

I wonder if a healthy human being has ever felt glad when someone close to them passed away. Maybe it's possible to feel happy because their suffering has come to an end, but outright joy because they're now one with the Source? Dunno.

 

But then happy events can lessen the hurt from the loss. (Psychological stuff.)

 

Yeah, this is one of the core teachings of Buddhism. I doubt anyone will say that never moving on, just obsessing over it for the rest of your life is the best way to deal with it.

 

But a lot of people do that even though they don't say it.

 

Okay, but remember, all scientific evidence indicates that a heat death is the most likely outcome for this universe.

 

No. I won't remember that. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

But then happy events can lessen the hurt from the loss. (Psychological stuff.)

Sure, sadness is also washed away like everything else.

 

But a lot of people do that even though they don't say it.

May the Buddhas save them.

 

No. I won't remember that. Hehehe.

Okay. Ignorance is suffering for me though.

 

On a side-note: Emptiness doesn't come before or after anything else as far as Buddhism is concerned.

[Marblehead]

Okay. Ignorance is suffering for me though.

 

 

But on the other hand (is that the left?), ignorance is bliss. If you don't know you don't have to worry about it.

 

Happy Trails!

[Sunya]

But on the other hand (is that the left?), ignorance is bliss. If you don't know you don't have to worry about it.

 

Happy Trails!

 

you know that's not true 99% of all beings are in ignorance and they don't seem too blissed..... if ignorance = bliss than buddhism would not exist. no spiritual path would

[Marblehead]

you know that's not true 99% of all beings are in ignorance and they don't seem too blissed..... if ignorance = bliss than buddhism would not exist. no spiritual path would

 

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Hehehe. I had to say something back at him.

 

I had a discussion with someone recently about that. We agreed that ignorance wasa fault and should be corrected.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

But on the other hand (is that the left?), ignorance is bliss. If you don't know you don't have to worry about it.

Bliss too has a kernel of suffering buried deep within it's heart. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence intuitively realizes that all mundane sensations of "bliss" arising in the present must eventually come to an end. This causes a peculiarly beautiful sense of sadness and spiritual longing called Mono no Aware:

It shows out in the cherry blossoms which are doomed to fall, the dewdrops scattered by the wind, the mournful cry of the wild deer on the mountains, the dying crimson of the fallen maple leaves, the weird sadness of the cuckoo singing in the moonlight, and the loneliness of the recluse in the mountain wilds; ...

In truth, the glass is neither half-full nor half-empty. It's true condition can only be grasped intuitively, but not through simple-mindedness. It may be difficult to express in words, but the realization itself is always available to every sentient being in existence.

 

As for not worrying about things by simply not knowing about them, are you serious? Do you honestly derive comfort from knowing that there's a whole bunch of important things which we do not know, and that even a lot of stuff we think we understand is always flat out wrong? That although perfect knowledge is an impossible ideal, if we did know these things, we could have utilized the knowledge to aid suffering beings?

 

I'm sorry I was unable to provide a detailed response today. Oh well, if both of us had agreed on everything, that would've meant one of us was being intellectually dishonest!

 

Edited September 1, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Hi Nac,

 

Nice post.

 

I was just messing with you when I said "Ignorance is bliss".

 

I try to learn as much as I can about every aspect of my life as well as those thighs I have no direct control over but effect me none-the-less.

 

And even regarding my belief system, one of the reasons I am here is to bounce my understandings off others. I have been known to change my mind if the arguements against my understandings are logical and presented properly.

 

As to the other stuff you spoke of, I agree. And that's just the way this manifest life is. We hold something close to us for a while and gain pleasure from it but nothing lasts forever in the manifest so either we will leave or it will leave. But if we are still around we can hold to the memories that brought us pleasure (and yes, forget those things that brought us pain).

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

I have been known to change my mind if the arguements against my understandings are logical and presented properly.

In that case, I'm sorry I couldn't present my case properly.

 

But if we are still around we can hold to the memories that brought us pleasure (and yes, forget those things that brought us pain).

I disagree, but I won't fault you if that's what you knowingly want to do. Personally, I would advise sincere spiritual seekers to look closely at all experiences with a non-judgmental, yet utterly unflinching eye. Examine pleasure, pathos, suffering, etc equally, giving preference to neither, denying neither, without any personal attachment or aversion. Hence try and discover the true nature of them all through scientific scrutiny. That's Zen.

 

Anything less may be more natural, but then, self-delusion is also "natural" in the sense that it's quite common.

 

PS. I found a great Tagore quote in English. (signature) A lot of his writings are like this actually, but I have a hard time finding good translations. Eg. One song goes something like:

 

"Save me from my troubles!"

This is not my prayer.

May I be fearless in difficult times.

...

Edited September 1, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

In that case, I'm sorry I couldn't present my case properly.

 

Yeah, but you are not really trying either. Hehehe.

 

I disagree, but I won't fault you if that's what you knowingly want to do. Personally, I would advise sincere spiritual seekers to look closely at all experiences with a non-judgmental, yet utterly unflinching eye. Examine pleasure, pathos, suffering, etc equally, giving preference to neither, denying neither, without any personal attachment or aversion. Hence try and discover the true nature of them all through scientific scrutiny. That's Zen.

 

The only time I need do that is if they come to mind. Since I have forgotten most of them they do not come to mind so there is no need for action. And I'm darn sure I am not going to seek them out! But yes, I agree with you concerning the ones that have net been forgotten what you say is valid. For me the important thing is to have learned the lesson of the experience.

 

Anything less may be more natural, but then, self-delusion is also "natural" in the sense that it's quite common.

 

Oh, I have a few little delusions hanging around but I like them so I am going to keep them.

 

"Save me from my troubles!"

This is not my prayer.

May I be fearless in difficult times.

...

 

I like the last line! And as I do not pray this would be said to myself.

 

Happy Trails!

[JustARandomPanda]

Bliss too has a kernel of suffering buried deep within it's heart. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence intuitively realizes that all mundane sensations of "bliss" arising in the present must eventually come to an end. This causes a peculiarly beautiful sense of sadness and spiritual longing called Mono no Aware:

 

Tolkien's Elves knew this experience quite well. It's why the 3 Rings of the Elven Kings were crafted...to stave off the end of all that was beautiful and blissful.

Edited September 2, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Marblehead]

Tolkien's Elves knew this experience quite well. It's why the 3 Rings of the Elven Kings were crafted...to stave off the end of all that was beautiful and blissful.

 

Ah! But in reality we cannot stave off the end. All things must one day end - even our beauty and blissfulness. It would be delusional, I think, to think that anything will last forever.

 

Happy Trails!

[contrivedname!]

you know that's not true 99% of all beings are in ignorance and they don't seem too blissed..... if ignorance = bliss than buddhism would not exist. no spiritual path would

 

didnt you know 99% of percentages are wrong!