What the Self Is (and Is Not)

[Vajrahridaya]

Gee. You should become one. You could earn lots of money.

 

That's one of the motivations behind going to school, not the main one, but one of them.

 

 

There are some translations of the TCC where the translator, for whatever the reason, used the word "weak" abundantly. (Christian background?) The proper word for what they were describing is "flexible". There is a world of difference between the two words and a ton of negative connotations attached to the word "weak".

 

Be well!

 

I agree that early Christian influenced translations of eastern texts made it hard to create a really good and clear Western foundation for these Eastern spiritual practice traditions.

[Marblehead]

My... how objective of you... (slight tone of sarcasm noted)

How does no one benefiting equate with good? If no one benefits that's basically a signification of it not being good.

 

Good that you noted my tone. Hehehe.

 

If no one benefits it is still good because I will have thrown the words to the winds and they are no longer something I am holdint to pretending that they are mine. So basically, even though it has not benefited anyone else it has benefited me as I have lost the baggage.

 

Be well!

 

(Good and not good are funny concepts.)

[Marblehead]

no... lol..nobody is saying the universe doesn't exist. you keep saying that, you say that about Buddhism and you say that about quantum physics, when nobody is saying that the universe doesn't exist. is this some fear of yours? non-existence?

 

quantum physics and M-theory (modern string theory or membrane theory) are agreed upon largely by the scientific community, though its a theory and it will remain that way because theres no way to measure other dimensions. it is all based on math.

 

you should probably think twice about doubting quantum theory since its the closest science has ever come to embracing a view similar to Taoism.

 

Hehehe. Now you are trying to psychoanalyze me? Step with caution.

 

I have no fears. The last one that I held to for about fifty years is finally gone. The fear of spiders.

 

No. It just irritates me when people suggest that things and people don't really exist. There are a lot of young people who are trying to find some meaning in life because what they have seems so empty and then they hear people saying that they really don't exist it blows them away and now they have even less reason to continue living.

 

I was at one site where the (I'll use one of your words) karma was very negative. I tried to be optimistic and positive and got booed down. There are many who love to spread negativity. I'm not point to anyone here because it isn't that bad here. Actually, all things considered, I would say that the general attitude is quite good here even with the squabbles between followers of various belief systems.

 

you should probably think twice about doubting quantum theory since its the closest science has ever come to embracing a view similar to Taoism.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that I doubted it. It is just that I find no use for it in my life. You know, the useful/not-useful concept.

 

Be well!

 

 

 

That's one of the motivations behind going to school, not the main one, but one of them.

 

Yeah. Even though we don't know how long our future is going to be I think it is always sound judgement to plan for a very long one that way you will be covered, just in case. And the actual knowledge one attains along the way ain't bad for us either.

 

I agree that early Christian influenced translations of eastern texts made it hard to create a really good and clear Western foundation for these Eastern spiritual practice traditions.

 

Lucky for us that there are archeologists who are able to find small bits and pieces of originals that weren't totally destroyed so that there is some for of accuracy when the whatever is being presented.

 

Be well!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am unsure how to parse this commentary that was directed at me. Are you saying you see my post as evidence that I'm insecure, giving up or using Buddhism/Taoism to try to climb back into a womb instead of emitting (i.e the fruition) effortless virtue?

 

Oops.

 

No, I'm sorry if you read it that way. I thought it great that you kept questioning beyond.

 

You will run into a lot of these people these days and they do a very convincing job of telling others what this experience entails. They think they are a hand of God and whatever they do will not matter. But really it's like tripping over a rock and going "I am under the control of this rock!"

 

Personally, I fell into the trap many times, mostly because they use a lot of flowery words and words from scriptures that do not carry the same context . They really just want motherly love. .

Edited August 15, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

They really just want motherly love. .

 

 

But sometimes they want your money too.

 

Buyer beware!

 

Be well!

[Birch]

[Vajrahridaya]

[Marblehead]

 

There is no place in the Buddhist doctrine that suggests that we don't exist. Just, we don't inherently exist. As in, we don't exist due to ourselves, we exist due to the fact of all of existence. My existence is based upon the existence of endless causes and conditions and so my existence is not "self" based. Therefore, I don't "inherently" exist, I only "relatively" exist... which is merely meant to dismantle ego and self clinging, so that one can be open to learning and letting go of causes for suffering.

 

Not to think nihilistically.

 

Then please stop saying it. These words: Just, we don't inherently exist. So confusing and so, so unnecessary.

 

No, I did not inherently want to exist. My mother and father had sex and stuff just happened after that and here I am. All so very simple and undeniable (for a normal person).

 

So then, after telling someone that they exist we tell them that they matter. And we continue by saying that we can eliminate a lot of our suffering by dismantling, or at least reducing, our ego and clinging to the idea that we are supposed to be getting more out of life than life is giving us.

 

And then we remind the person that they should rid themself of as many of the causes for suffering that they have. This is up to them only to define because only they can see the dark places of their mind. We should never tell them such and such because we could be only adding to the list of causes for their suffering.

 

Actually, the process of ridding oneself of suffering is very simple. Figuring out how to do it without causing new and additional suffering is the trick.

 

Be well!

Edited August 16, 2009 by Marblehead

[dwai]

Although I don't completely agree with what Marble said, he has a good point in that there is nothing that is an exception to the laws of the universe. Also that to look beyond personal experience and reifying a mystical "Self" beyond one's own body and mind is just plain worship.

 

You yourself agreed that the Self is all that is. That it is non-dual. So no one can make a mistake of identifying with anything. This includes the Yin and Yang.

 

I guess "co-arising" is not a clear term. Co-dependent is more like it. All things work relatively, reflecting phoenema as intentions lead it to. The Buddhists might not agree with this, but I see intention and consciousness as interchangeable terms in terms of experience. What you intend, you experience. It is just intentions affecting and being affected. You don't have to have some mystical experiences to observe this.

 

The Self is eternal but only in the sense that it is empty and dependent. Existence is eternal, but no "identity" is, except for endless virtue. Recognizing the Way in which Yin and Yang dynamically move in harmony until this law and "you" have totally become one.

 

Hahaha, you might call it love. AWWWWWWW. .

 

 

The co-dependent "Self" is the "non-Self" that Buddhism rightly highlights. But there is A Self that is not Co-dependent. That is missed in the droning of "Non-self". Non-Self is simply a tool to help identify the Self (I can of course hear angry howls from the Budda-boyz now saying how I don't understand Buddhism). But that point is clearly evident to a Vedantin.

 

See, you are mistaking the term "Te" as Virtue. Te is Tao. Realize Te and you realize Tao.

 

My Taiji teacher expressed it this way --

 

Consider Tao as a radio transceiver that works at a certain frequency. By cultivating, we are actually shedding layers of junk from our system and finally accessing Te...the transceiver that each of us have (but have forgotten due to various reasons, social conditioning being the first and foremost). This Te, operates at the same frequency as the Tao and using this we can first access Tao, and eventually realize Tao.

 

Certain things are known intuitively (called Prajna) and become known, without going through a rational process (which doesn't diminish the value or validity of that knowledge in any way).

 

What does Buddhism teach? What does Taoism teach?

Don't they teach of Nirvana/Shunyata, Tao which they claim is not external but is not known through rational inquiry? Perhaps they don't call it a "Mystical Self", but they allude to a "Mystical State". There is nothing wrong with Mysticism...it is simply a state of Subjective absorption...a stepping out of Subject-Object duality...that's all!

 

What is this resistance (to what I am suggesting) rising from?

Is it not a deep-rooted fear of cognitive dissonance?

I am aware that you could simply turn that around and ask me the same question. But I am not rejecting what you say...I accept that Buddhism teaches the Non-self and Shunyata. I am saying that Vedanta says the same thing...except that they take it one step farther.

 

I simply object to the Buddhist's adamant insistence that his/her understanding of Vedanta is better than that of Vedantins. The locus standii of the Vedantin as posited by the Buddhist is a strawman...that is all I am saying.

 

 

To see beyond mundane personal experience is a natural progression in meditation. The emptiness of the "Self" becomes evident as we realize that the "I" is not really any of the things that we initially started out thinking it is (the Jhanas per Buddhism iinm).

 

As far as reifying a Mystical Self beyond one's body goes -- who says it is beyond the body and do we really reify it?

The Body is the thing that we reify. Don't you see it? We are constantly bombarded by it. We work hard to keep this "temple" clean and strong with what we eat, exercise, etc. Even those who don't reify it by showering it with sensual pleasures all the time.

 

You asked me why I meditate if I am "The Self". I have tried asking myself this question thousands of times. Why do I practice Taiji and Chi Gong? Why do I do Yoga and Pranayama? Why do I meditate? I don't know the answer to that...I meditate because I feel compelled to do it. I find bliss in meditation and cultivation practices. I find equanimity and peace, a joy deeper than anything any material object can give me.

 

You might be tempted to ask (as some have on other threads) why should some one "chase bliss". I would be tempted to ask, "Why not?"

Isn't all activity in human life aimed towards eliminating pain and enhancing/creating pleasure?

 

Also, Bliss/Joy is not the same as Pleasure. Joy is the natural state of being...look at a child. The child is always joyful, completely free of guile and perfectly natural. Cries when sad, laughs when happy, without any selfish motives or malicious intentions. The Child is a reflection of The Joyful Self. As we grow older, the social conditioning (categorical frameworks) piled upon us makes us who/what we are. The prisoners of Samsara...the hostages of our intellects, sensory pleasures and pains.

 

That's why we will find examples of the old masters such as Lao Tzu and the various mystics (from various traditions of the world) in such simple and natural states. They ARE Joy. They ARE Bliss. That is because they gone past the Duality of existence (or have the Duality in equillibrium).

 

There are many "official" answers to the question "Why does the Self create this material universe if it does exist?"

 

Kashmir Shavism says that The Self is in total Joy (Sat Chit Ananda) and the universe is a projection of this Joy that is overflowing.

 

Meso-American Shamans say that "The Great Eagle, Nagual preys on the Tonal for sustenance. The awareness of the sentient beings of the Tonal is consumed by the Great Eagle (Nagual)"

 

Advaita Vedanta says that the Universe is simply a superimposition of categorical frameworks (nama-rupa) on it (Atman/Brahman). It also says that Brahman is mysterious and inaccessible by sensory or rational means. It has to be subjectively realized (ie Atman, after realizing that the limited Self, ie Jiva is not Atman). That Brahman is silence.

 

Taoists say that Tao cannot be talked about. Any attempts to impose a categorical framework (description) on it will result in contradiction and absurdity.

 

Nagarjuna says the same thing in Madhyamika, with Pratityasamutpada (or Dependent Origination). He also extends this and says that things that are subject to rational, phenomenological inquiry are dependently originated and that they are empty of self-nature (Svabhava Shunya). Posits Shunyata, that is devoid of any characteristics and any attempts to superimpose a categorical framework on it will lead to absurdity and contradictions.

Edited August 16, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

Then please stop saying it. These words: Just, we don't inherently exist. So confusing and so, so unnecessary.

 

It is necessary, but I don't think you understand what inherent existence means? Do you?

 

So what is this`inherent existence' that it is so important to refute?

 

I've been trying to get my empty head around what an inherently existing object would be like. Here's a few ideas:

 

(1) An inherently existing entity exists in splendid isolation without the need to reference any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature.

 

(2) An inherently existing entity is uncaused.

 

(3) It is indestructible.

 

(4) It is eternal.

 

(5) It is unchanging when viewed externally.

 

(6) It cannot undergo any internal changes of state.

 

(7) It either has no constituent parts, or if it has parts those parts are inseparable.

 

(8) Consequently, nothing can be ejected or removed from it.

 

(9) Nothing can be added to it (this would change its definition).

 

(10) No change in external conditions (up to and including the destruction of the entire universe) can affect it.

 

This is what inherent existence means and this is why it's important to refute. It seems to you that the Tao has inherent existence? So, as a Buddhist it's refuted...

 

 

No, I did not inherently want to exist. My mother and father had sex and stuff just happened after that and here I am. All so very simple and undeniable (for a normal person).

 

But that's not inherent existence, that's relative existence.

 

So then, after telling someone that they exist we tell them that they matter. And we continue by saying that we can eliminate a lot of our suffering by dismantling, or at least reducing, our ego and clinging to the idea that we are supposed to be getting more out of life than life is giving us.

 

Sure that's one way which leads to a good level of peace. But Buddhism goes all the way and say's that unhappiness arises from the attachment to self period, because we realize that death is not the end of one's self experiencing, where you disagree. So, we create a philosophy upon a very different premise, that death does not truly exist, it's only a relative appearance.

 

And then we remind the person that they should rid themself of as many of the causes for suffering that they have. This is up to them only to define because only they can see the dark places of their mind. We should never tell them such and such because we could be only adding to the list of causes for their suffering.

 

Right which is why the Buddha gave us the 8 fold noble path which is a self applied solvent of suffering.

Actually, the process of ridding oneself of suffering is very simple. Figuring out how to do it without causing new and additional suffering is the trick.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, if one is serious about removing psychological suffering, it will take one's entire life generally speaking, even if one has done lots of work in previous lives. So, most people don't really take up the path, because it takes too long, and most will just try to fill there time with pleasures and avoid as much displeasure as possible. Ah, but life always brings spills and thrills.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Nagarjuna says the same thing in Madhyamika, with Pratityasamutpada (or Dependent Origination). He also extends this and says that things that are subject to rational, phenomenological inquiry are dependently originated and that they are empty of self-nature (Svabhava Shunya). Posits Shunyata, that is devoid of any characteristics and any attempts to superimpose a categorical framework on it will lead to absurdity and contradictions.

 

Nagarjuna will not be understood by reading hindu interpretations as they don't read everything that Nagarjuna taught. They read subjectively and only partially because they don't want to admit that Nagarjuna was vehemently clear when he said that if there was anything in the universe not empty, that too should be emptied, even emptiness is empty of inherent existence. The Shunya of Shunyata. Which is why Shunyata can never be something that one can superimpose a categorical framework over. Shunyata does not exist like that in Buddhism.

 

For Nagajuna his major teaching was that there was absolutely no Self to the universe, that there was absolutely no essence behind things that transcended the all. Just as the Buddha said. The all is defined by dependent origination and the Buddha said that if anyone were to teach that there was anything beyond this, that person would be wrong.

 

Also, Hindu's enjoy misinterpreting Nagarjunas two truths teaching of Nagarjuna. Nagarjunas two truths have to do with dependent origination and emptiness, that conventionally, things relatively exist, but ultimately speaking they do not inherently exist and without understanding these two truths, the Buddha's doctrine cannot be understood, which is why Vedantin's don't understand Buddhism. Because of attachment to an ultimate subject of all, it makes it very hard to be free from subjective thinking and projection of one's self definition onto everything. It's kind of an all subsuming view that is inherent in the Vedic texts and interpretation of cosmos. Which is why the Buddha said the main obstacle for gods was pride and attachment to existence which they reify through their metaphysical doctrines.

 

Nagarjuna taught that there is no ultimate Self to the universe, there is only dependent origination and relative selves, which are inherently empty. Which is why Nagarjuna taught this...

 

Philosophy

Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the further development of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness," which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anatta (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination). For Nāgārjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are empty of ātman; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-nature" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence; they are empty of being independent. This is so because they are arisen dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.

(This also applies to experiences both in meditation and mundane experiences) Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya in later Mahāyāna writings. Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine found in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms -

 

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."[6]

Nāgārjuna differentiates between saṃvṛti (conventional) and paramārtha (ultimately true) teachings, but he never declares any to fall in this latter category; for him, even śūnyatā is śūnya--even emptiness is empty. For him, ultimately,

 

nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛtte cittagocare|

anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā||7

The designable is ceased when the range of thought is ceased,

For phenomenality is like nirvana, unarisen and unstopped.

This was famously rendered in his tetralemma with the logical propositions: X, not X, X and not X, neither X nor not X.

 

Nagarjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnavali, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."[7]

 

For more on Nāgārjuna's philosophy, see Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

the negation of Sunyata does not lead to the same realization as the positive assertion that reality exists. negation of phenomena inherently existing is necessary to kill conceptual craving. positing that all phenomena belong to one reality is a position of extremity, a categorical framework, even though it supposedly leads to a non-phenomenal experience this experience is not rightly interpreted. you cannot say that Brahman or Self are non-categorical or non-phenomenal, because that's not true. the very word Self is a conceptual limitation that leads to grasping. think about it.. what does Self mean? look it up in a dictionary. what does it mean? the word leads to grasping. its impossible to escape grasping if you positively assert the existence of one reality. the way to not grasp conceptually is to negate and be free of extremes. Everything is One, Nothing exists, Everything exists. these are all extremes. the reason why its so necessary to have Right View in all schools of Buddhism is because you need to kill conceptual grasping to have true insight.

Edited August 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

I think it is not necessary to repeat you entire Post #60 as there is basic agreement.

 

However, I feel I should speak to a couple items in the list of qualifiers of 'inherent existence'.

 

I speak from my own point of understanding only. I do not suggest that all Taoists hold this understanding.

 

There is only one thing (which is a non-thing) that meets the criteria of items 2 thru 10 and that is Tao (which is indescribable).

 

All else is subject to change, subject to birth and death, creation and destruction, etc., etc.

 

The reason Tao qualifies in all criteria is that Tao is All - the beginning and the end, birth and death, creation and destruction, etc., etc.

 

You and I are and everything we consist of are subject to change. No single component is impervious to change.

 

Yes, everything that we are will remain etenal (no energy is ever lost) but no thing will remain unchanged.

 

So, although we could discuss this subject as long as we are physically and mentally capable our discussions will change absolutely nothing because our true essence is no-thing (Tao), which, of course, cannot be discussed.

 

Be well!

Edited August 16, 2009 by Marblehead

[Lucky7Strikes]

See, you are mistaking the term "Te" as Virtue. Te is Tao. Realize Te and you realize Tao.

 

Te is virtue. http://www.taowizard.com/de_te.php

 

Haha, thanks Stig for the site.

 

Certain things are known intuitively (called Prajna) and become known, without going through a rational process (which doesn't diminish the value or validity of that knowledge in any way).

 

What does Buddhism teach? What does Taoism teach?

Don't they teach of Nirvana/Shunyata, Tao which they claim is not external but is not known through rational inquiry? Perhaps they don't call it a "Mystical Self", but they allude to a "Mystical State". There is nothing wrong with Mysticism...it is simply a state of Subjective absorption...a stepping out of Subject-Object duality...that's all!

 

Intuitive knowledge can be as wrong and rational knowledge. Equating the Self/Tao/Shunyata/etc. because they point to a "mystical state" is, well how many mystical states are there? Too many to count.

 

What is this resistance (to what I am suggesting) rising from?

Is it not a deep-rooted fear of cognitive dissonance?

I am aware that you could simply turn that around and ask me the same question. But I am not rejecting what you say...I accept that Buddhism teaches the Non-self and Shunyata. I am saying that Vedanta says the same thing...except that they take it one step farther.

 

You started the thread.

 

You asked me why I meditate if I am "The Self". I have tried asking myself this question thousands of times. Why do I practice Taiji and Chi Gong? Why do I do Yoga and Pranayama? Why do I meditate? I don't know the answer to that...I meditate because I feel compelled to do it. I find bliss in meditation and cultivation practices. I find equanimity and peace, a joy deeper than anything any material object can give me.

 

You might be tempted to ask (as some have on other threads) why should some one "chase bliss". I would be tempted to ask, "Why not?"

Isn't all activity in human life aimed towards eliminating pain and enhancing/creating pleasure?

 

Also, Bliss/Joy is not the same as Pleasure. Joy is the natural state of being...look at a child. The child is always joyful, completely free of guile and perfectly natural. Cries when sad, laughs when happy, without any selfish motives or malicious intentions. The Child is a reflection of The Joyful Self. As we grow older, the social conditioning (categorical frameworks) piled upon us makes us who/what we are. The prisoners of Samsara...the hostages of our intellects, sensory pleasures and pains.

 

That's why we will find examples of the old masters such as Lao Tzu and the various mystics (from various traditions of the world) in such simple and natural states. They ARE Joy. They ARE Bliss. That is because they gone past the Duality of existence (or have the Duality in equillibrium).

 

This is the limit of Advaita non-dual philosophy.

 

You are just acting under compulsion without knowing why except that it makes you feel happy. Maybe you even feel better than others because you believe that your mode of pleasure is spiritual and nobler. That it is "joy." In the end, whatever your achievements are don't mean anything. They are all just the mighty play of the grand Consciousness separating, unititing, suffering, being, on and on. Do you see a problem with this teaching? I cetainly do.

 

Going beyond duality can mean many things. It can mean going brain dead too. But it can also mean being a great sage. Or a Buddha.

 

There are many "official" answers to the question "Why does the Self create this material universe if it does exist?"

 

Kashmir Shavism says that The Self is in total Joy (Sat Chit Ananda) and the universe is a projection of this Joy that is overflowing.

 

Meso-American Shamans say that "The Great Eagle, Nagual preys on the Tonal for sustenance...

 

"You can't talk about it" doesn't mean they are talking about one thing.

 

The Self, Brahman, the Eagle are all nouns. The Tao can be a noun, but is more of a verb/adverb. And Shunyata is an adjective. See into how these terms are used and you can see a difference.

 

I don't see the universe filled with joy overflowing. The Self then must be a cynical fella.

 

I absolutely don't know whether the Buddhist pradigm is more true than Advaita's. But they are certainly different. You have pointed out before that you were brought up under Advaita and have strong connections to it. But why not for once consider that it can be wrong? Be like goldisheavy a bit (but please, not too much).

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You and I are and everything we consist of are subject to change. No single component is impervious to change.

 

Yes, everything that we are will remain etenal (no energy is ever lost) but no thing will remain unchanged.

 

So, although we could discuss this subject as long as we are physically and mentally capable our discussions will change absolutely nothing because our true essence is no-thing (Tao), which, of course, cannot be discussed.

 

Be well!

 

Right, I understand, that's quite similar to the approach of cosmos that Vedanta has in calling everything modifications of the unchanging Brahman. This view is what the Buddha called, Eternalism and it's considered an extreme. Buddhism is the middle path beyond the extreme views of Eternalism and Nihilism.

 

So yes, this has been refuted by the Buddha since the very first turning of the wheel.

 

Well be!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Going beyond duality can mean many things. It can mean going brain dead too. But it can also mean being a great sage. Or a Buddha.

 

 

Brain dead!! That's what people sometimes think of me when I'm in meditation... "what, is he brain dead?", "Is he a vegetable?"

I absolutely don't know whether the Buddhist pradigm is more true than Advaita's. But they are certainly different. You have pointed out before that you were brought up under Advaita and have strong connections to it. But why not for once consider that it can be wrong? Be like goldisheavy a bit (but please, not too much).

 

Did goldisheavy every consider himself wrong?

 

Dwai won't be able to ever consider his path wrong, even for a moment because his whole identity is wrapped up in it, having been born a Brahmin with family ties to real Advaitin lineage. If he were even to consider the possibility that his path is wrong in the assertion all paths lead to the same truth, he would have to consider that maybe it's wrong in other assertions as well. So even though it's been proven over and over again through quotes from the Buddha, from the Nikaya to Mahayana that Buddhism takes on an entirely different interpretation of the nature of Cosmos. That liberation is caused by an entirely different set of rules if one is to be considered liberated in Buddhism. He will not admit that this truth is valid. He will say, this is all a misinterpretation, even though the words were not really up for interpretation much like calling a white egg, a white egg was dependent upon an interpretation of vision, rather than the mere fact of having the ability to see. It's quite obvious to those that are Buddhist with any sense of learning, because we don't have to orient our view with the Vedas which say, "I am one but my manifestations are many". Also they say, "The paths are many, but the goal is one".

 

He can't see that Buddhism and Hinduism are coming from two entirely different points of reasoning because long ago they already assumed that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, even though he said in no uncertain terms that he was not a god. Anyway...

[dwai]

Te is virtue. http://www.taowizard.com/de_te.php

 

Haha, thanks Stig for the site.

Intuitive knowledge can be as wrong and rational knowledge. Equating the Self/Tao/Shunyata/etc. because they point to a "mystical state" is, well how many mystical states are there? Too many to count.

You started the thread.

This is the limit of Advaita non-dual philosophy.

 

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

 

You are just acting under compulsion without knowing why except that it makes you feel happy. Maybe you even feel better than others because you believe that your mode of pleasure is spiritual and nobler. That it is "joy." In the end, whatever your achievements are don't mean anything. They are all just the mighty play of the grand Consciousness separating, unititing, suffering, being, on and on. Do you see a problem with this teaching? I cetainly do.

 

Going beyond duality can mean many things. It can mean going brain dead too. But it can also mean being a great sage. Or a Buddha.

"You can't talk about it" doesn't mean they are talking about one thing.

 

The Self, Brahman, the Eagle are all nouns. The Tao can be a noun, but is more of a verb/adverb. And Shunyata is an adjective. See into how these terms are used and you can see a difference.

 

This Joy is not pleasure that you will get from eating a good meal or seeing a beautiful view. The Joy of Atman is beyond description...it is only to be experienced. It is beyond ordinary emotions...

 

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

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

 

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

 

How do you know what the brain-dead state feels like? Have you ever been brain-dead? Let us not get into polemics because we will end up feeling recriminatory and bitter once a discussion goes into polemics.

 

If you want to discuss grammar then you only have to look into the concept of Shabda Brahman. Nothing more nuanced and refined has ever graced this planet. Read Bhratrhari.

 

I don't see the universe filled with joy overflowing. The Self then must be a cynical fella.

 

I absolutely don't know whether the Buddhist pradigm is more true than Advaita's. But they are certainly different. You have pointed out before that you were brought up under Advaita and have strong connections to it. But why not for once consider that it can be wrong? Be like goldisheavy a bit (but please, not too much).

 

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

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

 

I am more than ready to accept that Advaita is wrong if I see any difference between Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita. In my opinion and by my experience I find them to be pointing to the same truth. The difference that people see is superficial. There is a lot more in common than the surfacial differences.

 

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

[Vajrahridaya]

If there is No Self, nothing makes any sense...everything is hollow and empty.

 

This is craving for existence, the subtlest veil.

 

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

 

This is positive Eternalism, an extreme and another subtle veil.

 

Read Bhratrhari.

 

I've read Bhratrihari, pretty cool, but still Eternalism and not as nuanced as Abhidharma.

 

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

 

You could say the same to a mirror.

[nac]

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

Edited August 16, 2009 by nac

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

Did goldisheavy every consider himself wrong?

 

Dwai won't be able to ever consider his path wrong, even for a moment because his whole identity is wrapped up in it, having been born a Brahmin with family ties to real Advaitin lineage. If he were even to consider the possibility that his path is wrong in the assertion all paths lead to the same truth, he would have to consider that maybe it's wrong in other assertions as well. So even though it's been proven over and over again through quotes from the Buddha, from the Nikaya to Mahayana that Buddhism takes on an entirely different interpretation of the nature of Cosmos. That liberation is caused by an entirely different set of rules if one is to be considered liberated in Buddhism. He will not admit that this truth is valid. He will say, this is all a misinterpretation, even though the words were not really up for interpretation much like calling a white egg, a white egg was dependent upon an interpretation of vision, rather than the mere fact of having the ability to see. It's quite obvious to those that are Buddhist with any sense of learning, because we don't have to orient our view with the Vedas which say, "I am one but my manifestations are many". Also they say, "The paths are many, but the goal is one".

 

 

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

 

Did Vajrahridaya ever consider himself wrong?

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

G'day!

[Marblehead]

Good to see we still haven't lost our competitive spirit in this thread yet.

 

Be well!

[Birch]

[nac]

People still read Descartes? He was an out and out dualist for Chris'sake! He thought matter and spirit are somehow fundamentally separate and irreconcilable. Like alchemists used to think organic and inorganic matter should never be mixed! If he had at least tried to define what he meant by "I am", I might have agreed with him. But as long as the "I" is declared to be atomic and unanalyzable while it's workings are willingly and enthusiastically shrouded in mystery, such a philosophy is too much to swallow for this "I".

Edited August 17, 2009 by nac

[Birch]

Oh I don't know about the whole thing;-)

 

I kept reading this bit:

 

"I am, I exist, is necessarily true, every time that I utter it or that I conceive of it in my mind" and wondering if that isn't really a pretty important part of it "I conceive of it in my mind." that we often trip up on and into and get stuck in when considering our existence;-) - I especially like the "necessarily true" part. I've forgotten most of the vocabularly of logic so maybe someone could explain what "necessarily" means?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh I don't know about the whole thing;-)

 

I kept reading this bit:

 

"I am, I exist, is necessarily true, every time that I utter it or that I conceive of it in my mind" and wondering if that isn't really a pretty important part of it "I conceive of it in my mind." that we often trip up on and into and get stuck in when considering our existence;-) - I especially like the "necessarily true" part. I've forgotten most of the vocabularly of logic so maybe someone could explain what "necessarily" means?

 

 

Oooh, you don't know what you just asked for... wait til Vajra gets back...put on your wading boots....

 

 

 

 

.