In defense of the "I"

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you want to consider absolute ultimate reality you must delete everything except Tao because every 'thing' will eventually be destroyed. There is no ultimate 'thing' or even an ultimate non-thing.

 

To think that I do not exist would be depressing (and rather silly, I must add). I love life and all its physical manifestations. I have no reason to pretend that it does not exist. I have no reason to pretend that "I" do not exist.

 

I understand that Buddhists do not exist. I have no problem with that. But they sure make a lot of noise for something that does not exist. (Sorry V. but they started it.)

 

Peace & Love!

Here on this forum even that is an understatement. Hehehe.

 

Some of our members get totally lost in space.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The Tao is symbolized through the Tai Chi symbol. It depends on the relativity of action and reaction. Of identity and its reflection. The yang is the manifest and the yin is potential. But really, I'm mentally masturbating here (as I always do! ).

 

I think you are getting the sense that some Buddhist live in silly denial of self, will, and life's desires and manifestations. I agree that this is the wrong approach where the method is confused with the truth. For example, I believe the practice of celibacy is exactly that. Practice. It's not that you are limited to being a celibate once you have liberated yourself from illusions, that wouldn't be liberation.

 

So I imagine the state of liberation as mastering manifestation of phenomena. To experience anything under a conscious will through relationship with others. To suffer, to sin, be joyful, be compassionate, or whatever. Like a painter who has mastered his craft, and knows that the canvas will always be renewable and infinitely creative.

 

Haha, the SHOW MUST GO ON!

 

.

[Marblehead]

The Tao is symbolized through the Tai Chi symbol. It depends on the relativity of action and reaction. Of identity and its reflection. The yang is the manifest and the yin is potential. But really, I'm mentally masturbating here (as I always do! ).

 

I think you are getting the sense that some Buddhist live in silly denial of self, will, and life's desires and manifestations. I agree that this is the wrong approach where the method is confused with the truth. For example, I believe the practice of celibacy is exactly that. Practice. It's not that you are limited to being a celibate once you have liberated yourself from illusions, that wouldn't be liberation.

 

So I imagine the state of liberation as mastering manifestation of phenomena. To experience anything under a conscious will through relationship with others. To suffer, to sin, be joyful, be compassionate, or whatever. Like a painter who has mastered his craft, and knows that the canvas will always be renewable and infinitely creative.

 

Haha, the SHOW MUST GO ON!

 

.

 

Hi Lucky,

 

No. I know they are only pretending that they don't exist. They really know they exist relative to all else in the universe that exists relative to everything that doesn't exist.

 

And cause and effect is a given in Taoist philosophy but we don't cling tenaciously to the concept of karma because karma negates free will and we Taoists understand the improtance of free will.

 

And that is why "I" will agree with them in that there is no specific thing called "I" but that the collection of what I am none-the-less produces a collection of stuff that I refer to as "I".

 

So as long as my Buddhist friends wish to discuss this subject I am willing to do so also.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Well, that doesn't include Michael because he should be studying now. Hehehe.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Marblehead

[C T]

An intelligent, self-actualizing person could say something like this, "I am in pain, but pain is different from suffering. Hence I am not suffering".

 

An intelligent person who has transcended the concept of an independent self to be actualized, could say the exact the same thing, "There is pain, but pain is different from suffering. Hence there is no suffering".

 

Non-self 101.

 

May all be wise.

[xabir2005]

And cause and effect is a given in Taoist philosophy but we don't cling tenaciously to the concept of karma because karma negates free will and we Taoists understand the improtance of free will.

Karma is only one out of 5 types of major conditionings. Karma doesn't cause all your choice and actions. Your will, intention, is a result of many types of conditionings out of which karma may play some (but only a part) of the role.

 

The point is, the karma that Buddha taught has nothing to do with determinism. Your will and intention is not determined. It dependently originates and is relative to various sorts of conditions but isn't determined by something.

Edited November 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Karma is only one out of 5 types of major conditionings. Karma doesn't cause all your choice and actions. Your will, intention, is a result of many types of conditionings out of which karma may play some (but only a part) of the role.

 

The point is, the karma that Buddha taught has nothing to do with determinism. Your will and intention is not determined. It dependently originates and is relative to various sorts of conditions but isn't determined by something.

 

Hi Xabir,

 

I don't get to agree with you often enough so I really want to make a big deal out of this.

 

I agree!

 

But I will also suggest that it is possible to negate much if not most of our earlier life's conditioning. This is the Taoist phase called 'unlearning'.

 

Peace & Love!

[Fruitzilla]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with calling it a car, but I'm saying that that's just that -- a label, a word, imputed on a conglomeration of parts without essence, and the word actually does not refer to some real entity with essence.

 

etc

 

etc

 

etc

 

 

This is part of what I meant by taking anti-essentialism too far. You've got a hammer and everyone here looks like a nail to you. ( I made my first comment to you so I could make this one. I knew you'd react like this.)

 

I don't like to be preached at mindlessly and mechanistically , and I can imagine that's a common trait amongst humans.

 

Why not engage in genuine conversation? Since everything exists only in relation, why not relate? It's alive and fun and very integrative. Integration is the flip side of deconstruction and you'll have to realize that thoroughly, otherwise you'll never go beyond extremes

Edited November 4, 2009 by Fruitzilla

[nac]

MH: Okay. I still don't get your argument though. My view is certainly not depressing to me.

 

This is part of what I meant by taking anti-essentialism too far. You've got a hammer and everyone here looks like a nail to you. ( I made my first comment to you so I could make this one. I knew you'd react like this.)

 

I don't like to be preached at mindlessly and mechanistically , and I can imagine that's a common trait amongst humans.

 

Why not engage in genuine conversation? Since everything exists only in relation, why not relate? It's alive and fun and very integrative. Integration is the flip side of deconstruction and you'll have to realize that thoroughly, otherwise you'll never go beyond extremes

We're just talking about the ultimate level of analysis. Perhaps you should start another topic if you're looking for "alive and fun and very integrative" conversation.

 

PS. Think about it. The logical conclusion of primitive essentialism is that a broken car was once endowed with a mysterious car-essence which has now left it. Or maybe that depends on whether it can be repaired, or whether it would be more profitable to build a new car from scratch. So now it's a question of economy. Then again, is there such a thing as broken-car-essence, or does each possible car model with each possible type of mechanical defect have it's own transmutable "essence"? How about cars with minor defects, bends or scratches, and every possible placement of such scratches? Where does it end? And where can I see these prototypical ideals?

 

As usual, Diogenes hits the nail on the head:

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

 

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

 

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

 

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

 

Plato nodded.

 

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

 

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

MH: Okay. I still don't get your argument though. My view is certainly not depressing to me.

 

Well, I am certainly glad that your view is not depressing to you.

 

And I am sorry that you still do not understand my arguement. Words fail me sometimes.

 

But as long as we all remember to live I guess everything will turn our for the best.

 

So you can go ahead and assume that "I", Marblehead, will continue to exist until he no longer exists.

 

I really do enjoy being a physical being. I even get to dream, have illusions and delusions and even imagine myself in other realms and stuff like that.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

I really do enjoy being a physical being. I even get to dream, have illusions and delusions and even imagine myself in other realms and stuff like that.

We are all physical beings, it's just that we have no essential nature such as souls or mystical breath. However, we have been privileged with sentience and intellect, the power to experience existence free from delusion and falsehood. What we wish to do with this priceless gift is of course up to us.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

We are all physical beings, it's just that we have no essential nature such as souls or mystical breath. However, we have been privileged with sentience and intellect, the power to experience existence free from delusion and falsehood. What we wish to do with this priceless gift is of course up to us.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yea! We almost have an understanding! Hehehe.

 

I really do believe that I have a soul and a spirit (mystical breath) though.

 

(Funny thought. We both look at the same card. You look at it right-side-up, hand it to me and I look at it up-side-down. We both see the same card, we just see it differently.)

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

I really do believe that I have a soul and a spirit (mystical breath) though.

And we can point at this spirit and say "that's the real me"?

 

(Funny thought. We both look at the same card. You look at it right-side-up, hand it to me and I look at it up-side-down. We both see the same card, we just see it differently.)

That's right. The Buddha said having a human life is infinitely precious. Compared to all the possible forms of life we could have been born as, being born as a fully privileged human being is as rare as this: suppose a log with a hole in it's middle is adrift somewhere on the ocean. There's a turtle living under the ocean that lifts it's head above the water once every hundred years. Being born as a human being is as rare as this turtle accidentally poking it's head through the hole in the log when it comes to the ocean surface.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

PS. Anyway, if a random alien race came here to hunt humans and they got me, please tell them not to propitiate the spirit of humanity for me. My spirit won't be impressed with their spirits if that jerk approved.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The "I" is not refering to a truly existing, independent thing but only a convention, like the name 'car' is labelled on the many parts joined together for a particular function but cannot be found in or apart from those parts. There is no car-ness of car, the car is dependent on all the factors and is without essence.

 

Now, we can get at it.. Whole (car) and components (parts).. The parts lay scattered about, no car-ness apparent.. 'something' organizes the parts into a functioning mode of transportation, and describes it as 'car'.. while there is no naturally occurring fundamental condition identifiable as 'car'.. the functioning mode of transportation exists, it was 'created'.. In Taoist philosophy, and in general Chinese thought, there is the understanding of "Mutual Arising".. as the physical being is born and grows, its 'I' essence "mutually arises".. as fundamentally as the seed growing into the tree.. the descriptors and words do not define the 'tree' or the 'I', but they exist.. As the functioning mode of transportation emerges from the organization of parts, the 'essence' of the function mutually arises.. The horse was a wild beast, until someone created the 'essence' of another functioning mode of transportation, and.. that 'essence' still exists today.. the 'essence' is that which is directly experiencable, it needs no 'name', it simply occurs as 'part' of the process of Creation.. you integrate the 'car-essence' into your direct experience of existence.. look, with no preconceptions, and see that this is so.. if someone says 'car', you understand the 'essence' of their meaning.. the 'word' car invokes a 'knowing'.. the 'knowing' is based on direct experience with an 'essence', it is the 'essence' of communication and relationship.. yes, there is an 'essence' of the car.. it may be tempoary, but it is quite 'real'..

 

The whole nor the parts exist without that which experiences both, 'You'.. "You' are Consciousness, which is attended by its inherent Awareness, and is fundamentally self-aware.. There is something that experiences and describes both the Whole and the parts, not as a separate observer, but.. as the direct experiencer.. experiencing itself.. The 'I' exists as an Undifferentiated Whole AND as independently manifested experiencer.. the same way that the independent raindrop retains its 'waterness' apart from the same Ocean 'waterness'..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

Edited November 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[markern]

A path with heart, the wise heart budhist psychology for the west, after the ecstasy the laundry, all by Jack Kornfield could be very good reads for the starter of this thread. So could A lot of Shinzen youngs stuff and Daniel Ingram. All these guys can do a lot to clear things up.

[nac]

But you see, "car" is merely a vague description we assign to an assortment of phenomena based on how humans can put it to use. The characteristics of the assortment itself is fully determined by the phenomena and related conditions that comprise it. "Car-ness" has no claim on it whatsoever. A "broken car" is a sort of post-praxic manifestation that we would've been able to utilize as a "car" in the past before it's mechanism got screwed up. Actually, this is also a limited way of thinking since everything is undergoing constant change. So is a "car" a lump of dharmas that are undergoing the process of being a car? But a car under the Pacific ocean or in the middle of a tropical rainforest is still a "car" although it can't be used as one at the moment, since it's praxic utility is the same... Also, how far does our imagination stretch? At what point do we start & stop calling something a "car" or car-related manifestation?

 

Anyway, I agree that I-ness is a phenomenon that arises interdependently along with other phenomena, although I don't attach too much importance to it because it's existence doesn't prove self-hood IMHO.

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

PS. Anyway, if a random alien race came here to hunt humans and they got me, please tell them not to propitiate the spirit of humanity for me. My spirit won't be impressed with their spirits if that jerk approved.

 

I will fight them off. I promise!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Greetings..

Now, we can get at it.. Whole (car) and components (parts).. The parts lay scattered about, no car-ness apparent.. 'something' organizes the parts into a functioning mode of transportation, and describes it as 'car'.. while there is no naturally occurring fundamental condition identifiable as 'car'.. the functioning mode of transportation exists, it was 'created'.. In Taoist philosophy, and in general Chinese thought, there is the understanding of "Mutual Arising".. as the physical being is born and grows, its 'I' essence "mutually arises".. as fundamentally as the seed growing into the tree.. the descriptors and words do not define the 'tree' or the 'I', but they exist.. As the functioning mode of transportation emerges from the organization of parts, the 'essence' of the function mutually arises.. The horse was a wild beast, until someone created the 'essence' of another functioning mode of transportation, and.. that 'essence' still exists today.. the 'essence' is that which is directly experiencable, it needs no 'name', it simply occurs as 'part' of the process of Creation.. you integrate the 'car-essence' into your direct experience of existence.. look, with no preconceptions, and see that this is so.. if someone says 'car', you understand the 'essence' of their meaning.. the 'word' car invokes a 'knowing'.. the 'knowing' is based on direct experience with an 'essence', it is the 'essence' of communication and relationship.. yes, there is an 'essence' of the car.. it may be tempoary, but it is quite 'real'..

 

The whole nor the parts exist without that which experiences both, 'You'.. "You' are Consciousness, which is attended by its inherent Awareness, and is fundamentally self-aware.. There is something that experiences and describes both the Whole and the parts, not as a separate observer, but.. as the direct experiencer.. experiencing itself.. The 'I' exists as an Undifferentiated Whole AND as independently manifested experiencer.. the same way that the independent raindrop retains its 'waterness' apart from the same Ocean 'waterness'..

 

Be well..

 

I liked that post well enough to repeat the whole thing!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

But you see, "car" is merely a vague description

 

Actually, I don't have a car. I have a truck. And yes, it has 'truckness'. It's a good truck so I think I will keep it. My "I" is a good "I" so I think I will keep it too.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

Actually, I don't have a car. I have a truck. And yes, it has 'truckness'.

Sure it does, but these are just constructions in our minds. Nothing outside the sentient mind lends anything inherent "truckness". I thought Taoists were experts at realizing this.* Sorry for the lame joke.

 

Peace & Love!

 

*I mean, the Zen distrust of "labels" is derived from Taoism, not the other way around. Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism aren't as suspicious of words as the Far Eastern traditions. After all, notions of truckness and beingness can be derived in other ways. Eg. by looking at cause and effect. A conglomeration of phenomena can be safely called a "truck" as long as it behaves in accordance with the known behavior of trucks along a chain of causality. Note that this is still a consistent definition which we can choose for our convenience, based on our own needs and conditioning. Nothing naturally inherent about it as far as I can see. Pick even slightly different definitions, and people can get into big fights over absolutely nothing. (ironic, eh? ) Still, not choosing definitions at all can lead to more problems like fuzzy thinking.

 

The whole nor the parts exist without that which experiences both, 'You'.. "You' are Consciousness, which is attended by its inherent Awareness, and is fundamentally self-aware.. There is something that experiences and describes both the Whole and the parts, not as a separate observer, but.. as the direct experiencer.. experiencing itself.. The 'I' exists as an Undifferentiated Whole AND as independently manifested experiencer.. the same way that the independent raindrop retains its 'waterness' apart from the same Ocean 'waterness'..

This is conventionally true IMO, but not when you fully analyze how phenomena interact with one another. That's all I'm saying. Refusal to analyze things can result in an overly simplistic outlook. If you're okay with this potential danger, I'm okay with it too.

 

PPS. Sorry for my erratic posting habits. I don't get much online time at a stretch.

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[C T]

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

Just want to add some thoughts that came up today:

 

We sensate earth, but where did earth come from? Where does it go? Is there a source where earth essence arise from and return to?

 

We sensate water, but where did water come from? Where does water go? Is there a source where water essence arise from and return to?

 

We sensate fire, but where did fire come from? Where does fire go? Is there a source from where fire essence arise from and return to?

 

We sensate wind, but where did wind come from? Where does wind go? Is there a source from where wind essence arise from and return to?

 

We sensate the *I*, but where did this *I* come from? Where does the *I* go? Is there a source from where the *I* essence arise from and return to?

 

One is full, the other is empty. Each dependently arises and ceases, individually, collectively, instantaneously, simultaneously, conditionally.

 

It is not helpful that there are those who think Buddhists negate the existence of *I*, or that the person exists. Of course we exist. To say or think otherwise is ignoring the understanding of how all things arise and cease. Some may ask if this understanding is important, or relevant? It all depends on the individual's philosophical and spiritual inclinations. For some, the declaration "Know thyself" has deep significance, while for others it can mean "My name is Joe. I exist. I live in a hole. I will die and return to another hole. This is the meaning of my life." Such is the irony of existence.

 

Have a nice day. Btw, do you know where this *day* came from? hehehe.. Some will say the *day* comes when the sun rises...

[nac]

Exactly, no one is negating the existence of beings. Why would any living, sane non-solipsist do that?

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

There is this Cosmic 'I', Undifferentiated and Whole.. it is the Cosmic 'I' that reaches out into the nothingness and finds nothingness.. It is this Cosmic 'I' that is the 'Prime Cause' and the manifested effect.. 'Egoless', the Cosmic 'I' can 'let go' of its manifesting, let the manifest explore its own evolution.. here's the thing, the Cosmic 'I' is both the source and the result, and it is not invested in either.. 'You' are that Cosmic 'I', that is your 'self'.. whether Undifferentiated or individualized, it is still 'You'.. The 'car-essence' is 'You"..

But you see, "car" is merely a vague description we assign to an assortment of phenomena based on how humans can put it to use. The characteristics of the assortment itself is fully determined by the phenomena and related conditions that comprise it. "Car-ness" has no claim on it whatsoever.

Let go of the 'words'.. the experience of the 'car' is its essence, regardless of how we describe it; car, automobile, carriage, horseless buggy, ride, whatever.. it has *ness, and is experienced as such.. There seems to be a great fear of 'impermanance', logically grounded in the fear of death.. i have no sense of 'impermanance', death is just another adventure.. i have no desire to transcend experience, to return to that undifferentiated whole.. and, the evidence is quite clear that the undifferentiated whole is not eager to conclude the physical experience.. the Universe is functioning well, spontaneously and sustainably well into the future..

 

The Cosmic 'essence', however it is perceived, has inspired this Universe as the mirror of its existence.. not to be rejected as 'illusion' or denied as 'not real', but.. as a playground of rich diversity, of unlimited potential, of evolving experiences, each a celebration of of existence itself.. To experience all that IS, and claim it is not.. is the fear of losing what IS.. people spend their brief interval in the physical experience preparing for a 'painless' exit, convincing themselves this isn't 'real'.. it IS real.. the ONLY act of a sane existence is to accept what IS.. regardless of beliefs or what transpires during sleep, we awake to a brief but consistent physical experience.. there is no 'consequence' for embracing 'what IS', but.. pretending it isn't, is like sitting on the sidelines 'watching'.. you never 'know' life, you just 'watch the movie'.. regardless of the perspective, the result is the same, the physical experience ends.. i have chosen to experience this physical experience with gusto, sincerity, and reckless abandon.. when i discard the individualization, there will be no difference in the result from anyone else's discarding.. except, that Oneness will have had an authentic experience with itself... not some ritual of nothingness.

 

Be well..

[nac]

There is this Cosmic 'I', Undifferentiated and Whole.. it is the Cosmic 'I' that reaches out into the nothingness and finds nothingness.. It is this Cosmic 'I' that is the 'Prime Cause' and the manifested effect.. 'Egoless', the Cosmic 'I' can 'let go' of its manifesting, let the manifest explore its own evolution.. here's the thing, the Cosmic 'I' is both the source and the result, and it is not invested in either.. 'You' are that Cosmic 'I', that is your 'self'.. whether Undifferentiated or individualized, it is still 'You'.. The 'car-essence' is 'You"..

About this "cosmic essence" business, I agree with the Buddhist tradition that this has no true existence outside one's mind either. We can conventionally say that we live in one whole cosmos, but this has no real meaning once we comprehend how phenomena arise before the consciousness from the web of Codependent Origination. The same thing that applies to each smaller lump of phenomena applies in turn, to the entire cosmos. See my post after this one. (the one you quoted)

Edited November 4, 2009 by nac

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

About this "cosmic essence" business, I agree with the Buddhist tradition that this has no true existence outside one's mind either. We can conventionally say that we live in one whole cosmos, but this has no real meaning once we comprehend how phenomena arise before the consciousness from the web of Codependent Origination.

There is nothing prior to the Undifferentiated Whole Consciousness.. All things arise due to Consciousness.. this is simply observable.

 

Be well..

[nac]

There is nothing prior to the Undifferentiated Whole Consciousness.. All things arise due to Consciousness.. this is simply observable.

If I'm not mistaken, Taoists teach that the cosmic void existed even before consciousness. Am I right?

[xabir2005]

Edited November 4, 2009 by xabir2005