"there is such a self"

[River Gazer]

a thought for you blasto:

 

The degeneration of any religion or philosophy from value to fanaticism lies when the individual no longer recognizes a possibility to falsity, and falls into absolutes.

 

Not as much Buddhists, and definitely not the Taoists I've seen, but most people get struck by consuming fear just by the idea that their religion/philosophy is not true

[goldisheavy]

What are skillful lies?

 

They are suggestions like "all phenomena are selfless" and so on. They are statements that are not absolutely true, but that are more true than what we normally think, like a step in the right direction. Or like an angle that's truly worth considering that we habitually refuse to consider. So the idea is not so much to replace a fixation on one belief with a fixation on another, but to soften up the tendency of the mind to fixate on beliefs in the first place.

Edited January 7, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Encephalon]

a thought for you blasto:

 

The degeneration of any religion or philosophy from value to fanaticism lies when the individual no longer recognizes a possibility to falsity, and falls into absolutes.

 

Not as much Buddhists, and definitely not the Taoists I've seen, but most people get struck by consuming fear just by the idea that their religion/philosophy is not true

 

Why are you directing this to me?

[goldisheavy]

Being thankful for showing material that contradicts one of the main principles of Buddhist philosophy: anatta.

 

Why am I being an hypocrite for making that comment? Hahahaha.

 

STAY AWAY FROM WRITTEN MATERIAL IF YOU WANT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY BUDDHISM BUT ALSO ANY OTHER SPIRITUAL PRACTICES.

 

Start feeling instead of feeding the voracious mind.

 

Again, this advice is dumb. Written material is there to be considered. It's not there for mere mindless vocalization.

[ralis]

These discussions are practice. The Truth, the one Law, abides at any state whether you are practicing or not. Meditation tremendously helps the seeker onto another state, another perspective, of experiencing reality, but the the Way (this is not a "objective" reality ) does not change.

 

When you state " the truth, one law", you are no different than any fundamentalist.

 

 

ralis

[River Gazer]

twas a response to what you said blasto... Didn't mean it like that

[Lucky7Strikes]

When you state " the truth, one law", you are no different than any fundamentalist.

ralis

 

There's a way the world works whether you like it or not. And if it works two ways, it works two ways. if it works in no ways, it works in no ways. Subjective, objective, one world, million worlds, there is truth to existence.

[ralis]

There's a way the world works whether you like it or not. And if it works two ways, it works two ways. if it works in no ways, it works in no ways. Subjective, objective, one world, million worlds, there is truth to existence.

 

According to your world view, the Buddha way is the only way? Christians and Muslims say the same thing.

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

According to your world view, the Buddha way is the only way? Christians and Muslims say the same thing.

ralis

 

Let us not forget "my way".

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Let us not forget "my way".

 

Peace & Love!

 

Sorry, I forgot.

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

According to your world view, the Buddha way is the only way? Christians and Muslims say the same thing.

ralis

 

Please read my post/s again.

 

Also if you've been paying attention to all these "debates" you'll know that there is a great disagreement and different understanding of all these "ism"s you box together. But that's not important. These religions are adhered to because us sentient beings depend upon them to explain the meaning of our existence. They are valuable in that manner. But yes, someone's wrong and someone's right. And the Buddha, or my interpretation or your interpretation of it, can be wrong to.

 

Fact is I don't care, there is Truth to existence, and I want to know. If you think you can't know, that's another belief. But that doesn't sit with me, going with the "flow" and dying is no different than being born in a pig sty, fucking, eating, and dying.

 

From my personal opinion, I don't think you realize how serious all these seemingly nonsensical debates are.

 

Who are you ralis? WHO ARE YOU? A rolling pile of sense filled dirt? .

Edited January 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

The demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is a demonstration in which Awareness is experienced without a center. The I"ness" merges with the patterned existence from the past. But this does not mean at all that there is no self. Yes, there is no SELF, but there is always an "I" that emerges. The state of "thusness" or whatever you want to call it is the perceiver (the void, witness, etc.) liberated from a central being into objective experience. It is not a stage. It is a state.

The sense of me is just more sensations arising aware where they are, just as all other sensations are aware where they are, and there is no truly separately existing observer.

 

No-Self is not a stage nor a state but the nature of reality. Enlightenment is not reaching a state or stage of experience, but realising what is always already the case as the nature of all experience.

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

The ego exists. The fools are ones who deny the experience. The ego has no defined or stable substance to it, and its attachment to phenomena as real or true is what the Buddha is preaching against.

 

The point of this discussion is not a Atman vs. Anatta. It is the right understanding of anatta.

 

It seems like you have reified (I know we all love that word) the states of "Stage 4 I Amness" and "Stage 5 Anatta" but these are simply extreme state of awareness moving from a centralized self to a decentralized other. Awaerness is what I am. And I am like the space that lets manifestation happen. The movement of awareness, its interplay with manifest phenomena, is intent, which can occur locally from point A to B, manifest positively or negatively, from a center to all, or without a center to be found. It is un arisen for it is the very basis of any existence.

I have to state that D.T.Suzuki's translation of Lankavatara Sutra is very poor, though better than nothing, as Thusness said - poor translation, but D.T.'s experience is there and is able to capture the meaning of what is said in his translations and commentaries (though he would prefer a better translation). Thusness even thought of writing his own commentary of the sutra but dropped the plan when he realised D.T. has done it.

 

What Suzuki meant by 'egolessness' is not impersonality or absence of ego, but the emptiness, unfindability of a Self.

 

The sense of personality, me, etc, arise, but they arise without a center and are just more sensations that dependently orginates. The sense of a solid center is simply another impression that dependently originates and is transient and impermanent.

 

Stage 4 and 5 are really not stages or states of experience but stages of insight into the nature of reality, of what is already always the case.

 

At the I AM stage, awareness like the space in which all things manifest and subside. But when non-dual is realised, it is seen that awareness is simply all manifestation aware where they are, and there is absolutely no distinction between awareness and phenomena, space and objects. No differentiation into awareness and contents of awareness, because everything is awareness.

 

Also, no intents are involved for awareness. Whether you like it or not, smells are being smelled, sounds are being heard. Don't like sound of airplane? Sorry, but that's just what reality is manifesting right now choicelessly and effortlessly due to dependent origination, that very sound of airplane is the presence of awareness. There is no distance or separation of 'awareness' and 'sound of airplane', that sound is the awareness. As Jeff Foster said, 'there is only ever the present appearance of life, with no individual at its core who could ever escape even if it wanted to.'

 

There is absolutely no reification (definition: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing) in anatta because we do not reify awareness into a phenomena transcending permanent substance. All transient phenomena are the awareness itself. Awareness is not a permanent independent ultimate reality. If you treat Awareness as an unchanging space behind phenomena, that is reification.

Edited January 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

The sense of me is just more sensations arising aware where they are, just as all other sensations are aware where they are, and there is no truly separately existing observer.

 

No-Self is not a stage nor a state but the nature of reality. Enlightenment is not reaching a state or stage of experience, but realising what is always already the case as the nature of all experience.

 

That is pure determinism. According to you, everything is just a rolling pile of senses and objects.

 

No-self means that there is no inherent, no true location or manifestation of self, the I"ness," awareness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have to state that D.T.Suzuki's translation of Lankavatara Sutra is very poor, though better than nothing, as Thusness said - poor translation, but D.T.'s experience is there and is able to capture the meaning of what is said in his translations and commentaries (though he would prefer a better translation). Thusness even thought of writing his own commentary of the sutra but dropped the plan when he realised D.T. has done it.

 

What Suzuki meant by 'egolessness' is not impersonality or absence of ego, but the emptiness, unfindability of a Self.

 

The sense of personality, me, etc, arise, but they arise without a center and are just more sensations that dependently orginates. The sense of a solid center is simply another impression that dependently originates and is transient and impermanent.

 

Stage 4 and 5 are really not stages or states of experience but stages of insight into the nature of reality, of what is already always the case.

 

At the I AM stage, awareness like the space in which all things manifest and subside. But when non-dual is realised, it is seen that awareness is simply all manifestation aware where they are, and there is absolutely no distinction between awareness and phenomena, space and objects. No differentiation into awareness and contents of awareness, because everything is awareness.

 

Also, no intents are involved for awareness. Whether you like it or not, smells are being smelled, sounds are being heard. Don't like sound of airplane? Sorry, but that's just what reality is manifesting right now choicelessly and effortlessly due to dependent origination, that very sound of airplane is the presence of awareness. There is no distance or separation of 'awareness' and 'sound of airplane', that sound is the awareness. As Jeff Foster said, 'there is only ever the present appearance of life, with no individual at its core who could ever escape even if it wanted to.'

 

There is absolutely no reification (definition: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing) in anatta because we do not reify awareness into a phenomena transcending permanent substance. All transient phenomena are the awareness itself. Awareness is not a permanent independent ultimate reality. If you treat Awareness as an unchanging space behind phenomena, that is reification.

 

I agree, the ego is absent of location or inherent existence.

 

The nature of reality is always changing according to the various manifestations of awareness. Reality is always changing according to YOUR perspective. The experience of I Amness or Anatta are simply a different state of awareness.

 

Actually no, smell comes from habitual being, a patterning of awareness that has manifested this body, and so there is the nose which senses smell. Awarness moves through intent. But when you are not aware of the smell, can you say that you are actually smelling?

 

Denying free will...I'm sorry but that is absolute nihilism and determinism. Then there is no need for me to practice, there is no salvation to all creation. Then why do you practice? You are reifying manifest phenomena, the objective world when the world (which can be form, formless, or whatever that is experience itself) is dependent on the mind. The sense are created by the grasping of the mind. Ignorance is the first chain.

 

Awareness and phenomena are not one, but not two. Both are dependently arisen, this is the basis of any existence. And it creates, it has a will, it has a self but that self is not defined or limited or inherent. It is the void. And please do not confuse this with the infinite universe or whatever. Every man is a universe onto himself.

[ralis]

Please read my post/s again.

 

Also if you've been paying attention to all these "debates" you'll know that there is a great disagreement and different understanding of all these "ism"s you box together. But that's not important. These religions are adhered to because us sentient beings depend upon them to explain the meaning of our existence. They are valuable in that manner. But yes, someone's wrong and someone's right. And the Buddha, or my interpretation or your interpretation of it, can be wrong to.

 

Fact is I don't care, there is Truth to existence, and I want to know. If you think you can't know, that's another belief. But that doesn't sit with me, going with the "flow" and dying is no different than being born in a pig sty, fucking, eating, and dying.

 

From my personal opinion, I don't think you realize how serious all these seemingly nonsensical debates are.

 

Who are you ralis? WHO ARE YOU? A rolling pile of sense filled dirt? .

 

I don't need any belief system (ism) to assist me in directly experiencing the universe. I have had certain experiences as a child and during retreats in Death Valley Ca. that confirm this. Call it whatever you like, Rigpa, Non-Dualism or whatever. Debating from your head will get you nowhere. Lighten up and quit being so serious.

[thuscomeone]

Awareness and phenomena are not one, but not two.

This is true and I think it needs to be stressed. On the one hand, there is absolutely nothing outside of awareness in one's own experience. So for instance, say you are looking at another person. That person is only known through your mind. In that sense, they could be said to be only your awareness. Yet that person is not just your mind because they have their own mindstream, their own body, own history, etc. And to say they were just your mind would be solipsism. So yes, not two but not one either.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't need any belief system (ism) to assist me in directly experiencing the universe. I have had certain experiences as a child and during retreats in Death Valley Ca. that confirm this. Call it whatever you like, Rigpa, Non-Dualism or whatever. Debating from your head will get you nowhere. Lighten up and quit being so serious.

 

It's serious man, very, very serious. I have yet to hear you own opinions on any of this. So please share.

 

This is true and I think it needs to be stressed. On the one hand, there is absolutely nothing outside of awareness in one's own experience. So for instance, say you are looking at another person. That person is only known through your mind. In that sense, they could be said to be only your awareness. Yet that person is not just your mind because they have their own mindstream, their own body, own history, etc. And to say they were just your mind would be solipsism. So yes, not two but not one either.

 

I think the trouble comes from trying to designate awareness. It isn't a field, or a source, or a all encompassing thing. It can be all these things. For example, you can aware of parts of your body, but on another level the wholeness of it. Awarness can also move through a perceived space, or time, but at the same instance see the totality of it. It's something to be experimentally realized to see how it works. It's quite fascinating. It is truly without a self.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

This is true and I think it needs to be stressed. On the one hand, there is absolutely nothing outside of awareness in one's own experience. So for instance, say you are looking at another person. That person is only known through your mind. In that sense, they could be said to be only your awareness. Yet that person is not just your mind because they have their own mindstream, their own body, own history, etc. And to say they were just your mind would be solipsism. So yes, not two but not one either.

 

I think that this is important and it is also consistent with Taoist Philosophy. The only time there is a condition of 'one' is when a person is totally in the state of 'yo' - that is, the Manifest. The only time there is a condition of 'not-one' is when a person is totally in the state of 'wu' - the is, the Mystery. It is rare for either of these conditions to last very long.

 

Generally, a person is in some state of 'yo'/'wu', that is, living in the Manifest (or the physical) while holding to the center, the Mystery (or the spiritual, if you will). This is where we experience the one and the not-one simultaneously.

 

And I agree, for the individual, there is absolutely nothing outside awareness. But each individual has their own awareness so even if 'I' were not aware this has absolutely nothing to do with another's awareness. But I would also like to poin out that there are other animals beside humans that have the ability for awareness. Awareness is not unique to humans although ours seems to be evolved to a 'higher' level.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

"All problems"? This is the essential error of Buddhist belief, there is no room for 'truth', Buddhists have set their beliefs as fact, and.. it is naught but 'mind-play'.. the process is revealed to those that sincerely ask without preconception.. Buddhists are pre-programmed, parroting sutra after sutra, seldom having an 'authentic' experience..

 

Awareness is a dependent condition, dependent on 'that' which is aware.. Awareness is an attribute of Consciousness, its sensory input process.. Consciousness and Awareness are mutually arising, there is no seeing without a 'seer', no experience without an 'experiencer'..

All experience cannot exist or arise apart from awareness, they are awareness itself.

Awareness is merely the function of Consciousness that senses the experience, the above quote has no validity.

 

Again, the notion that 'Life is suffering', is erroneous.. that observation was made by an ancient 'rich kid' that ventured into the common world, the 'suffering' witnessed was based on a comparison to his own sheltered and lavish life.. worse, yet, is to convince people that pretending they don't exist will end suffering, no existence/no suffering.. Life simply 'IS', it doesn't comform to 'isms'..

 

Be well..

[C T]

Greetings..

 

 

"All problems"? This is the essential error of Buddhist belief, there is no room for 'truth', Buddhists have set their beliefs as fact, and.. it is naught but 'mind-play'.. the process is revealed to those that sincerely ask without preconception.. Buddhists are pre-programmed, parroting sutra after sutra, seldom having an 'authentic' experience..

 

Awareness is a dependent condition, dependent on 'that' which is aware.. Awareness is an attribute of Consciousness, its sensory input process.. Consciousness and Awareness are mutually arising, there is no seeing without a 'seer', no experience without an 'experiencer'..

 

Awareness is merely the function of Consciousness that senses the experience, the above quote has no validity.

 

Again, the notion that 'Life is suffering', is erroneous.. that observation was made by an ancient 'rich kid' that ventured into the common world, the 'suffering' witnessed was based on a comparison to his own sheltered and lavish life.. worse, yet, is to convince people that pretending they don't exist will end suffering, no existence/no suffering.. Life simply 'IS', it doesn't comform to 'isms'..

 

Be well..

what an arrogant and ignorant post. It does not even deserve a counter- .

[Marblehead]

what an arrogant and ignorant post. It does not even deserve a counter- .

 

Well, I'm still going to talk with him. Yeah, maybe he is a bit arrogant. I am too sometimes. I don't think it was an ignorant post though. Sure, a bit to the extreme but many of the Buddhists here are guilty of the same behavior.

 

I still have hope that one day we will stop the ego BS and spend more time discussing the topics in a more respectful manner.

 

Except for the area of Philosophical Taoism, Buddhism is a part of Taoism, and especially most areas of Religious Taoism.

 

As long as we continue to argue from the extreme points of view little constructive exchange of ideas will take place. It is my opinion that both sides have something to learn from the other.

 

I know that I often argue only the physicality of existence but that is only because others argue the emptiness of all things. Emptiness for a Taoist in not the same thing as emptiness for a Taoist. This has been agreed on in a couple threads already. We don't have to keep arguing that point.

 

It really is easy for a Taoist and a Buddhist to come to agreements on nearly all aspects of the philosophies. I have had very productive discussions with Buddhists elsewhere. I know it is possible. But if we continue to discuss the extremes we will never gain agreement.

 

Be peaceful and loving Y'all!!!

 

Where is Matt????? He is a peaceful Buddhist. Sure would be nice if he came around more often to mellow things out now and then.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 8, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Well, I'm still going to talk with him. Yeah, maybe he is a bit arrogant. I am too sometimes. I don't think it was an ignorant post though. Sure, a bit to the extreme but many of the Buddhists here are guilty of the same behavior.

 

I still have hope that one day we will stop the ego BS and spend more time discussing the topics in a more respectful manner.

 

Except for the area of Philosophical Taoism, Buddhism is a part of Taoism, and especially most areas of Religious Taoism.

 

As long as we continue to argue from the extreme points of view little constructive exchange of ideas will take place. It is my opinion that both sides have something to learn from the other.

 

I know that I often argue only the physicality of existence but that is only because others argue the emptiness of all things. Emptiness for a Taoist in not the same thing as emptiness for a Taoist. This has been agreed on in a couple threads already. We don't have to keep arguing that point.

 

It really is easy for a Taoist and a Buddhist to come to agreements on nearly all aspects of the philosophies. I have had very productive discussions with Buddhists elsewhere. I know it is possible. But if we continue to discuss the extremes we will never gain agreement.

 

Be peaceful and loving Y'all!!!

 

Where is Matt????? He is a peaceful Buddhist. Sure would be nice if he came around more often to mellow things out now and then.

 

Peace & Love!

Peace is wonderful Marblehead. Thats why you never read posts by Buddhists arrogantly belittling Taoism or any other worthwhile philosophies. Disagreeing, yes - can be constructive, though not always. By all means point out the reasons for disagreeing. where is the justification for belittling and demeaning the man behind the most peaceful religion ever? was he feeling bored or what? utter nonsense. and its not the first time too, btw.