"there is such a self"

[xabir2005]

We can talk about this in two ways:

 

All there is is awareness, in other words, everything you experience is awareness.

 

Or -

 

There is just sensations and thoughts and no other thing called awareness, in other words, since there is just sensations and thoughts, those sensations and thoughts are the only 'awareness' there is, there is no separate perceiver or awareness.

 

 

Both are the same thing. There is a danger however, in reifying Case 1) into a Brahman, something ultimate, unchanging and independent. Though if it is not reified, that is fine.

 

Case 2 is what is more commonly explained in classical Nikaya, original Buddhist texts. Even though it never talks about Awareness as the essence of all experiences, it is implied already that awareness is non-dual because there cannot be a subject/object split in anatta, there cannot be a split when all there is is sensations and aggregates.

 

 

Reification would be imputing a particular set of sensation as 'Subject' or 'Awareness' while the other set as 'Objects', but in reality, all there is is self-aware sensations and thoughts, if all there is is self-aware manifestation, in other words only sensations and aggregates, and that sensations and aggregates auto-imply awareness, why talk about awareness at all? There is absolutely no reification here, only impermanent dependently originated sensations and thoughts whether they are gross (gross waking dream sensory experience) or subtle (such as dream, astral realms, or the subtler formless I AMness experience).

 

As Greg Goode said, "once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve."

 

 

P.S. As to Lucky noticing similarities between Advaita and Buddhism in terms of non-dual, I have to say that the non-dual experience in Advaita and Buddhism is exactly the same. The only difference lies in the view, whereby Advaita makes nondual awareness into Pure Subjectivity transcending and encompassing phenomena, but Buddhism sees only vivid and empty (dependently originated) manifestations and thus which leads to subtler realisation of the Anatta and Empty nature of luminosity in Buddhism. The difference thus lies not in non-dual but in Anatta and Emptiness.

 

There is no hearer, only sounds, hearing is just sounds. No seer, only scenery, the seeing is the scenery. What you call 'awareness' is only just dependently originated phenomena, sounds, sights, thoughts, etc. Absolutely no reification here. Reification would be stating - there is an independent awareness perceiving things, or an unchanging substance, like a mirror, behind all changes. Buddhism's 'awareness has always been so' does not mean a Brahman or an ultimate subject or an ultimate perceiver, rather it means all along there never has been a perceiver, only sensations, thoughts, sounds, sights, just that.

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir, I understand completely where you are coming from.

 

The bottom line is you deny the individual with free will. Go at it, let everything be rolling pile of dirt including the Buddha, the eight rightfold path being followed, enlightenment gained. No different or better than a serial killer "happening" without a doer, whether it simultaneous, dependently originated, or by causes and conditions. Everyone chained. As for the rest of the post, I will try to answer later. But this is the main point I want to emphasize and you are afraid to admit.

 

Oh and another point: There is subject/object duality, but neither the subject or the object are established. Please try to understand this.

 

You give reality to a state of awareness. It's like a person who gets high, loses sense of time, and says "in reality there is and never was the flow of time, and when I'm sober I'm just unawakened to that experience of "true" reality.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes I see your point. It's very simple.

 

And afflicted mind is a condition. Cause effect, karma does not matter. Without a doer, the agent of action, everything is simply a conditional event.

 

NO DOER = NO CHOICES = NO FREE WILL

 

If there is no free will of the individual, who can we praise and who can we blame?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Yes I see your point. It's very simple.

 

And afflicted mind is a condition.

 

NO DOER = NO CHOICES = NO FREE WILL

 

If there is no free will of the individual, who can we praise and who can we blame?

If you read my previous post, you will see that I do not deny that choices and will are very important part of our life.

 

What I am denying is an independent, separately existing thinker or chooser or controller.

 

No doer does not mean no action and no choices. Will, choices, they are arising thoughts and will become important conditions in our lives. Therefore, we always make choices, give rise to intentions. The power of vows and aspiration is recognised as very powerful in Buddhism. But this does not mean there is a thinker or doer.

 

Secondly, I already explained how one's action is not forced by some other factors like past karma, fate (and there is no fate in Buddhism), or other things. Those are just a set of conditions, just like a bell is a condition but wouldn't ring by itself unless there are other conditions such as someone's hands hitting it with a stick, for example. Karma by itself cannot force a person to do bad things. Their actions and intentions are another matter. There is no point blaming anything practically speaking, but we should change the conditions - for example, to liberate the afflicted mind by practicing.

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you read my previous post, you will see that I do not deny that choices and will are very important part of our life.

 

What I am denying is an independent, separately existing thinker or chooser or controller.

 

No doer does not mean no action and no choices. Will, choices, they are arising thoughts and will become important conditions in our lives. Therefore, we always make choices, give rise to intentions. The power of vows and aspiration is recognised as very powerful in Buddhism. But this does not mean there is a thinker or doer.

 

Secondly, I already explained how one's action is not forced by some other factors like past karma, fate (and there is no fate in Buddhism), or other things. Those are just a set of conditions, just like a bell is a condition but wouldn't ring by itself unless there are other conditions such as someone's hands hitting it with a stick, for example. Karma by itself cannot force a person to do bad things. Their actions and intentions are another matter. There is no point blaming anything practically speaking, but we should change the conditions - for example, to liberate the afflicted mind by practicing.

 

Xabir you cannot explain a way out of this. This is very simple.

 

No doer means that the will arises without a agent. That will is not "made" by anyone but arises due to conditions. A condition or a collection of conditions it simply does not matter. "we" don't make choices according to you, choices arise and are made by conditions.

 

I don't disagree with the quote above because it gives credit to volition for changing conditions. And volition is not conditional but must arise from a doer. If you say that volition is just an arising event, that defies the very meaning of volition. Same with free will. Free will precisely means that there is an agent of the action choosing that action and has options.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

[xabir2005]

No doer means that the will arises without a agent. That will is not "made" by anyone but arises due to conditions.

Yes. And the sense or notion of 'someone' is simply another sensation, a thought that arises due to conditions.

 

The will is arisen due to conditions including past (in the form of imprints) and present influence and his own analytical, psychological, emotional processes, etc.

A condition or a collection of conditions it simply does not matter. "we" don't make choices according to you, choices arise and are made by conditions.

There is no 'me' to make choices. However choices are not 'made by conditions', as explained D.O. means no origin, no source, everything is a new manifesting phenomenon according to conditions but it does not mean an external thing, agent or condition 'made it so'.

 

Notice when the Buddha taught dependent origination, he said "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases."

 

He did not say, 'This will create that. This will destroy that. This is the source of that. That originates from this. This transforms into that. This thing comes from there, and will eventually go there.' All these are extreme views, views of coming from, going to, source and origin, agenthood, creator, etc, are extreme views.

 

The sound of bell ringing did not come from and isn't made from the bell, the hand, the stick, the ears -- the bell can stay in the temple forever but if nobody actually hits it with a stick, no sound will arise. So what D.O. is talking about is not 'something making something', rather, it's saying that everything is actually a new phenomenon that arises when all the conditions come together, the whole universe manifesting as this one thought, one sound, one action, poetically described as 'The Universe scrubbing the stain off the toilet' (quoting Brad Warner).

 

This is not just a theory but can be experienced, as Thusness said, ...on hearing someone hitting a bell, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears all coming together for this sensation of sound to arise, we will have Maha experience.

 

Also, it is as Zen Master Dogen said:

 

Although its light is wide and great,

the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.

The whole moon and the entire sky

are reflected in one dewdrop.

 

Now coming back to the question of choice, yes, choice are made when all conditions come together. For example there may apparently be many choices, but finally, a choice is still made after much analysis. The whole analysis process, imprints (i.e. past experience, etc), and other influences, are the condition for a final descision or choice. However it is not the case that the choice or decision is 'made by' the imprints, just as it is not 'made by' karma, (imprints, karma, etc are just one of the many conditions which cannot 'make' things), rather, it is when all the conditions come together, a choice is made.

 

It doesn't deny that individual action is involved, individual as in conventionally I am different from you, it just denies a separate and independent agent or actor or controller existing apart from the processes of life, which does include things like will, thinking, etc.

 

Also, those conditions can be changed, for example the bad habit of smoking is a strong condition imprinted in our consciousness, but it CAN be removed. It would be a false and silly view to say 'I am fated to smoke'. Similarly, our afflictive mind can be liberated. And that is the point of practicing. Fate, determinism, implies that things are fixed cannot be changed and must follow a linear causal chain from past to present to future without ability to change. But in reality, conditions can change if we make proper effort, and therefore, the point is: know what you want and practice, Buddhism is practical, otherwise if it isn't practical and cannot liberate sentient beings from suffering, Buddha wouldn't have bothered.

I don't disagree with the quote above because it gives credit to volition for changing conditions. And volition is not conditional but must arise from a doer. If you say that volition is just an arising event, that defies the very meaning of volition. Same with free will. Free will precisely means that there is an agent of the action choosing that action and has options.

There is no free will in the sense of agent choosing things, but it is not the same as determinism too. Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes. And the sense or notion of 'someone' is simply another sensation, a thought that arises due to conditions.

 

The will is arisen due to conditions including past (in the form of imprints) and present influence and his own analytical, psychological, emotional processes, etc.

There is no 'me' to make choices. However choices are not 'made by conditions', as explained D.O. means no origin, no source, everything is a new manifesting phenomenon according to conditions but it does not mean an external thing, agent or condition 'made it so'.

 

Notice when the Buddha taught dependent origination, he said "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases."

 

He did not say, 'This will create that. This will destroy that. This is the source of that. That originates from this. This transforms into that. This thing comes from there, and will eventually go there.' All these are extreme views, views of coming from, going to, source and origin, agenthood, creator, etc, are extreme views.

 

The sound of bell ringing did not come from and isn't made from the bell, the hand, the stick, the ears -- the bell can stay in the temple forever but if nobody actually hits it with a stick, no sound will arise. So what D.O. is talking about is not 'something making something', rather, it's saying that everything is actually a new phenomenon that arises when all the conditions come together, the whole universe manifesting as this one thought, one sound, one action, poetically described as 'The Universe scrubbing the stain off the toilet' (quoting Brad Warner).

 

Now you are clinging onto language. When I say "made by" I mean arising due to, phenomena rolling on right?. In regards to spontaneous and simultaneous manifestation working due to collection of conditions, either you are contradicting the very meaning of "spontaneous" and conditions, or you are positing that there are separate units of frozen time frames this world works by, and I think I actually read something you quoted from a Zen master that each frame of time can be experienced this way, but time is a subjective thing that changes by perspective. If you begin cutting time into slots, you fall into zeno's paradox. Same with space.

[xabir2005]

Now you are clinging onto language. When I say "made by" I mean arising due to, phenomena rolling on right?. In regards to spontaneous and simultaneous manifestation working due to collection of conditions, either you are contradicting the very meaning of "spontaneous" and conditions, or you are positing that there are separate units of frozen time frames this world works by, and I think I actually read something you quoted from a Zen master that each frame of time can be experienced this way, but time is a subjective thing that changes by perspective. If you begin cutting time into slots, you fall into zeno's paradox. Same with space.

When I say things are not made by something, it means there is no origin, it does not come from somewhere and then later goes somewhere or transform into something else. Rather it is a new phenomenon but it is interdependently originated.

 

The issue of time is also a complex and interesting topic, but it's late now and I have to go sleep, so if you are interested I can recommend a very well written article by David Loy on the deconstruction of time:

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26578.htm

 

When you understand what Dogen means by summer does not become autumn, autumn does not become winter, winter does not become spring, and firewood does not turn into ashes, life does not turn into death, the whole construct of time collapses.

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Realizing the true nature of reality through direct experience....that is a ridiculous sentence. REALIZE REALITY THROUGH ANOTHER EXPERIENCE?? No, you are then speaking about another state of reality. Reality should be as it always is and need not to be realized by ANY newer state of awareness. Whether subjective objective, non-dual, or whatever, reality should be applicable to all these.

No, what I mean is 'realise reality IN your direct ordinary present experience', not 'realise reality in a new, altered, state of awareness'.

 

The emphasis on 'direct experience' is because we cannot realise reality through concepts, but only through investigation and observing our direct present sensate reality.

INVESTIGATING IS A MOVEMENT OF AWARENESS. IT IS INTENT.

 

SAYING I WILL FIND THE I THROUGH I IS LIKE A PERSON WHO RUNS AROUND TRYING TO FIND HIS OWN BODY. Or a person who looks around for his own eye. Or a person who goes from point A to point B and standing on point B goes, I can't see point B!

 

There is never a state of awareness that reality has always been so. It's just common sense that self-awarness requires a subject object duality. You have to be aware of something, establish a relativity, however false or illlusory, to know of existence.

Investigate not by observing from a distance, not by making analysis or study, but by completely feeling what is without division.

 

For example, you stated that you cannot find the I as an object, but yet you clearly feel something is clearly present, and cognizing, which you call 'I'. It is just a sensation of Beingness, Presence, Consciousness. If your mode of inquiry is self inquiry, it will lead to an undoubtable experience and realisation of that I AMness. It is non-dual because the sense of I AMness is not divided into subject and object, it is not something you are separate from, observing it, and therefore it is taken that you are it, I am That, I AM.

 

However if we investigate, with a slightly different mode, on how there is no separate perceiver of sounds and sights, just sounds, scenery, etc, we discover that we also cannot find sounds and sights as an object standing apart from a perceiver, but is simply present as awareness. At this point we may think that awareness (observer) and objects are one, but a further insight will be how there is just self-aware phenomena, no observer at all.

 

Again, sound and awareness dependently originate. They are not one. Sound CAN be experienced as awareness itself, I can become the sound or the sound can become me, but it can also be experienced as the object of a subjective "I" listening to sound. There is no more "real" way to experiencing sound. The state of eternal witness is just as unestablished as the state of anatta. Simply a different way awareness chooses to experience.

 

Yes, reality can be experienced both conceptually, or as simply arising experience. Sensation and thoughts are never actual they are subjectively experienced through intent.

No, you cannot become the sound and the sound cannot become you. The sense of 'you' is just more sensations, the sensation of sound is just more sensations, all arising and vanishing according to conditions. The sense of self arises as a result of ignorance, but is just more sensations, thoughts, phenomena. A sensation cannot become another sensation. They are manifestations under differing conditions.

 

Firewood cannot turn into ashes. Winter cannot turn into spring.

 

The sound arises due to dependent origination.

 

The experience and sensation of 'me' arising is also awareness in another condition. The experience of formlessness of AMness is likewise awareness with different condition, though it is not just an experience but a 'realisation' or 'insight' into the relative nature of Mind (as opposed to the ultimate, empty nature of mind, as explained by Dalai Lama), i.e. in the meditative state without obscuration from grosser concepts and experience the mind is experienced and realised as space-like and at any time we cannot find a boundary to Mind, the Mind never stops being present and cognizant, etc, though further insights like non-dual, anatta, emptiness remains to be revealed.

 

To state that something can become something is reification.

 

Anyway there is something I feel is important:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...aggregates.html

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, you cannot become the sound and the sound cannot become you. The sense of 'you' is just more sensations, the sensation of sound is just more sensations, all arising and vanishing according to conditions. The sense of self arises as a result of ignorance, but is just more sensations, thoughts, phenomena. A sensation cannot become another sensation. They are manifestations under differing conditions.

 

Feel your hand from your brain. Now become your hand, let awareness reside in it. All phenomena is like this.

 

The sound arises due to dependent origination.

Dependent on simultaneously arising awareness. Again there is not one way to experience sound.

 

The experience of formlessness of AMness is likewise awareness in another condition, though it is not just an experience but a 'realisation' or 'insight' into the relative nature of Mind (as opposed to the ultimate, empty nature of mind, as explained by Dalai Lama). The experience and sensation of 'me' arising is also awareness in another condition.

Again, the I trying to find the arising of I is a man running around looking for his own body. The eye trying to see the eye.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...aggregates.html

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

All these require movement of awareness, an intent. These are great ways for awareness to enter into a state of spontaneity and no-doer ship, a process of letting go. But that is not how reality "is." Reality is always subjectively experienced by one's will.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

 

I never mentioned a super awareness. Everything is not 5 aggregates, 5 aggregates rise from awareness intent. Awareness is not bigger or anything like that, it arises dependently with the any manifest phenomena whether it is a particular sensation, the time/space divide, or any other particularities. The aggregates cannot be self-aware.

 

The self the padma talks about is an inherent self. A static identity one assumes. That is not why i'm saying.

 

I do not expect you to change your views immediately with regards to awareness and subject object relationship. I just want you to understand the consequences of denying a self that chooses.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Just slightly updated my previous post, got to go now.

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

[Tao99]

Edited January 10, 2010 by Tao99

[voidisyinyang]

Right -- the whole secret is that the West measures frequency of sound as spatial distance -- thereby cutting off sound from other frequencies. In fact when we LISTEN as logical inference of the I-thought then sound TRANSDUCES into ultrasound which ionizes our electrochemicals to create electromagnetic fields (piezoelectric energy from ultrasound) and this, in turn, reveals the holographic universe as biophoton energy -- laser-love consciousness.

 

So no "one" is listening -- but the process works through complementary opposite harmonics -- and this is why the full-lotus is so effective -- because the pressure on the legs creates ultrasound piezoelectric transduction. We can not hear ultrasound externally -- but when we listen internally the highest pitch we hear externally, when focused internally, creates ultrasound. This is the secret of mind yoga meditation.

 

So you combine the two --- the "small universe" or "microcosmic orbit" practice is the 12 notes of the music scale as complementary opposites -- so we "listen" to the 12 notes -- we play our body-mind as an instrument -- and again the sound resonates into ultrasound creating the blissful heat -- the jing energy and as we continue practicing the

 

scale or harmonics of alchemical energy --

 

there is more electromagnetic energy creation.

 

No "one" is listening -- the complementary opposite resonance is inherent to reality -- only Western science has cut us off from understanding that the secret of sound is to create light energy which then bends spacetime itself.

 

Feel your hand from your brain. Now become your hand, let awareness reside in it. All phenomena is like this.

Dependent on simultaneously arising awareness. Again there is not one way to experience sound.

Again, the I trying to find the arising of I is a man running around looking for his own body. The eye trying to see the eye.

All these require movement of awareness, an intent. These are great ways for awareness to enter into a state of spontaneity and no-doer ship, a process of letting go. But that is not how reality "is." Reality is always subjectively experienced by one's will.

I never mentioned a super awareness. Everything is not 5 aggregates, 5 aggregates rise from awareness intent. Awareness is not bigger or anything like that, it arises dependently with the any manifest phenomena whether it is a particular sensation, the time/space divide, or any other particularities. The aggregates cannot be self-aware.

 

The self the padma talks about is an inherent self. A static identity one assumes. That is not why i'm saying.

 

I do not expect you to change your views immediately with regards to awareness and subject object relationship. I just want you to understand the consequences of denying a self that chooses.

[Marblehead]

Do I have a choice to set up this goal or not? Sounds like it. So there is free will.

 

People who tell people what there goals should be (end state choices) should not in the same breath say free will doesn't exist.

 

Point very well taken!

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

Point very well taken!

 

Peace & Love!

 

I was having a very interesting discussion on The Medha Journal about differences between Dualistic Vedanta (Eg: Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta).

The Rift Between Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta

 

where in the question of free will, good and evil etc came up in course of the discussion. Here's my take on it from the Non-dualist viewpoint:

 

Original question:

 

Do you notice that your mentality is that your conception is higher and others is lower? You seem to look down at the bhaktas. You seem to be conditioned to think in terms of dual and non-dual. When you get past that, you get past all material conceptions of the absolute. The Vedas teach that the symptom of knowledge is humility, the symptom of information is pride.

The major problem with the philosophy that you are propounding is that we are all God. Hitler was God, Jack the Ripper was God, Osama bin Ladin is God, the malaria mosquito is God, the swine flu virus is God.

1. How do you explain that God is acting against His own teachings taught in every scripture and by every saint?

2. What is that power that makes God forget who He is and acts against His own teachings to cause harm and suffering to His children, and turn planet earth into a toxic waste dump?... Read More

Our explanation is easy, we are not God.

What is your explanation?

 

The answer:

 

This was unanswered. Amidst our discussion it seems we have missed addressing these questions. So what is the role of "Good" and "Evil" in the Advaitin's perspective?

 

Perhaps I can take a pass at this? The traditional interpretation of Advaita states that Nirguna Brahman does not create this world on her own volition. The phenomenon of Material Universe manifests as a result of superimposition by Jiva (adhyasa). The state of Jiva-hood is a result of Upadhi (or limiting adjunct) wherein there is a mistaken identification of the non-self (Jiva)with the Self (Atman). Wherein, the Self (Atman) is not seen at all, but only the Jiva is seen (Ego awareness). This is what, imho the Rajju-sarpa simile explains. In the moment when the rope is the snake, there is no Rope at all, but only snake. Only when the ignorance of the subject is removed, the rope becomes a rope again.

 

So what is the role of Good and Evil in this mix? Maya is actuated by and fueled by the mechanism of Karma. First veil of Maya is the mistaken idenfication of the Body/Antahkarana-complex as Atman (which is Pure Consciousness, un-fettered by any limiting adjunct). Just as this machine of Maya gets powered by Karma, Karma itself is fueled by Free-will of the Jiva. The Jiva, using free will, under the misconception that he/she is the True Self, performs actions. As the actions continue, so the world of Maya solidifies. The empirical reality (Vyavaharika Satya), which exists on the legs of Duality thus has to deal with the concept of Good and Evil.

 

In general, Good and Evil are relative terms. What is Good for one can be Evil for another. For instance, the prolific growth of the Human species is good for us (humans), but is Evil for the rest of Nature (Especially in context of how we have managed to destroy the balance of the world with our actions). In the empirical sense, Good and Evil might even have disproportionate weightage (in that something might be Good for a majority and Bad only for a minority, or might be Bad for a majority but Bad only for a minority), but it is restricted to the categorical framework(s) that are at work.

 

When the veil of Maya is dissolved and Jiva realizes the Atman (or Absolute Self), the problem of Good or Evil dissolve, because that was valid only in the empirical sense. So to answer the question in the article, Good and Evil are only valid in the vyavaharika sense and not in the paramarthika sense.

 

In other words, free will is a necessary condition for causality, without this causality is pointless. In fact the whole thing about Anatta is a completely misunderstood and abused subject. Anatta refers only to the Antahkarana complex and it's tendency to identify with the predicates instead of Pure Subject.

[Marblehead]

 

In other words, free will is a necessary condition for causality, without this causality is pointless. In fact the whole thing about Anatta is a completely misunderstood and abused subject. Anatta refers only to the Antahkarana complex and it's tendency to identify with the predicates instead of Pure Subject.

 

Okay. Let me first say that I wish Buddhists would learn to speak in everyday common language. Hehehe. All these special, untranslated words are really annoying. No, I have no interest in learning them, however, it would make my reading easier and there is just a small chance that I would better understand the concept that is being presented.

 

Okay. That was a long time coming and I have finally said it.

 

So from what you said above you accept the validity of the concept of free will in humans as some more developed other animals. And granted, our free will is limited by many variables. But within those limits we have free will.

 

I suppose we could say that about good and evil as well. There are many variables that will determine who places what value on what occurance.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 10, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

Okay. Let me first say that I wish Buddhists would learn to speak in everyday common language. Hehehe. All these special, untranslated words are really annoying. No, I have no interest in learning them, however, it would make my reading easier and there is just a small chance that I would better understand the concept that is being presented.

 

Okay. That was a long time coming and I have finally said it

 

 

Dwai isn't Buddhist, he's into Vedanta, and I think it's extremely ignorant to not want to learn Sanskrit terms for the sake of communication, a very American attitude (and I'm American). Especially since this is a spiritual forum not the Opera book club, and not just a Taoist forum as you keep barfing. Not everything has to be translated for you, especially on a topic dedicated to a Buddhist sutra, so why not do some simple homework? It's not difficult to google. There's nothing special or untranslated about any of the words here. In fact there is a whole wikipedia article dedicated to 'anatta'

Edited January 10, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

"freedom" is used liberally, I can go smoke weed and say "I feel freedom from worries!". To me freedom means freedom of choice.

 

Huh...I don't get why he says selfless actions make something indeterminate. All actions are selfless...and that makes things indeterminate? Makes no sense.

 

Freedom means unconditioned action. Selfless means not having the intent of bettering the illusory separate self. All actions are not selfless; selfish actions are conditioned. Actions that are not free, that are conditioned, are determined. In an absolute sense, all actions lack a doer but this does not mean all actions are selfless. It's all about the source of the action. Samsaric actions arise conditioned by delusion, but 'nirvanic' or selfless actions are not conditioned, they arise directly from the true non-dual nature of mind which has the qualities of wisdom and compassion. There is no such thing as free will in Buddhism according to your definition, but actions can be indeterminate if they are not conditioned by illusory delusions. Such actions arise spontaneously once the illusory ego gives up grasping and surrenders to the true nature of existence. When this happens the roots of conditioned actions are uprooted, and all actions are free and liberated. Like the Taoist 'wu-wei', no-action, which signifies unconditioned spontaneity.

Edited January 10, 2010 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Edited January 10, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Freedom means unconditioned action. Selfless means not having the intent of bettering the illusory separate self. All actions are not selfless; selfish actions are conditioned. Actions that are not free, that are conditioned, are determined. In an absolute sense, all actions lack a doer but this does not mean all actions are selfless. It's all about the source of the action. Samsaric actions arise conditioned by delusion, but 'nirvanic' or selfless actions are not conditioned, they arise directly from the true non-dual nature of mind which has the qualities of wisdom and compassion. There is no such thing as free will in Buddhism according to your definition, but actions can be indeterminate if they are not conditioned by illusory delusions. Such actions arise spontaneously once the illusory ego gives up grasping and surrenders to the true nature of existence. When this happens the roots of conditioned actions are uprooted, and all actions are free and liberated. Like the Taoist 'wu-wei', no-action, which signifies unconditioned spontaneity.

 

If samsara is conditioned and without free will, it can never transition into your definition of nirvana.

 

If actions lack a doer, it DOES mean selflessness, and in there is and never was a self making choices in the first place. "Choices being made" is not the same as an agent making that choice.

 

We wei is a state of experiencing. It is not reality.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

If samsara is conditioned and without free will, it can never transition into your definition of nirvana.

 

yes it can, because samsara and nirvana are not two separate states. all mindstreams contain the seed for enlightenment, buddha nature, and this makes enlightenment possible.

 

If actions lack a doer, it DOES mean selflessness, and in there is and never was a self making choices in the first place. "Choices being made" is not the same as an agent making that choice.

 

all actions lack a doer, but they are not all selfless. Like I explained before, selflessness is the quality of the action. a selfish action has the intent to better an illusory separate self and is conditioned, while a selfless action arises from the true nature of mind, emptiness.

 

We wei is a state of experiencing. It is not reality.

 

there is no reality separate from experience.