"there is such a self"

[Lucky7Strikes]

It is just your illusion that what's being spoken about is a state.

 

It's the nature of reality, always has been. That every experience is totally seamless and interdependent with the whole universe is not just an experience but a factual reality at any given moment of our experience, but you just didn't realise it yet. Even if a person didn't realise D.O. doesn't mean things aren't dependently originated, just as a person who didn't realise emptiness doesn't mean things exist, or just as a person who didn't realise impermanence doesn't means things are permanent, or just as a person who hasn't realised anatta means that there is truly a self.

 

The reason why I quoted Thusness is because "one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous..."

 

In other words, D.O. and Anatta does not mean determinism, not about being controlled by an external universe and thus unable to make individual choices, bur rather when one realises anatta and D.O. it is freedom, even though not in the sense of free will in the dualistic sense which really is bondage.

 

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh: In this food, I see clearly the presence of the entire universe supporting my existence.

 

Zen Master Dogen: 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.

 

Brad Warner: The universe is scrubbing the stain off the toilet.

 

p.s. Brad Warner's youtube video is very important. IT shows how the 'Maha' insight mentioned above is really about ordinary and mundane experience, not a far off state.

 

It's not a coincidence that Thusness put 'Maha' along with 'Ordinariness' in his article.

 

When the hell did I mention helplessness? I just said everything rolls on.

 

You can't even hold a relevant conversation anymore. You can't even listen. The teacup is too full, a dead record player. Just quoting random out of context phrases here and there.

 

Oh, and by your paradigm, there is nothing I can do. It's not even helplessness, everything is just happening. Helplessness happens, suffering happens, Buddhahood happens, being a rabbit happens, compassion happens, choice happens.

 

Great world.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

When the hell did I mention helplessness? I just said everything rolls on.

 

You can't even hold a relevant conversation anymore. You can't even listen. The teacup is too full, a dead record player. Just quoting random out of context phrases here and there.

 

Oh, and by your paradigm, there is nothing I can do. It's not even helplessness, everything is just happening. Helplessness happens, suffering happens, Buddhahood happens, being a rabbit happens, compassion happens, choice happens.

 

Great world.

Of course you can do something, i.e., read dharma books, practice the dharma, etc. But it is not that 'you' do. More accurately: deeds can/should be done. Practice can/should be done, if you want to realise whatever there is to realise. With regards to bodhisattva: saving sentient beings should be done, even though the bodhisattva clearly knows there is no one to save and no sav-er (Diamond Sutra).

 

Anyway, more random stuff:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/t_karma.htm

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF KARMA?

(Ven Mahasi Sayadaw)

 

Ignorance (avijja), or not knowing things as they truly are, is the chief cause of Karma. Dependent on ignorance arise activities (avijja paccaya samkhara) states the Buddha in the Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination).

 

Associated with ignorance is the ally craving (tanha), the other root of Karma. Evil actions are conditioned by these two causes. All good deeds of a worldling (putthujana), though associated with the three wholesome roots of generosity (alobha), goodwill (adosa) and knowledge (amoha), are nevertheless regarded as Karma because the two roots of ignorance and craving are dormant in him. The moral types of Supramundane Path Consciousness (magga citta) are not regarded as Karma because they tend to eradicate the two root causes.

 

Who is the doer of Karma?

Who reaps the fruit of Karma?

Does Karma mould a soul?

 

In answering these subtle questions, the Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga:

 

"No doer is there who does the deed;

Nor is there one who feels the fruit;

Constituent parts alone roll on;

This indeed! Is right discernment."

 

For instance, the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the so-called table consists of forces and qualities.

 

For ordinary purposes a scientist would use the term water, but in the laboratory he would say H 2 0.

 

In this same way, for conventional purposes, such terms as man, woman, being, self, and so forth are used. The so-called fleeting forms consist of psychophysical phenomena, which are constantly changing not remaining the same for two consecutive moments.

 

Buddhists, therefore, do not believe in an unchanging entity, in an actor apart from action, in a perceiver apart from perception, in a conscious subject behind consciousness.

 

Who then, is the doer of Karma? Who experiences the effect?

 

Volition, or Will (tetana), is itself the doer, Feeling (vedana) is itself the reaper of the fruits of actions. Apart from these pure mental states (suddhadhamma) there is no-one to sow and no-one to reap.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

Lucky, why are you so insistent that the self needs freedom of will? Is the non-existence of a do-er truly that scary? It seems you've been reacting only out of fear and your posts have thus been pretty angry. I think any arguments that are furthered by fear and led by anger should be questioned. Who is it that fears and why?

 

I think of primary concern is recognizing that there is no way that your mind (the dualistic mind-brain phenomena) could ever form a true concept about what a self is and what reality is, it's just impossible. Our brains suck, they are broken calculators. So all concepts of free-will are wrong, all concepts of self are wrong. All that anatta does is deconstruct our concepts of self, and all that shunyata does is deconstruct our concepts of reality. Once concepts are fully let go of then insight/wisdom can arise.. but not when silly concepts of free will/self are still defended adamantly.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Of course you can do something, i.e., read dharma books, practice the dharma, etc. But it is not that 'you' do. More accurately: deeds can/should be done. Practice can/should be done, if you want to realise whatever there is to realise. With regards to bodhisattva: saving sentient beings should be done, even though the bodhisattva clearly knows there is no one to save and no sav-er (Diamond Sutra).

 

"No doer is there who does the deed;

Nor is there one who feels the fruit;

Constituent parts alone roll on;

This indeed! Is right discernment.

 

Look your own quote says there is just deeds, there is just things happening, and literally "rolling on." Your suffering is rolling on, your enlightenment is rolling on, your desire for enlightenment is rolling on, the universe is rolling on.

 

Uh...no, no deeds "should be done," deeds are done, practice is done. Should means that universe has a direction and that would create an entity of it, the universe just IS, just IS whatever phenomena arises, eh?

 

It's not me wanting, there is just this wanting happening. The bodhisattva is also someone who just happened to become a bodhisattva, and the saving is just something that happened. Just like taking a dump happens.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too guy.

[Marblehead]

So all concepts of free-will are wrong, all concepts of self are wrong.

 

Sorry to disappoint you but mine are still valid. Of course, I am still a Taoist so we don't operate by others' rules. That's the way life is.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

Ah, I expected you to say that Hehe. Yes, I know what the Advaita POV is, I am just correcting his false conception of being a soul like entity.

 

Incidentally, I believe Advaita talks about an individual soul. The individual soul is called Jiva, the cosmic source/Self is Brahman, and the true nature of Self (atman) is Brahman.

 

Actually it is a misunderstanding of Advaitic concepts. Jiva is simply the delusion of Self-hood as experienced while under the limiting adjunct (upadhi). This is exactly the Anatta of Buddhism.

 

The use of term Cosmic Source is also wrong. Brahman and Atman are one and the same and non-dual.

 

Also to Marblehead,

 

You are simply projecting your western apathy towards a "God" onto something that is not. Brahman is not God. Brahman is simply Pure Non-dual Objectless Consciousness, that's all.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Lucky, why are you so insistent that the self needs freedom of will? Is the non-existence of a do-er truly that scary? It seems you've been reacting only out of fear and your posts have thus been pretty angry. I think any arguments that are furthered by fear and led by anger should be questioned. Who is it that fears and why?

 

Free will cannot be with an inherent self. If there is an inherent self in phenomena, that self is chained to causes and conditions and therefore cannot be free.

 

Yes, it makes me very angry. Having no free will is very scary indeed. Think about what it entails. Everything crumbles down do a puny excuse of "oh, it's just the way it is." Bullshit. This existence is the result of each individual "selves" creating and being created. It's an interplay of will and struggle, not some "oh, it's just rolling on!"

 

All spiritual quest begins from anger and fear.

 

A pig (let's assume pigs are unselfconscious) lives exactly as Thusness's description of a enlightened person. It's awareness rises as whatever phenomena or instinctual urge of the moment. It eats, shits, sleeps. The pig is chained to its body and habits, but it feels no sense of doer ship. It just lives and dies. Don't tell me that the Buddha is a rolling pile of shit (I love pigs by the way).

[dwai]

Free will cannot be with an inherent self. If there is an inherent self in phenomena, that self is chained to causes and conditions and therefore cannot be free.

 

Yes, it makes me very angry. Having no free will is very scary indeed. Think about what it entails. Everything crumbles down do a puny excuse of "oh, it's just the way it is." Bullshit. This existence is the result of each individual "selves" creating and being created. It's an interplay of will and struggle, not some "oh, it's just rolling on!"

 

All spiritual quest begins from anger and fear.

 

A pig (let's assume pigs are unselfconscious) lives exactly as Thusness's description of a enlightened person. It's awareness rises as whatever phenomena or instinctual urge of the moment. It eats, shits, sleeps. The pig is chained to its body and habits, but it feels no sense of doer ship. It just lives and dies. Don't tell me that the Buddha is a rolling pile of shit (I love pigs by the way).

 

And there are so many examples of Enlightened Masters living just like Pigs...

[Sunya]

Sorry to disappoint you but mine are still valid. Of course, I am still a Taoist so we don't operate by others' rules. That's the way life is.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Your concept is hardly valid, unless your brain is capable of omniscience which I doubt is the case.

 

Philosophy and concepts lack truth and can only be measured by their pragmatic ability in awakening insight, this is the Buddhist definition of truth and one which I completely agree with. If you don't then you have to examine your axioms. Here are mine: the human brain is limited, absolute truth is completely beyond the scope of human intellect, there is no way for a human to create a truly representational idea of the way things truly exist

 

A pig (let's assume pigs are unselfconscious) lives exactly as Thusness's description of a enlightened person. It's awareness rises as whatever phenomena or instinctual urge of the moment. It eats, shits, sleeps. The pig is chained to its body and habits, but it feels no sense of doer ship. It just lives and dies. Don't tell me that the Buddha is a rolling pile of shit (I love pigs by the way).

 

A pig's actions cling to a self, even if there is no conscious awareness of a 'doer', the actions of all animals hold to a self. A pig and a Buddha are both empty, and so there is no difference, but a Buddha's actions have the qualities of compassion and wisdom, they are selfless actions which arise from the comprehension of the true nature of reality. A pig, unfortunately, does not have these qualities.

 

There is such thing as relative and absolute truths in Buddhism and I believe you are getting hung up on the absolute truth and forgetting about the relative truth. Relatively there are beings that suffer, and they exist from their own side.

 

Buddha is awakened, pig is not.. both are empty absolutely, but exist individually relatively, therefore their actions dictated by their level of awakeness do matter because the relative nature of reality cannot be ignored.

 

 

Let's look at it another way, say that you're really into science and you learn that in reality everything is just space, lots and lots of space, with chaotic yet orderly interactions between particles. On an absolute level then, there is no self here, there is just space/particles. If you have this insight, not just intellectual but I mean a true comprehension then this insight affects every facet of your being. You would then see no need to become greedy, angry, jealous, lustful, etc etc. right? You would find absolute peace and freedom through this insight. But at the same time, your ordinary experience cannot be denied.. for it's right before you. You still exist from your perspectival point of view and you still see others as existing, though you have the insight that they too do not exist as separate beings on an absolute level, you also know that they suffer subjectively just like you did once, and you know that they too can find freedom, peace, and happiness like you have.

Edited January 17, 2010 by mikaelz

[Tao99]

Here are mine: the human brain is limited, absolute truth is completely beyond the scope of human intellect, there is no way for a human to create a truly representational idea of the way things truly exist

 

I hear you say this a lot, and I keep thinking the same thing ... So what?

 

So what if we can only know the objective (existing w/o subject) world as mediated by the subjective mind? We can still understand the objective world well enough to know to flush the turd and eat the food.

 

And that's good enough for me. What am I missing?

Edited January 17, 2010 by Tao99

[Lucky7Strikes]

And there are so many examples of Enlightened Masters living just like Pigs...

 

Then they should be butchered like pigs. .

Edited January 17, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

I hear you say this a lot, and I keep thinking the same thing ... So what?

 

So what if we can only know the objective (existing w/o subject) world as mediated by the subjective mind? We can still understand the objective world well enough to know to flush the turd and eat the food.

 

And that's good enough for me. What am I missing?

 

I'm getting at this: the brain is great at getting you through the world, but it's not good at figuring out truth. There are things the brain is great at and there are things it's not. Some projects are especially futile, like using the brain to figure out the meaning of life, and lead the person to form beliefs. Beliefs are based on assumptions not experience and beliefs cause suffering and ignorance.. actually ignorance causes beliefs.. but whatever. Philosophy and concepts can, and should, be used to dismantle beliefs so as to truly experience the way things are. Arguing about concepts without understanding that they come from beliefs is I think very silly. Clinging to beliefs like "I exist, I have free will, the world must have meaning" will only prevent insight from dawning.

[Lucky7Strikes]

A pig's actions cling to a self, even if there is no conscious awareness of a 'doer', the actions of all animals hold to a self. A pig and a Buddha are both empty, and so there is no difference, but a Buddha's actions have the qualities of compassion and wisdom, they are selfless actions which arise from the comprehension of the true nature of reality. A pig, unfortunately, does not have these qualities.

 

Buddha is awakened, pig is not.. both are empty absolutely, but exist individually relatively, therefore their actions dictated their level of awakeness does matter because the relative nature of reality cannot be ignored.

 

By your accords:

 

The Buddha is not awakened. In the paradigm of anatta (I understand the word differently), there is no one who awakens. Awakening just happens. The purpose of my analogy is that one cannot put a value to any mode of existence if we say that everything is just the objective universe acting itself out. Everyone is born, suffers, or whatever just like the rain that falls from the sky, so how will you say that the Buddha is in anyway better or more awakened than a pig, or that any reverential effort was made towards enlightenment, what value will you put on compassion and wisdom, and what does being "selfless" matter at all.

 

In fact, since the one who puts in the efforts to liberate himself does so because he is inclined to do so, and enlightens because the conditions were just so, and acts compassionate just because it is so, then how is this different from a pig just born so, eats so, shits so, is selfish and so on?

 

I'm getting at this: the brain is great at getting you through the world, but it's not good at figuring out truth. There are things the brain is great at and there are things it's not. Some projects are especially futile, like using the brain to figure out the meaning of life, and lead the person to form beliefs. Beliefs are based on assumptions not experience and beliefs cause suffering and ignorance.. actually ignorance causes beliefs.. but whatever. Philosophy and concepts can, and should, be used to dismantle beliefs so as to truly experience the way things are. Arguing about concepts without understanding that they come from beliefs is I think very silly. Clinging to beliefs like "I exist, I have free will, the world must have meaning" will only prevent insight from dawning.

 

So says your brain. .

Edited January 17, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Your concept is hardly valid, unless your brain is capable of omniscience which I doubt is the case.

 

Oh, but it is. Don't doubt so much. Broaden your perspectives. Think the unthinkable. Isn't that what you have told me on a number of occasions?

 

Imagine the perfection you could attain by converting to Taoism. And what's more, you would come to realize that it is possible to explain physical reality in adequate depth so that you can function extremely well in the real world.

 

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

I'm getting at this: the brain is great at getting you through the world, but it's not good at figuring out truth. There are things the brain is great at and there are things it's not. Some projects are especially futile, like using the brain to figure out the meaning of life, and lead the person to form beliefs. Beliefs are based on assumptions not experience and beliefs cause suffering and ignorance.. actually ignorance causes beliefs.. but whatever. Philosophy and concepts can, and should, be used to dismantle beliefs so as to truly experience the way things are. Arguing about concepts without understanding that they come from beliefs is I think very silly. Clinging to beliefs like "I exist, I have free will, the world must have meaning" will only prevent insight from dawning.

 

Ok, so you are using the Buddhist doctrine of clinging and ignorance etc, and this begins and ends with the Four Noble Truths:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

#1 The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):

"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; "[9][10]

 

#2 Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):

"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[9][10]

 

#3 Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha):

"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[9][10]

 

#4 The Way (Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:

"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path;

 

So in Buddhist doctrine, it is the craving/clinging to the beliefs that is at the origin of suffering, not the beliefs in existence or free will, and it is the cessation of precisely this same craving that brings about the cessation of suffering.

 

So I don't see the subjective understanding of the world to be much of a big deal, especially in light of Buddhist doctrine, and due to the fact that it does successfully keep me from eating turds and flushing food!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Tao99

[3bob]

obviously the historic Buddha had free will and employed it:

 

Lines from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

 

30. And the Blessed One suppressed the illness by strength of will, resolved to maintain the life process, and lived on. So it came about that the Blessed One's illness was allayed.

-------

3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. [21] The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it."

-------

"The Blessed One Relinquishes His Will to Live"

 

9. When this was said, the Blessed One spoke to Mara, the Evil One, saying: "Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."

 

10. And at the Capala shrine the Blessed One thus mindfully and clearly comprehending renounced his will to live on. And upon the Lord's renouncing his will to live on..."

 

-------

[xabir2005]

Edited January 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

"No doer is there who does the deed;

Nor is there one who feels the fruit;

Constituent parts alone roll on;

This indeed! Is right discernment.

 

Look your own quote says there is just deeds, there is just things happening, and literally "rolling on." Your suffering is rolling on, your enlightenment is rolling on, your desire for enlightenment is rolling on, the universe is rolling on.

 

Uh...no, no deeds "should be done," deeds are done, practice is done. Should means that universe has a direction and that would create an entity of it, the universe just IS, just IS whatever phenomena arises, eh?

 

It's not me wanting, there is just this wanting happening. The bodhisattva is also someone who just happened to become a bodhisattva, and the saving is just something that happened. Just like taking a dump happens.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too guy.

Deeds should be done. Why not?

 

A person is drowning in the pond. You know how to swim. Should you save him? Of course! But before the deed is done, the intention must arise to save the person, and the thought 'I should save him' should arise. Similarly if you are not yet enlightened, the thought 'I aspire to be enlightened', or if you haven't practice, the thought 'I should practice' is important.

 

But in the act of saving, it's all spontaneous and free. Intention, will, is involved, but it does not mean there is a doer, nor does he think about being a doer. It's just spontaneous.

 

The universe has a direction, but the direction is simply the thought arising now, that will be a condition for an arising action, etc. Thought of planning what to do, thought of aspiring to do, etc. All useful. Whatever is happening does not require an agent that is 'doing' it. Deeds are done without doer.

Edited January 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Deeds are done without doer.

Really? Show me deeds done without a 'doer'.. no 'doer' no deed.. the coffee will not make itself, a being is necessary.. just how much fantasy must one indulge to arrive at such nonsense as quoted above? the quote above is a self-deception of epic proportions, an attachment to to some ancient imaginings fueled by the irrational desire to perceive one's-self as 'mystical' or Sage-like..

 

I see deeds done by doers every day, it's plainly obvious.. now, consider the mind-play and imaginary contrivances necessary to convince yourself this is not so..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

Of the eight liberations taught in Buddhism, none of them go missing when moving among or through them. (as the historic Buddha is recorded as doing) To me there seems to be a fairly common idea (sub-conscious or otherwise) that upon attaining a certain liberation of a greater defined number than of a lesser liberation, then the so called lesser liberation has no meaning or is only an illusion to be shunned. Holding such views makes for a mind and heart crushing problem in my interpretation.

 

...then again I'm not a Buddhist and everyone has the right to their own interpretations along these lines... as long as we don't proceed to impale others with same.

 

Om

Edited January 17, 2010 by 3bob

[C T]

 

...then again I'm not a Buddhist and everyone has the right to their own interpretations along these lines... as long as we don't proceed to impale others with same.

 

Om

Namaste Bob. Gracious and generous, as always. Very much appreciated.

 

 

_/\_

[C T]

Greetings..

Really? Show me deeds done without a 'doer'.. no 'doer' no deed.. the coffee will not make itself, a being is necessary.. just how much fantasy must one indulge to arrive at such nonsense as quoted above? the quote above is a self-deception of epic proportions, an attachment to to some ancient imaginings fueled by the irrational desire to perceive one's-self as 'mystical' or Sage-like..

 

I see deeds done by doers every day, it's plainly obvious.. now, consider the mind-play and imaginary contrivances necessary to convince yourself this is not so..

 

Be well..

A return contemplation for your hard work TzuJanLi:

 

"The man of Tao remains unknown

Perfect virtue produces nothing

No-Self is True-Self

And the greatest man is nobody."

(The Way of Chuang Tzu, trans. Thomas Merton)

[Lucky7Strikes]

Deeds should be done. Why not?

 

A person is drowning in the pond. You know how to swim. Should you save him? Of course! But before the deed is done, the intention must arise to save the person, and the thought 'I should save him' should arise. Similarly if you are not yet enlightened, the thought 'I aspire to be enlightened', or if you haven't practice, the thought 'I should practice' is important.

 

But in the act of saving, it's all spontaneous and free. Intention, will, is involved, but it does not mean there is a doer, nor does he think about being a doer. It's just spontaneous.

 

The universe has a direction, but the direction is simply the thought arising now, that will be a condition for an arising action, etc. Thought of planning what to do, thought of aspiring to do, etc. All useful. Whatever is happening does not require an agent that is 'doing' it. Deeds are done without doer.

 

Uh uh. "Should I save him" and "Should I not save him" will rise according to the condition at hand. It is not a matter of my choosing or not choosing to save that person but the arising of that intention "rolling on" into that moment. Whether I save him or whether I don't save him is absolutely beyond me, because there is no me to make the choice. If the decision to tell that person to "YES, GO DROWN" come up, then it is no better or worse than risking my life to save him. Just universe rolling on....

 

So I guess Xabir you were born lucky, a lucky manifestation of the universe, to be born where you are, to have had the opportunity to come across something called enlightenment, and have something called a path to enlightenment, to have the thought "I will practice" arise. The universe just happening through these events that is "you" (but not really because there is no doer here). And I guess those people in Haiti weren't so lucky, being born where they were and the earthquake trumbling down upon them because the universe just happened to manifest as those situations. And I bet Hitler had no choice but to kill millions of innocent lives and burn them alive, just the universe happening that way, no doer, and no choice.

 

This is your reality, and I wholly oppose its ridiculousness.

[xabir2005]

Greetings..

Really? Show me deeds done without a 'doer'.. no 'doer' no deed.. the coffee will not make itself, a being is necessary.. just how much fantasy must one indulge to arrive at such nonsense as quoted above? the quote above is a self-deception of epic proportions, an attachment to to some ancient imaginings fueled by the irrational desire to perceive one's-self as 'mystical' or Sage-like..

 

I see deeds done by doers every day, it's plainly obvious.. now, consider the mind-play and imaginary contrivances necessary to convince yourself this is not so..

 

Be well..

Instead of me showing you deeds that are done without doer, you should show me where is the doer that acts, because no deeds are done with doer.

 

Now, when I said no doer, I do not say no deed, or no action. Obviously, action is made to make coffee. But where is the doer? Is there a doer to be found apart from the act? You may say, there is intention to make coffee. But intention does not imply an intend-er. Again, intention is a thought that arise, without a thinker, followed by an action, all happening in rapid succession but each thought, each action and manifestation is totally disjoint, a new present reality in itself. The notion that there is an 'I' that is behind thinking, acting, that is a conceptual notion that upon investigation is found to be baseless.

 

It is the notion of a self that is imaginary.

 

In actuality: just actions, thoughts, experience. Never is a separate experiencer, thinker, doer to be found. All I see is doing, not a doer.

 

p.s. what is denied is not conventions (conventions such as I, you, Mary, James, etc), but an ultimately existing, separate, permanent agent (controller, perceiver, etc) or self.

 

As Visudhimagga states -

 

Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple

sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the

concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the

volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no

recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is

well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,

when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or

with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the

result.

Edited January 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Uh uh. "Should I save him" and "Should I not save him" will rise according to the condition at hand. It is not a matter of my choosing or not choosing to save that person but the arising of that intention "rolling on" into that moment.

Choice/decision/intention is necessary, though no separate choos-er/controller/doer apart from the arising intention actually exists.

Whether I save him or whether I don't save him is absolutely beyond me, because there is no me to make the choice.

'Beyond me' implies that I am helpless. However the fact is, you have the ability to save the person (if you know how to swim). I'm just using 'you' conventionally, to refer to your particular psycho physical combination. You (your psycho physical combination) can actually help out and save the person.

 

What is denied has nothing to do with the psycho-physical combination's ability to act in a particular way. What is denied is not that action can be done or intention can arise. What is denied is a separate controller, thinker, apart from the thought, act, etc.

If the decision to tell that person to "YES, GO DROWN" come up, then it is no better or worse than risking my life to save him. Just universe rolling on....

No, the thought 'go drown' is definitely worse than saving him, since he suffers/dies as a result of not being saved. Universe rolls on, but there are wholesome and unwholesome deeds/happening, which is part of the rolling on. I don't see how just because everything rolls on = nothing better or worse.

So I guess Xabir you were born lucky, a lucky manifestation of the universe, to be born where you are, to have had the opportunity to come across something called enlightenment, and have something called a path to enlightenment, to have the thought "I will practice" arise. The universe just happening through these events that is "you" (but not really because there is no doer here). And I guess those people in Haiti weren't so lucky, being born where they were and the earthquake trumbling down upon them because the universe just happened to manifest as those situations.

Not lucky, but by karma + many other factors. By karma + many other factors, I was able to meet the dharma and practice.

And I bet Hitler had no choice but to kill millions of innocent lives and burn them alive, just the universe happening that way, no doer, and no choice.

Hitler (using conventions) made the wrong choice/decision to commit mass murder and crimes. There is intentions, decision, bad and good karma, just no doer. Edited January 17, 2010 by xabir2005