"there is such a self"

[thuscomeone]

Where is it?

I just told you, seeing the day change to night or night change to day. Seeing the body get older. There is no time apart from objects.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is a wrong analogy. First of all, a switch of identity from head to belly, is simply an experience. Just like out of body experience is just an experience.

When you have a realisation, it is a realisation that does not come from conclusion, but is a very clear seeing that 'this has always been the case' and leaves no doubt, and requires no interpretation. It is just always and already so, the practitioner understands 'how' reality has always been nondual from beginning(less).

A conditioned belief and habitualization, like all beliefs. Only non-belief is true belief.

 

The next thing is, you are still talking about switch in identity. I am talking about anatta and non-dual, where there is no identity at all. One realises there is no identity from the beginning as all sensations are simply present and aware where it is. One doesn't just 'experience a state of selflessness', rather one sees how there never was a true identity or self from the beginning, even during times when the person is still 'unenlightened' and holding false identification.

 

The realisation and experience of true anatta and non-duality is as described by daniel and tarin:

It is parallel identity with whatever arises.

 

Now, the Buddha had actually said similar things, that everything is AS IT IS and nothing actually emanates from something else, like either the head or the belly or anywhere. There is only ISness of every manifestation which is aware where they are and happening on its own accord without a separate self, agent, or observer, or source. Any sensation that pretends to be an observer split up from another sensation is simply another sensation aware where they are, and everything else is also just more sensations aware where they are, happening on its own accord, without a truly existing self or agent, and nothing can be said (whether head or belly or whatever) to be me or mine, because everything simply sensations manifesting and aware where it is, so it's impossible to separate inner and outer, subject and object, observer and observed.

Awareness is not a sensation. It is not separate from arising phenomena. It is the dimension of existence.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I just told you, seeing the day change to night or night change to day. Seeing the body get older. There is no time apart from objects.

 

Is objects, then, time?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ok, that's why I'm asking you, at the moment of an arising thought, are there two divided things? The source of the thought itself and the thought? Thought is not thought? So now you are talking about a free floating "I"?

Free floating "I"? Yes you can say that. But I don't know if you mean what I mean.

 

The source is not used in the sense of "A creates B out of nothing" but the "existence of A is dependent on B"

 

At my hand a book. Is there space in the book, or is the book in space?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Excerpt from http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

 

Your mother has big feet.

 

Thereavadans travel the path to ending the habitual manifestation of body after death. Mahayan's seek ending of habit by seeing its origin. Vajrayana practitioners physically dissipate the body into mere light.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

A conditioned belief and habitualization, like all beliefs. Only non-belief is true belief.

No, this has nothing to do with beliefs. Insight is a paradigm shift in perception that is not dependent on belief, it is a seeing, an insight. The three dharma seals are not a belief, it is about the nature of reality that is always already the case. It is not something, it is something ever present and you realise that it has already been so. You do not enter no-self, there never was self. You do not enter impermanence, there never was permanence. All existence has been disatisfactory from the beginning. You do not enter a state of emptiness, all things are already dependently originated and by nature empty. Non-dual is an aspect of anatta, and being so, you do not enter non-dual, there never was an observer apart from an observed from the beginning, all sensations are just as it is, aware as it is, without an object being cognised nor is there a cogniser to begin with.

 

That is why Buddha said that he is free from theories, beliefs, but only speak from insight and understanding:

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

It is parallel identity with whatever arises.

No. Identity means something permanent, independent, or separate, something which is You. But everything is not you. Nothing can be clung to. Everything is arising and vanishing on its own according to conditions in lightning speed, how can it be you? You cannot control any part of it, how can it be you? They are simply manifesting as it is without an observer and observed, there is no you in nor apart from that. That is why the five skandhas are taught so clearly in Buddhism, there is no self in nor apart from the aggregates. There is no non-dual noumenon Brahman in Buddhism either that is both transcending and including all phenomena. If there were, it could certainly be called an identity because it is permanent, independent, ultimate and is a Self. Because all there is is Self, then all phenomena are also manifestations of Self (Brahman). But what I am talking about has nothing to do with this.

Awareness is not a sensation. It is not separate from arising phenomena. It is the dimension of existence.

All sensations are awareness. There is no other thing other than sensations that is awareness. Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Your mother has big feet.

 

Thereavadans travel the path to ending the habitual manifestation of body after death. Mahayan's seek ending of habit by seeing its origin. Vajrayana practitioners physically dissipate the body into mere light.

All paths seek to end afflictions and ignorance. The ending of afflictions and ignorance is only possible through insight into the nature of reality, and no other ways. Entering states of absorption, jhanas, cannot end afflictions, they only temporarily suppress the defilements from manifesting.

 

Seek the origin? But there is NO origin. That is the point. When you realise Emptiness, ala Mahayana Emptiness (though it is also taught in Theravada), you realise that what dependently originates has no origin, and does not come or go. Unlike Advaita or Ramana Maharshi, we do not talk about an ultimate origin or Source.

 

Vajrayana dissipating into mere light can be a manifestation of their accomplishment, but what is still most important is their realisation of Emptiness/Dependent Origination. Otherwise, as Loppon Namdrol (a Vajrayana teacher/scholar and practitioner of Dzogchen) say, their dissipation into light is just a mere feat of mundane Siddhis (powers) and Hindus and non-Buddhists too can and are known to accomplish that. I think, if I can remember correctly, he specifically said he does not treat the dissolving into light as anything more than a feat to inspire faith.

Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, this has nothing to do with beliefs. Insight is a paradigm shift in perception that is not dependent on belief, it is a seeing, an insight. The three dharma seals are not a belief, it is about the nature of reality that is always already the case. It is not something, it is something ever present and you realise that it has already been so. You do not enter no-self, there never was self. You do not enter impermanence, there never was permanence. All existence has been disatisfactory from the beginning. You do not enter a state of emptiness, all things are already dependently originated and by nature empty. Non-dual is an aspect of anatta, and being so, you do not enter non-dual, there never was an observer apart from an observed from the beginning, all sensations are just as it is, aware as it is, without an object being cognised nor is there a cogniser to begin with.

 

That is why Buddha said that he is free from theories, beliefs, but only speak from insight and understanding:

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

Good. You just have false insight and false interpretation.

 

No. Identity means something permanent, independent, or separate, something which is You.

Not really. Don't go overboard. I can say I'm my foot. And that wouldn't be so wrong. Then maybe then I'll say I'm my hand, and that wouldn't be wrong either.

 

But everything is not you. Nothing can be clung to. Everything is arising and vanishing on its own according to conditions in lightning speed, how can it be you? You cannot control any part of it, how can it be you? They are simply manifesting as it is without an observer and observed, there is no you in nor apart from that. That is why the five skandhas are taught so clearly in Buddhism, there is no self in nor apart from the aggregates. There is no non-dual noumenon Brahman in Buddhism either that is both transcending and including all phenomena. If there were, it could certainly be called an identity because it is permanent, independent, ultimate and is a Self. Because all there is is Self, then all phenomena are also manifestations of Self (Brahman). But what I am talking about has nothing to do with this.

All sensations are awareness. There is no other thing other than sensations that is awareness.

It's not me. I can be, but I am nowhere inherent.

 

I can control it. It can control me. Heaven and Earth, I am man.

 

Let Brahman out of this. That's not what I'm saying. How funny. You first mention it and say "what I say has nothing to do with this."

 

All sensations are not awareness. Matter is not space. Right now, is not time.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Free floating "I"? Yes you can say that. But I don't know if you mean what I mean.

 

The source is not used in the sense of "A creates B out of nothing" but the "existence of A is dependent on B"

 

At my hand a book. Is there space in the book, or is the book in space?

I don't know either if I mean what you mean. Please tell me what you mean.

 

Is this awareness which is not thought according to you this "I" that you talk about? I ask you once again, in a moment of thought, are there two divided things - this awareness you speak of and the thought?

 

The book is pervaded by space. The book is in space. But there is also no space apart from the objects within space.

 

What do you mean when you say that awareness is "the dimension of existence"?

 

What does "I am man" mean? (other than the obvious meaning)

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Good. You just have false insight and false interpretation.

I was tempted to say "No, you are the one having false interpretation" but then was reminded of what Buddha said:

 

Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives

 

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

 

-- DN 2

 

Ten wholesome topics of conversation

 

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."

 

-- AN X.69

Not really. Don't go overboard. I can say I'm my foot. And that wouldn't be so wrong. Then maybe then I'll say I'm my hand, and that wouldn't be wrong either.

 

 

It's not me. I can be, but I am nowhere inherent.

 

I can control it. It can control me. Heaven and Earth, I am man.

Buddha has already demonstrated and explained in his very second discourse ever taught in the world, right after 4 noble truths, he explained how nothing can be controlled, nothing is self, nothing is mine, and there is no controller or agent. Everything is just manifestation arising and vanishing according to conditions, not me, not mine.

 

Discourses

Anattalakkhana Sutta

The Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self

 

Thus have I heard: At one time the Blessed One was staying at the Deer Park at Isipatana, near Benares. Then he addressed the group of five monks:

 

“Material form, monks, is not self. If material form were self, material form would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’ However, since material form is not self, material form leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’

 

“Feeling is not self. If feeling were self, feeling would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’ However, since feeling is not self, feeling leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’

 

“Perception is not self. If perception were self, perception would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’ However, since perception is not self, perception leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’

 

“Mental formations are not self. If mental formations were self, mental formations would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’ However, since mental formations are not self, mental formations lead to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’

 

“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were self, consciousness would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’ However, since consciousness is not self, consciousness leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’

 

“What do you think, monks? “Is material form permanent or impermanent?”

“impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, and subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. I am this’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“Thus, monks, any material form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every material form is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any feeling whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every feeling is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any perception whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every perception is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every mental formation is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the Noble Ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feelings, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is freed. With freedom, there is the knowledge, ‘I am free.’ He knows ‘Birth has been destroyed, the holy life has been fulfilled, what should be done has been done. There is nothing further to be done here.’”

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Delighted, the group of five monks rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said; and while this exposition was being given, the minds of the five monks were fully released from the corruptions, without any remainder.

 

Then there were six Arahants in the world.

Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Ok lucky, lets try this. This discussion is not going anywhere after many pages. I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't. I think this may help get this discussion going somewhere. And if it doesn't, I may have to bow out. I just cannot for the life of me figure out what this "I" is that you are talking about. I'm baffled.

Edited January 25, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't know either if I mean what you mean. Please tell me what you mean.

 

Is this awareness which is not thought according to you this "I" that you talk about? I ask you once again, in a moment of thought, are there two divided things - this awareness you speak of and the thought?

 

The book is pervaded by space. The book is in space. But there is also no space apart from the objects within space.

 

What do you mean when you say that awareness is "the dimension of existence"?

 

What does "I am man" mean? (other than the obvious meaning)

The book is pervaded by space. The book is in space. But there is also no space apart from the objects within space.

 

Good. Not one, not two.

 

What is "dimension"?

 

Heaven is awareness. Earth is phenomena. Man is "I."

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ok lucky, lets try this. This discussion is not going anywhere after many pages. I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't. I think this may help get this discussion going somewhere. And if it doesn't, I may have to bow out. I just cannot for the life of me figure out what this "I" is that you are talking about. I'm baffled.

 

Look into the I.

 

Good bye!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I was tempted to say "No, you are the one having false interpretation" but then was reminded of what Buddha said:

 

Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives

 

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."

 

-- DN 2

 

Ten wholesome topics of conversation

 

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."

 

-- AN X.69

Buddha has already demonstrated and explained in his very second discourse ever taught in the world, right after 4 noble truths, he explained how nothing can be controlled, nothing is self, nothing is mine, and there is no controller or agent. Everything is just manifestation arising and vanishing according to conditions, not me, not mine.

 

Discourses

Anattalakkhana Sutta

The Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self

 

Thus have I heard: At one time the Blessed One was staying at the Deer Park at Isipatana, near Benares. Then he addressed the group of five monks:

 

“Material form, monks, is not self. If material form were self, material form would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’ However, since material form is not self, material form leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding material form, ‘Let material form be like this. Let material form not be like that.’

 

“Feeling is not self. If feeling were self, feeling would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’ However, since feeling is not self, feeling leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding feeling, ‘Let feeling be like this. Let feeling not be like that.’

 

“Perception is not self. If perception were self, perception would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’ However, since perception is not self, perception leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding perception, ‘Let perception be like this. Let perception not be like that.’

 

“Mental formations are not self. If mental formations were self, mental formations would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’ However, since mental formations are not self, mental formations lead to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding mental formations, ‘Let mental formations be like this. Let mental formations not be like that.’

 

“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were self, consciousness would not lead to affliction. It would be possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’ However, since consciousness is not self, consciousness leads to affliction. And it is not possible to say regarding consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be like this. Let my consciousness not be like that.’

 

“What do you think, monks? “Is material form permanent or impermanent?”

“impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is that which is impermanent pleasant or unpleasant?”

“Unpleasant, Venerable sir.”

 

“Is it fitting to regard what is impermanent, unpleasant, and subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. I am this’?”

“No, Venerable sir.”

 

“Thus, monks, any material form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every material form is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any feeling whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every feeling is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any perception whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every perception is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every mental formation is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it really is with wisdom as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. I am not this.’

 

“Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the Noble Ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feelings, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is freed. With freedom, there is the knowledge, ‘I am free.’ He knows ‘Birth has been destroyed, the holy life has been fulfilled, what should be done has been done. There is nothing further to be done here.’”

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Delighted, the group of five monks rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said; and while this exposition was being given, the minds of the five monks were fully released from the corruptions, without any remainder.

 

Then there were six Arahants in the world.

Look!

 

The Buddha is talking to retards like you.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Look into the I.

 

Good bye!

This is Ramana Maharshi's teaching and leads to the I AM/Witness experience. Only later does the sense of I dissolve after realising the non-local non-dual awareness.

 

See http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/2nd+Gear

Edited January 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Look into the I.

 

Good bye!

I thought about leaving, I considered it, but I'm not going to just yet

 

So going back to it, you still haven't answered my question. In a moment of thought, is there awareness which is the source of thought and then the thought itself? Are there two divided things in that moment?

 

"Heaven is awareness, earth is phenomena, man is "I."

 

So then would say that the "I" you speak of is not awareness or phenomena? Would I be correct to call this "I" will?

 

And once again, I ask you...

 

"I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't."

[xabir2005]

[nac]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Like I've said before, in my opinion, the answer to the question of "true self" changes depending on one's definition of "true". The definition of "true" used in Buddhist logic negates the existence of any true self, but affirms the existence of many relative selves.

 

PS. This argument will go on forever, won't it?

Edited January 25, 2010 by nac

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Lucky7Strikes]

I thought about leaving, I considered it, but I'm not going to just yet

 

So going back to it, you still haven't answered my question. In a moment of thought, is there awareness which is the source of thought and then the thought itself? Are there two divided things in that moment?

 

"Heaven is awareness, earth is phenomena, man is "I."

 

So then would say that the "I" you speak of is not awareness or phenomena? Would I be correct to call this "I" will?

 

And once again, I ask you...

 

"I would like you to please tell me everything there is to know about this "I" that you speak of from your perspective. Tell me everything you can about it. What it is, what it isn't."

I answered your question with your own words.

 

Awareness and phenomena always arise together.

 

Awareness changing phenomena is action. Phenomena changing awareness is non-action.

 

Will is the interplay of awareness and phenomena.

[Lucky7Strikes]

double...

Edited January 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is Ramana Maharshi's teaching and leads to the I AM/Witness experience. Only later does the sense of I dissolve after realising the non-local non-dual awareness.

 

See http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/2nd+Gear

Maharshi is not a witness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I can't believe this debate is still going on. Like I've said before, in my opinion, the answer to the question of "true self" changes depending on one's definition of "true". The definition of "true" used in Buddhist logic negates the existence of any true self, but affirms the existence of many relative selves.

 

PS. This argument will go on forever, won't it?

YES YES YES!!!

 

MWAAHAHAHHAHAHH!!!

[nac]

YES YES YES!!!

 

MWAAHAHAHHAHAHH!!!

Nope, not very convincing. Try again.

[nac]

 

Man is heaven and earth.

 

Under heaven and earth is I.

Well, if we're going to place our trust on our own instincts alone, then we don't have much left to discuss, do we? We cannot accept something as an axiom unless it's undisputedly observed to be true by all parties concerned. As for myself, I happen to find the existence of a truly existent "me" as defined by Buddhism to be counter-intuitive and highly improbable despite years of meditation. IMO, the fallacy of misplaced concreteness is applicable to nearly every seeming "existent" that we observe, and phenomena cognized during meditation are naturally no exception. I have no doubt that I'll be able to discover a core of "true existence" through meditation if I look for it. Especially if I want to find one on some level. The reverse applies too, of course. The problem is, I wouldn't believe either observation on it's own. You can never be too careful with techniques which come with a danger of self-hypnosis. Like I've said before, I think it would be better for us to just shut up and see clearly with minds free of hopes, fears and attachments like reputation and online debates, then set out what we have seen as clearly as possible with no attempt at self-censorship.

 

Seriously, why do some of us seem to desire an ultimate, unanalyzable Self so badly anyway, while others seem to crave the reverse? Frankly, none of this insane melodrama makes the smallest iota of sense to me. Especially considering that according to Buddhism, we neither do exist, nor don't exist. What would any of us do differently if we didn't exist? If such a difference exists, then please take that possibility into consideration when making important decisions. That's all I've got to say. cya!

Edited January 25, 2010 by nac