"there is such a self"

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

 

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!

 

Bye!

[Lucky7Strikes]

.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am rehashing this because after being bombarded by Xabir with quotes, I ran into some of my own.

 

If the self were equal to the aggregates.

It must, since these are many, be a multiplicity/

And it would be substantial, visible like every other thing,

and not at all a simple misconception.

 

Nirvana once attained, the self would be extinguished,

and prior to this, a self would rise and vanish every instant.

without an agent, there would be no karmic fruit,

or else the actions done by one would give results that others reap....

 

When yogis see there is no self, yout theory implies

that thye must likewise see that there are no phenomena.

But if you now refute a self that's permanent,

then for that very reason, self is not the mind or aggregates.

 

It follows from your theory that when yogis see there is no self,

they fail to understand the final truth of form and other aggregates/

They focus on them, "I" occurs, and so desire and all the rest

because the nature of this form they do not understand.

 

Now you may claim that Buddha said the aggregates compose the self;

it's thus that you attempt to justify your view.

But Buddha's words refute a self extraneous to the aggregate;

in other sutras he explained that form is not the self.

 

thus feeling, form, perception--these are not the self.

conditioning factors, consciousness are also not the self.

in other sutras this has been explained.

that aggregates compose the self, in brief, has never been proclaimed.

 

when the aggregates are said to be the self,

this means the aggregates together and not one by one.

and yet a emre assemblage is not "yourprotector,"

it cannot discipline or stand as witness, cannot be your self.

 

were it not so, if we compare a chariot to the self,

the mere collection of a chariots parts would constitute a chariot.

the sutra says that "self" depends upon the aggrgates;

this shows their mere coincidence is not the self...

 

It makes no sense that grasped and grasper should be one,

for this would mean identity between doer and the done.

and if you think that there's a deed without a doer of the deed,

this is not so; for where there is no agent, there can be no act.

 

wherefore the Buddha has most clearly said

that self is based on earth and water,

fire, wind, space, and consciousness--these sic

and also on the six supports of contact like the eyes.

 

he also said quite certainly yhat it is based

upon the mind and mental factors. thus from these the self is no distinct.

it is not they, nor yet the simple grouping of the same.

we grasp out ego independently of them.

 

some think that when "no-self" is understood,

this means the refutation of a permanent, existent self.

but of our ego-clinging this could never be the ground.

how strange to say that understanding this suffices to uproot belief in "I"...

 

The self is not inherent in the aggregates,

not aggregates inherent in the self. And why?

it might be so if they were separate and distinct.

but they are not distinct, and therefore this is but an idle notion.

 

the self cannot be said to own the aggregate of form.

for self does not exist, hus ownership is void of sense.

one owns a cow, in difference, or one's body, in identity.

but self and form are neither same nor different.

 

Form is not the "I," and "I" is not a form possessor.

there's no "I" in form, and form does no inhere in "I."

Apply this now to all the other aggregates,

and you will have the twenty views of "self"...

 

a pot which in itself is not a self-sufficient entity,

you say is indescribable apart from form and other features.

the self is also indescribable apart from aggregates;

do not, therefore, regard it as inherently existent.

 

You do not think your consciousness is different from itself,

but think it is distinct from form and toher aggregates.

in all existent things these aspects of distinction and identity are found

and so there is no self; it lacks the character of real existence.

 

thus the basis for our clinging to an "i" is not a thing.

and though not other than the aggregates, the self is not the aggregates themselves.

it does not own the aggregtesl the aggregates are not contained by it

Yet in dependence on the aggregates does self arise. ...

 

in regards to the chariot analogy)

if the chariot ("I") itself has no reality

there are no "chariot parts" (phenomena") because there is no "[art possessor."

The chariot burned, its parts are also burned;

so too when fires of wisdom burn the ownder of the parts, the parts themselves are also all consumed.

 

and thus the self---dependent on the aggregates,

the elements, and the senses as they are in daily life---

is thought of as the owner of the same;

these are the objects owned, the self their ownner.

 

Without a worker, there's no work performed,

and likewise without "I" there is no "mine."

Perceiving that bothe "I" and "mine" are void,

the yogi will be utterly set free.

 

-from Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara

 

In regards to cause and effect (something which you often cited)

 

if a thing produces an effect, it is indeed a cause.

and if no fruit appears, there is no cause and no production.

and as for the result, it's only if the cause exists that it comes into being.

tell me, therefore, which derives from which, and what preceds the other?

 

If you say the cause makes contact with the fruit that it produces,

they share a single force, and cause and fruit are not distinc.

but if they stand apart, a noncause does not differ from a cause.

when these two cases are refuted, there's no third to take their place.

 

well then, your cause produces no result, wherefore the fruit, so called, has no reality

and likewise, without fruit, a "cause" is quite unjustified.

both terms, effect and cause, resemble mere illusions.

therefore I'm not wrong in grantingthat the things of faily life exist!

Edited March 26, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Kunlun Enthusiast]

Lucky, got bored that the other thread didn't have enough debating that you're digging an old one?

 

Seriously, what is the replacement for e-sangha these days? Or there is none? I read a few but none match upto the big guy, no in drama at least

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Individuality is perceivable which suggests there is existence, and though humans see things differently, we share the same universe. As sentient beings we perceive phenomena coherently, but make varied interpretations of it.

 

Dimension is the difference between, and the substance observed defines itself by being not other, for it can only be one way, different, so each form is necessarily unique, as are our varied perceptions of them.

 

We perceive our own discernments while being partial to the whole, being unique in ourselves as participants in the relationship, for we only exist by being unlike any other thing.

 

Beyond the immediacy of this instant, the awareness sensing itself in the dynamic relationship of Life's diversities with the source of its awareness, ourselves.. beyond this immediacy, is speculation..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

It's alive! It's Alive!!! This thread is still alive!!!!!

 

Yea!!!!!

 

Peace & Love1

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's alive! It's Alive!!! This thread is still alive!!!!!

 

Yea!!!!!

 

Peace & Love1

Most of what I wrote in this thread is trash. As for the quote above, it's a jewel.

 

Did anyone actually read it before commenting? Or gave it thought?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Did anyone actually read it before commenting? Or gave it thought?

I did..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

I did as well. And while I did not comment on it, it should not be assumed that I agree with it.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

Hi Lucky,

 

Thanks for sharing. Yes, as Jeffrey Hopkins say, "Doer and doing are mutually dependent in terms of the attainment of their entities through designation by thought." (http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=26FkjziPVfAC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq)

 

The notion of there being an agent/"doer" and activities as "doing" are interdependent, without conceiving of 'doing something' there cannot be the notion of a 'doer', and vice versa. When one conceives of a subjective or objective pole, one naturally conceives of the opposite pole as well. They are however not reality but deeply held conceptual notions, and once one sees that these two are mutually dependent notions, one will not be able to locate a real 'doer' or 'doing', that such phenomena do not actually inherently exist, rather they are dependently imputed. Notions of 'doer' and 'doing' are simply imputations on a particular set of sensations happening.

 

The notion of a doer is conceived/established along with the notion of a doing, and thus perceiving that both "I" (doer) and "mine" (deed) are void, one is set free of such notions of duality and inherency. In actuality there is just whatever seen, heard, activities appear, without actually a doer or done, perceiver or perceived. Aggregates, sensations appear and are simply luminous/aware in essence and empty by nature, and no self can be located within nor apart from them.

 

There is just transient phenomena/sensations which show up vividly where they are and subside instantaneously, like 'weather' does not refer to something fixed or locatable, but to patterns, clouds, wind, changing moment to moment. No essence of weather-ness or a 'weather entity' can be located within nor apart from those phenomena, and as such 'weather' is simply a convention and imputation, but nothing inherent. The same applies to 'self' and '5 aggregates'.

Edited March 26, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Greetings..

 

 

I did..

 

Be well..

Thank you!

 

_/\_

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi Lucky,

 

Thanks for sharing. Yes, as Jeffrey Hopkins say, "Doer and doing are mutually dependent in terms of the attainment of their entities through designation by thought." (http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=26FkjziPVfAC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq)

 

The notion of there being an agent/"doer" and activities as "doing" are interdependent, without conceiving of 'doing something' there cannot be the notion of a 'doer', and vice versa. When one conceives of a subjective or objective pole, one naturally conceives of the opposite pole as well. They are however not reality but deeply held conceptual notions, and once one sees that these two are mutually dependent notions, one will not be able to locate a real 'doer' or 'doing', that such phenomena do not actually inherently exist, rather they are dependently imputed. Notions of 'doer' and 'doing' are simply imputations on a particular set of sensations happening.

 

The notion of a doer is conceived/established along with the notion of a doing, and thus perceiving that both "I" (doer) and "mine" (deed) are void, one is set free of such notions of duality and inherency. In actuality there is just whatever seen, heard, activities appear, without actually a doer or done, perceiver or perceived. Aggregates, sensations appear and are simply luminous/aware in essence and empty by nature, and no self can be located within nor apart from them.

 

There is just transient phenomena/sensations which show up vividly where they are and subside instantaneously, like 'weather' does not refer to something fixed or locatable, but to patterns, clouds, wind, changing moment to moment. No essence of weather-ness or a 'weather entity' can be located within nor apart from those phenomena, and as such 'weather' is simply a convention and imputation, but nothing inherent. The same applies to 'self' and '5 aggregates'.

I agree with most of this, but it's just a matter of emphasis that I disagree on.

 

Chandrakirti warns against EQUATING the aggregates with the "I" thought, because as he has noted, the posessor and the posessed arised mutually. It is important to negate the false imputation of the self, but also the false imputation of phenomena, as in the production (which is negated) of objects. Most significantly, he examines whether any such "cause and effect" is established in the last section I quoted, and finds them empty of inherence or meaning.

 

The "I" thought is negated by examing it through phenomena and aggregates. THe latter in turn is also negated by the "I" (for how could one examine phenomena if one was not conscious of it as a object?). From my observation, your emphasis is often on negating the self by examing phenomena as rising and falling.

 

The mantra of "no doer, only action," and fatal determinism (something I have, as you might remember vehemently denied), is also negated by Chandrakirti:

 

 

Nirvana once attained, the self would be extinguished,

and prior to this, a self would rise and vanish every instant.

without an agent, there would be no karmic fruit,

or else the actions done by one would give results that others reap....

 

 

It makes no sense that grasped and grasper should be one,

for this would mean identity between doer and the done.

and if you think that there's a deed without a doer of the deed,

this is not so; for where there is no agent, there can be no act.

[3bob]

[dwai]

[Edward M]

[Marblehead]

... those who are not blinded by dogma of mistaken understanding ...

 

Hehehe. I guess I must stand and be counted amongst those who are blinded by mistaken understanding.

 

Y'all know that I do not hold to the concept of "universal consciousness".

 

Peace & Love!

 

Edit to add: Good to see you posting Dwai. Be well!

Edited March 26, 2010 by Marblehead

[Lucky7Strikes]

When we use the word nature, it is a way of being.

 

Impermanence can be understood as permanence, in that there is constant truth to the concept of impermanence.

 

As with the doctrine of emptiness, we can say the "nature, the way, of emptiness," but this is not saying there is something called emptiness. Language is always tricky this way.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

To the stilled mind, permanence and impermanence have no meaning or influence.. those are conceptual distractions to the unfolding experience of 'now'..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

To the stilled mind, permanence and impermanence have no meaning or influence.. those are conceptual distractions to the unfolding experience of 'now'..

 

Be well..

 

Well, I just doing some work outside and came in for a break. Eric Clapton just finished playing and John Lennon takes the stage and sings "I Found Out".

 

Just wanted to share that with y'all.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Just wanted to share that with y'all.

<humble bows>.. the gift is appreciated..

 

Be well..

[xabir2005]

I agree with most of this, but it's just a matter of emphasis that I disagree on.

 

Chandrakirti warns against EQUATING the aggregates with the "I" thought, because as he has noted, the posessor and the posessed arised mutually. It is important to negate the false imputation of the self, but also the false imputation of phenomena, as in the production (which is negated) of objects. Most significantly, he examines whether any such "cause and effect" is established in the last section I quoted, and finds them empty of inherence or meaning.

 

The "I" thought is negated by examing it through phenomena and aggregates. THe latter in turn is also negated by the "I" (for how could one examine phenomena if one was not conscious of it as a object?). From my observation, your emphasis is often on negating the self by examing phenomena as rising and falling.

 

The mantra of "no doer, only action," and fatal determinism (something I have, as you might remember vehemently denied), is also negated by Chandrakirti:

 

 

Nirvana once attained, the self would be extinguished,

and prior to this, a self would rise and vanish every instant.

without an agent, there would be no karmic fruit,

or else the actions done by one would give results that others reap....

 

 

It makes no sense that grasped and grasper should be one,

for this would mean identity between doer and the done.

and if you think that there's a deed without a doer of the deed,

this is not so; for where there is no agent, there can be no act.

Can't exactly fault what you said here, as it is true that both subject and object are equally empty.

 

However I would also add that 'No I' does not deny Witnessing consciousness, and 'No Phenomena' does not deny Phenomena. (not that Witnessing Consciousness and Phenomena are two different poles, anyway) The teaching of 'No I', 'No Phenomena' is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs, it does not deny the experience of 'witnessing consciousness'/'phenomena'/'aggregates'.

 

When you experience what is called Witnessing Consciousness, commonly reified as the Eternal Witness or I AM, the experience itself is undeniable. You cannot deny that the Witnessing is present. There is an undeniable certainty of being beyond all mental constructs. Those who experience it, which I think you did, will not be able to deny it. Even as a Buddhist, I cannot deny this (and Buddha too have not denied this), as I too have witnessed with undeniable certainty, or rather a natural certainty and confidence and trust is present in the fundamental sense of being. That is why dwai is so adamant that beyond all mental constructs there is something undeniably present which he clearly experienced.

 

As regards to this, Thusness also wrote to me in Mind and Self-Liberation:

 

I think it is better to approach this way:

 

Non-conceptual thought VS conceptual thought instead of Awareness VS Thoughts.

 

If you see it is “Awareness Vs Thoughts”, then it is dualistic and inherent view. If you see it as non-conceptual thought, then eventually you will realize both non-conceptual and conceptual thoughst share the same luminous essence and empty nature. Non-conceptual thought is non-verbal and direct. It appears still and with the tendency to reify it is often mistaken as ‘Unchanging Witness’.

 

Therefore in your experience of the “I AMness”, I advise you to understand this experience from the perspective of “direct and non-conceptual aspect of perception” and how by being “direct and non-conceptual” creates that sort of ‘certain, unshakable and undeniable’ confidence. That is, if a practitioner is fully authenticated from moment to moment the arising and passing phenomena, the practitioner will always have this sensation of ‘certain and unshaken’ confidence.

 

In that same post, he also described the relationship between mental constructs and the different levels of insight.

 

So if regards to 'arising and passing phenomena' there is the sensation of certain and unshakable confidence just as one previously had with the I AM experience or in other words seeing all experience as having One Taste, and as such the aggregates cannot be denied, what is it we are denying? It is the mental constructs that we impose on this. Very subtle mental constructs, which is to subjectify and objectify our experience. To reify something into something solid, permanent, independent, ultimate, etc.

 

Similarly the Buddha never denied the aggregates. He just denied the selfhood and the inherency of those aggregates. The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature of phenomena and 'I'. This is to be contemplated on.

 

The 3rd Karmapa said:

 

Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects.

Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind.

Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself.

May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized.

 

.........

 

Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object.

Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I.

Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world.

May the root of confusion be found.

 

Notice that clear light and awareness cannot be denied, but the constructs must be removed. Luminosity is the essence of everything, emptiness is the nature of everything, manifestation is its dynamic expression - the inseparability of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya is the nature of one's mind.

 

Having a direct non-conceptual experience doesn't mean we have removed all subtle conceptual/mental constructs relating to subjectivity and objectivity and inherency - having right view help us 'see' how a non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it. Ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state.

 

Even though we may have direct non conceptual experience of I AMness, we may not yet deconstruct the objective pole leading to non-dual experience of One Mind, and having reached One Mind we may not yet deconstruct the subjective pole leading to No Mind, and having reached No Mind we may not yet deconstruct locality and time through insight into emptiness. Yet while all mental constructs are progressively removed, the direct non-dual experience of the witnessing consciousness or the aggregates is not negated or denied. Like they say "keep the experience, refine the view".

 

reference:

 

Mind and Self-Liberation

 

Thusness:

 

...As a general guideline,

 

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.

 

2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

 

3. If you go through a process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like "in/out" "inside/outside" "into/onto," "within/without" "here/there", you will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and time.

 

4. If you simply go through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the experience of “I AMness”....

Edited March 27, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Can't exactly fault what you said here, as it is true that both subject and object are equally empty.

 

And in just this one short statement we see one of the major differences between Buddhism and Taoism.

 

For a Taoist both subject and object are equally full. Emptiness is needed only if there is a need to put more into a space that is currently occupied. (Empty your mind so that you can understand the truth.)

 

Emptiness and fullness are, over time, one and the same.

 

Manifest reality is real. People are real. Yes, all thing are impermant but that doesn't mean they don't exist independantly as a manifestation of Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

PS No, I'm not going to apologize for this post. We need maintain harmony and a fair semblance of balance.

[xabir2005]

And in just this one short statement we see one of the major differences between Buddhism and Taoism.

 

For a Taoist both subject and object are equally full. Emptiness is needed only if there is a need to put more into a space that is currently occupied. (Empty your mind so that you can understand the truth.)

 

Emptiness and fullness are, over time, one and the same.

 

Manifest reality is real. People are real. Yes, all thing are impermant but that doesn't mean they don't exist independantly as a manifestation of Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

PS No, I'm not going to apologize for this post. We need maintain harmony and a fair semblance of balance.

When I said emptiness, I don't mean non-existence. In fact this is what I am trying to convey to Lucky7Strike: No I does not mean no Witnessing Consciousness, No Phenomena does not mean there is no Phenomena.

 

As Heart Sutra says so clearly, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

The experience of Form cannot be denied. What is denied is that forms are permanent, self-existing/independent, etc.

 

p.s. manifest reality and people are interdependent/dependently originated, none of them have independent existence. But I'm not saying they are non-existent. Also, each person has individual mindstreams, but even their individual mindstreams are interdependent/dependently originated and as such 'empty' (not non-existent).

Edited March 27, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

[Marblehead]

When I said emptiness, I don't mean non-existence. In fact this is what I am trying to convey to Lucky7Strike: No I does not mean no Witnessing Consciousness, No Phenomena does not mean there is no Phenomena.

 

As Heart Sutra says so clearly, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

The experience of Form cannot be denied. What is denied is that forms are permanent, self-existing/independent, etc.

 

p.s. manifest reality and people are interdependent/dependently originated, none of them have independent existence. But I'm not saying they are non-existent. Also, each person has individual mindstreams, but even their individual mindstreams are interdependent/dependently originated and as such 'empty' (not non-existent).

 

Hi Xabir,

 

Nice talking with you again. Yes, you and I have reached acceptable agreement on this subject already.

 

Totally agree. Form is not permanent.

 

Yeah, I was a bit zealous with that independent thing. Hehehe. Every 'thing' is dependent on many other 'things'. So at its roots I agree with the concept that all things are interdependent. Therefore we can say "All is One". And I will even agree that our 'mindstreams' are interdependent, well, okay, even dependently originated.

 

But I am still Marblehead and I'm sure there are many who would say that they are not attached to me in any way. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!