"there is such a self"

[Marblehead]

What I am suggesting (as have all Advaitins) that Awareness is not Consciousness. Awareness is a result of Consciousness, when presented with an object. Consciousness is happy to be just itself without any object.

 

If you have read the article by Dr Puligandla I'd posted in the other thread, you'll realize that he's also saying the same thing as Randall. The point be made is that it is futile to pursue an intellectual pursuit of consciousness...because consciousness is already there. Ultimately all props, all syntax, all language, Perceptions and conceptions need to be dropped to realize this.

 

Indeed, by introduction of a categorical framework is what results in subject/object split. That is why Advaitins say that everything is Brahman, through superimposition. Brahman is not a thing...nor is it nothing. It is a not-thing...it is beyond percepts and concepts, beyond duality. Any attempt to categorize it as this or that will fail for that reason.

 

I'll tell you what my dear Dwai. It sure sound like you are talking Taoist Philosophy in that last post.

 

My only question to you regarding this post is regarding consciousness and the question is:

 

Do you hold to the concept of Universal Cnosciousness or is your consciousness restricted to the manifest realm?

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Insentient causes and conditions cannot give rise to sentience, awareness. Simple as that. You can create all these conditions artificially, but the interaction will not BE awareness. No complex chemical reaction can give rise to life.

Good we agree here. BUt I'm gonna take this further and say that those causes and conditions are created by awareness interacting with phenomena, the mind.

What exactly have you read of all the things I wrote. Why, it seems you can' think beyond your own paradigm of "reification," "Thusness stage 5," "Brahman is sooo different from Buddhism." You've been absolutely scared away from pondering what exactly "subjectivity" is. I've said for the millionth time that subject and object dependently arise for any experience existence to come about. BOth positions of "All is subject" and "all is object" are extremes. Experience works through reflection. Moreover, the subject, the "I-ness" is not a source, not an all encompassing thing, not a locality (although it CAN be experienced as all these things) it changes in relation to the object of experience. There is just the NATURE, the relationship, the dependence of subject and object.

I've heard your broken record player many times and understand it. Now please listen to mine, because yours doesn't make sense. I've never said awareness has self-existence, or that it has a fixed location, or an essence. Why don't you at least try to understand what I'm saying because you clearly don't after all the these posts.

He should've just rolled a blunt. No experience is more delusional or more truer than the other. Sure, there can be happier ways to exist and sadder, but there is no such thing as illusional reality. Reality is whatever is experienced; Truth is not experience, it is the way existence works.

It doesn't matter whether it's a new phenomena or not. First of all, dependent origination means that the cause goes both ways. To say sound dependently originates with the drum and drum stick means that the sound also causes the existence or the arising of drum and drumstick, which is stupid.

YOUR ATTENTION! Where is this YOU?

 

When you say "combination of causes and conditions" you are saying that there is a set border, a boundary, a definition, to these causes and conditions. For example where does the eye end and begin, where does light end and begin, where is this attention? Causes and conditions are the quantifying of phenomena which is absolutely subjective to interpretation and experience.

HUH? AND AREN'T ALL MANIFESTATIONS JUST CONDITIONS UPON CONDITIONS? Where do you draw the line between condition and manifestation? There's so much inconsistency in your thinking.

There is no INHERENT, INHERENT subject and object. This is very different from saying there is NO subject and NO object.

 

LISTEN WILL YOU? Just let all those quotes and lingo go for a second. AND LISTEN. At lease try to understand.

OF COURSE THE LISTENER CAN"T BE LOCATED!!!!!!!!!!

 

Run around, LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN BODY!!!

Insentient causes and conditions are definitely required for moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. to come about. I don't know how you can deny this. Say you have a moment of hearing the sound of a bell. Well the hearing of the sound of that bell would not come about if it weren't for the bell, the stick that was used to hit the bell and the person using the stick. These are all conditions which allow that moment of hearing.

 

What are you talking about? Of course sound does not cause the existence of the drum stick. There are different conditions for the arising of sound and for the arising of a drum stick.

 

There is no actual boundary to causes and conditions. They stretch back into beginnningless time. It's obviously impossible to know every single cause for something but we can know the causes and condition that are present NOW. Since that is what we can know, we have to create some sort of artificial boundary.

[dwai]

I'll tell you what my dear Dwai. It sure sound like you are talking Taoist Philosophy in that last post.

 

My only question to you regarding this post is regarding consciousness and the question is:

 

Do you hold to the concept of Universal Cnosciousness or is your consciousness restricted to the manifest realm?

 

Peace & Love!

 

Consciousness has no boundaries (ie cannot be bound by any categorical framework, so cannot be measured or studied phenomenologically), so what is to say it is Universal or Local?

 

It is Universal in the sense that everything is a result of superimposition on it...which is the manifest realm.

[Marblehead]

Consciousness has no boundaries (ie cannot be bound by any categorical framework, so cannot be measured or studied phenomenologically), so what is to say it is Universal or Local?

 

It is Universal in the sense that everything is a result of superimposition on it...which is the manifest realm.

 

 

You almost answered the question and that is good enogh for me. Thanks.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Insentient causes and conditions are definitely required for moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. to come about. I don't know how you can deny this. Say you have a moment of hearing the sound of a bell. Well the hearing of the sound of that bell would not come about if it weren't for the bell, the stick that was used to hit the bell and the person using the stick. These are all conditions which allow that moment of hearing.

For any of this to be witnessed and experienced, you need to be aware of them. And since all these insentient conditions are not self aware, they arise "in" awareness. But it goes further than that. There is no actual sound of the bell, one's intent generatesthe human body which experiences a human realm to see a material world and hence give reality to the experience. In reality all this is a co creation of various conscious minds.

 

What are you talking about? Of course sound does not cause the existence of the drum stick. There are different conditions for the arising of sound and for the arising of a drum stick.

Yes, exactly. But if one says the drumstick and sound are dependently originated, it means that the cause goes both ways, which is precisely wrong.

 

There is no actual boundary to causes and conditions. They stretch back into beginnningless time. It's obviously impossible to know every single cause for something but we can know the causes and condition that are present NOW. Since that is what we can know, we have to create some sort of artificial boundary.

 

All boundaries are drawn by the mind. All causes and conditions are made by the mind including this universe. Everything is a subjective creation. The artificial boundary however must arise for self-awareness/existence to come about, a subject object duality, which explains perfectly why this creation is experienced. Even "nothingness" is empty.

[xabir2005]

Edited January 15, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir, or a rolling pile of manifesting dirt, I shall say, I will stop replying to your writing from now on, go write your reply and I'll give it a read, but let this be it. More talk here is absolutely pointless. Anyone who denies free will and says we are just arising phenomena I will vehemently object to.

 

You, Thusness, Longchen are all drunk on the state of no-self believing it to be reality. So scared of suffering and responsibility, residing in the bliss of falling away, you have decided to live like nothing but pigs and dogs who live without being "self aware," just letting feelings rise and fall, guided by instinct and no conscious will of one's own. Like a goddamn animal scared to face oneself.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

AGAIN, AGAIN AGAIN, MANIFESTATION IS NOT SELF-CONSCIOUS. SOUND WAVES ARE NOT CONSCIOUS. THE BODY IS NOT CONSCIOUS. THE BRAIN CELLS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS. OBJECTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS.

I have said already, insentient conditions are simply conditions for manifestation of consciousness. They are not the consciousness itself. The manifestation is a new phenomenon, that does NOT originate from insentient conditions, but interdependently arise with insentient conditions.

 

BUT when I say Manifestation, I mean the manifestation of Awareness, I don't mean the insentient conditions that are necessary for that particular manifestation of awareness.

 

You just mixed up my terms totally.

Your ONLY justification for any of this is: oh when I look for it, it is never there. OF COURSE ITS NOT THERE! BY investigating it YOU ARE MOVING INTO A DIFFERENT STATE, AN ALTERED LOCATION. And when you let go of a focal "point of awareness" and lets it BE...OF COURSE IT RISES WITH SOUNDS!! WITH VISION, WIth WHATEVER ARISING PHENOMENA FROM A CONDITIONED PAST!!! You've simply let it "delocalize," to floowww...or whatever. Do you get what I'm saying at all?

Whatever you experience is already non-local. The sense of self arises according to conditions, but doesn't mean there is truly a self there. It is just a sensation (even if it is a sensation of locality) that is non-local and dependently originate.

Good, and awareness also conditions causes and conditions.

No, Awareness is not something separate from sights, thoughts etc. The phenomena dependently originates. Awareness does not stand apart from phenomena. That means, Awareness IS the sights, sounds, etc, and that it dependently originates, therefore Awareness is inseparable from causes and conditions.

The body CAN be awareness itself, but it is NOT awareness. . Cut all circulation to my hand (my body) and and my awareness will not BE my hand.

Again, when I said Awareness is the body, I am not talking about body as an inherently objectively existing entity, because there is no such objectively existing body. Much less am I saying that Awareness is 'in the body', I never said that. I am just talking about momentarily arising bodily sensations that dependently originates. Awareness has no existence apart from sensations arising moment to moment according to conditions. It has no independent and permanent existence.

 

You are already making Awareness into an entity, which is an extreme. Awareness is NOT a persisting, continuous, eternal entity. It is not a Self that persists from past to present.

 

Rather, there is just Manifesting-Awareness, the manifesting-awareness of body prior to cutting, and the manifesting-awareness of body after cutting, is just awareness manifesting according to Different conditions. It does not mean the same Awareness entity persisted through change. Awareness IS the manifestation which dependently originates, it is empty of any inherent existence. Even to say 'before and after' is already wrong, there is just One Sound, One Thought, One Sensation.

Awareness CAN be located in the body and one experiences the phenomena of "inner" and "outer." And Awareness CAN ALSO BE outside of the body, beyond the body, in a new body, so the phenomena of BODY is clearly not identical to awareness.

Again, you are treating Awareness as some sort of soul, entity, atman, that can move from one body to the next. Awareness is not an atman. Awareness is empty. Awareness has no location, whether in this body, or the next body, or anywhere. Awareness is simply a Manifesting Sensation that dependently originate, and I'm using sensation to mean basically every experience - feelings, thoughts, sights, sounds, taste, touch, smells.

Good, go convince yourself that you are a rolling pile of dirt, a MANIFESTATION. No different than a pig that eats and sleeps and fucks to whatever "arises." Go get carried into a butcher shop and believe you are the Buddha. Wake up Xabir, you are just high on dancing, on letting go. Your views are WRONG.

ALL CREATION IS CONCEPTUAL!! It is flowers in the sky, it is lines drawn through empty space.

Just because all is manifestation, does not mean I am no different from a pig. I wonder where you get all your strange ideas from. You are having very wrong views, please study Buddhism thoroughly.

Phenomena is not "self-luminous," or sound will be conscious, a table would be conscious.

Sound, which I distinguish from the insentient condition of soundwaves, is self-luminous.

 

In other words, the manifesting EXPERIENCE of sound, sights, touch, taste, etc, are self-luminous. I do not mean that insentient conditions is self-luminous, I hope you get this by now.

This is wrong insight arising from a misinterpreted experience of delocalized awareness.

NO. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. Just as there is no inherent identity to objects, there is also no inherent identity to awareness. IT IS NOT A SOLID ENTITY (although existence CAN be experienced as such as most people do). For example, there can be the active conscious ness of sound, but there is no such thing as a separate "sound-consciousness." IT ARISES DEPENDENTLY WITH THE OBJECT (object to mean not a specific object of any kind, but object in a subject object relationship). ANY phenomena can become a subject and therefore no longer be experience as an object. Awareness can merge into a tree, into another person's body (posessions) and so forth.

But as I said, that is still holding an extreme view of Subject, one that can 'merge into' or 'become tree', etc.

 

In reality, Awareness is just Manifestation. One manifestation cannot transform into one another. As Zen Master Dogen said, firewood does not turn into ash, winter does not turn into spring, life does not turn into death. Firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash.

 

We have never actually experienced movement and transformation. We have NEVER experienced one thing becoming another, the notion of something becoming something is just a conceptual reification/fabrication we impose on our experience when we recall a previous experience. There is change, without a changing 'thing'. Always just this One Sound, One Thought.

 

Awareness has no fixed center, but it CAN experience creation as a source, as a center. It is simply a matter of perspective. This is what gives awareness total and complete freedom when it is unattached to identity or form.

It's not that 'Awareness can experience creation as a center'.

 

Rather,

 

'Awareness can MANIFEST as a sensation of a center, with the condition of ignorance'.

 

Such a manifestation itself dependently originates, arise and vanish according to conditions, and is just more sensations that are aware 'where they are'. Everything just manifest in the same way. If everything just manifest in its own suchness, aware where they are, without a separate observer, then there cannot be any center. Even the sensation of a center is just a sensation that cannot observe another sensation, and hence is not a true center.

GOOD! It is simultaneous arising. NOT AWARENESS IS SOUND. Awareness (not a specified awareness, but the experience of any awareness itself) and phenomena codepedently arise. Whenever there IS, THERE IS THAT.

I am saying that attention is not self. I do not mean Awareness is not sound. Awareness is what everything IS, attention is just a particular manifestation of awareness.

 

Actually there is no need to say that 'Awareness is what everything IS', especially when you have a mistaken conception of what awareness is. It is better in this case to just say, 'everything IS', and attention is just one particular ISness.

 

In classical Pali scriptures they don't talk about 'awareness as everything'. They just talk about phenomena. They don't talk about Awareness, because if there is no subject/object duality, no self, then there is ONLY phenomena and no other thing apart from phenomena called 'awareness'. Non-dual awareness is already auto-implied by talking about sounds, sights, thoughts, etc.

 

The whole 'awareness manifesting' is already dualistic, which I am unfortunately using above. In reality there is ONLY manifestation, that alone is the awareness, there is no other substratum of awareness where manifestation appears.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Xabir, or a rolling pile of manifesting dirt, I shall say, I will stop replying to your writing from now on, go write your reply and I'll give it a read, but let this be it. More talk here is absolutely pointless. Anyone who denies free will and says we are just arising phenomena I will vehemently object to.

 

You, Thusness, Longchen are all drunk on the state of no-self believing it to be reality. So scared of suffering and responsibility, residing in the bliss of falling away, you have decided to live like nothing but pigs and dogs who live without being "self aware," just letting feelings rise and fall, guided by instinct and no conscious will of one's own. Like a goddamn animal scared to face oneself.

I wonder where you get your idea of being rid of responsibility from. There is responsibilities, there is conscious will, just no separate thinker. Again, you have a false understanding of anatta.

 

And yes, once you're enlightened like Thusness and Longchen, you will be freed from suffering, be blissful, and be free of fears.

 

You're actually criticizing all Buddhas and arhats since all of them have the same realisation of no-self and emptiness, and are freed from sufferings and are blissful (though also free from fears, are responsible, etc)

 

p.s. there is no such thing as 'a state of no self'. No Self IS a Dharma Seal, it is not a state, it is a realisation, an insight into the nature of reality, that you cannot enter into nor get out of. This in Zen is called the Great Samadhi that has no entry and exit.

 

Anyway, the whole goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If there was no way to end suffering, Buddha wouldn't have bothered, since that is his only intention.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Again, you are treating Awareness as some sort of soul, entity, atman, that can move from one body to the next. Awareness is not an atman. Awareness is empty. Awareness has no location, whether in this body, or the next body, or anywhere.

 

Another common misunderstanding about what Atman means. Atman is not a Soul that transfers from body to body (this misunderstanding is a result of projection of Abrahamic religions onto Dharmic traditions) . Atman IS Brahman -- a non-dual Pure Consciousness.

[xabir2005]

Another common misunderstanding about what Atman means. Atman is not a Soul that transfers from body to body (this misunderstanding is a result of projection of Abrahamic religions onto Dharmic traditions) . Atman IS Brahman -- a non-dual Pure Consciousness.

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.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

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.

 

And I was hoping he wasn't going to say it.

 

a non-dual Pure Consciousness.

 

Now we have a Universal Consciousness - a God!

 

I don't buy this, of course.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

It's funny how I always 'coincidentally' (wasn't intending to find such articles) find articles that are related to what I was writing, and in this case, an article Thusness shared with me in 2005 and told me was very good, but I never really read until now. It is also related to the 2nd discourse ever taught by Buddha in Anattalakkhana Sutta)

 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/anatta_jagaro.html

Anatta (Non-self) and Kamma (Karma)

The Best Kept Secret in the Universe

by Ajahn Jagaro

The teaching on Anatta or non-self is one of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism, and may be the most important feature which makes the Buddha's teaching quite unique. The other aspect of the teaching which is sometimes seen to be difficult to reconcile or explain, interms of anatta, is the teaching of kamma or the law of kamma, which is the law of cause and results. The causes we create through our actions of body, speech and mind, and the consequences that arise from these actions. The law of kamma states that as we sow so shall we reap, and whatever kamma we shall do, we will be the heirs that inherit it. This to many people seems some what of a contradiction. On the one part we have the teaching of anatta, that there is no self or a personal permanent constant entity. So how can there be someone who inherits the results of what they do now?

 

So this evening I would like to speak on these two aspects of the teaching and also how they relate to each other, possibly illustrate how there is no contradiction at all. It is quite the opposite in fact, for to understand one it does require the other. Actually when the Buddha taught the teaching of anatta or non-self, it needed or required the law of kamma, the law of conditionality, and the law of dependent origination to fill in the gap.

 

The concept of anatta or non-self is of great importance in Buddha's teaching, and it is the one aspect of the teaching which is quite often found by newcomers to Buddhism, or even traditional Buddhists, to be very difficult to understand. Elusive, abstract and foreign. These terms could be used to describe how we react to this teaching when we hear it, and rightly so. There is nothing from our experience - the way we experience life, perceive life, think and communicate - which would give the secret away. It is the best kept secret in the universe. Only a Buddha or someone with the qualities and perfections of a Buddha could possibly penetrate this mystery or the secret without the guidance of another. That is why it is rare for a Buddha to arise in the world to penetrate this particular fundamental truth. It is so difficult because their are no hints. Even Sherlock Holmes could not have solved this one. It is completely contrary to what the appearance seems to indicate, and this is the teaching of non-self.

 

What the teaching says is, that within this human being, consisting of mind and body, or consisting of body and the mental attributes of feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, there is no permanent, personal entity which can be called a self or soul or ego. It does not sound right. Our experience seems to point back to someone in here, who is the experiencer, who owns "me" and "mine."

 

This is the appearance which seems real. Even when people develop high states of meditation, as they did before the Buddha in India, where there were many different systems of religious teachers, spiritual seekers with their own systems of training of the mind, who were very accomplished, they simply were stuck on this appearance of a permanent self. There was a centre to all this subjective experience. There was a self, a centre point. Someone in there who is experiencing. Therefore every teaching that came out of India seemed to revolve around this one form or another dealing with this atman or atta or self or ego. In Christianity we have the soul. So there are many different notions about this core which is the real me, and everything else are attributes of me - my things, my body, my thoughts or my feelings. The me was the root of all these. So the Buddha in his teaching has burst the bubble and realised for himself that there was really no self, no real point that was a centre, and there was no self as such, and taught the teaching of no-self. But non-self is not meaning nothing, no personality. Of course you are you, the person sitting there. There is a mind and body, there is a personality, but there is no permanent entity. No aspect of that which you take yourself to be, which is permanent, or personal in the sense of being independent. And I will elaborate on this.

 

What do we mean by what we call atta or self? What attributes should a self or soul have? A self or soul, if it is really you, should have, in order to have any significance or meaning so that it is really you, the following characteristics:

 

1. It has to be independent; otherwise how could it be really you. If other things can make it change, how can it be really you? So it has to stand independently.

2. If it is really yours, it must be completely in your power.

 

This is a reasonable definition of me, which must be fulfilled for me to be real. If this 'me' does not fulfil this definition or does not have these attributes, then it is a fantasy. An 'I' or soul or 'me' dependent on other things, which changes dependent on other things, cannot be much of a 'me'. How can it be mine if I cannot completely control it? For example, consider an object which I possess like a watch. You can speak about it and say that this is my watch. None of you will disagree with that. It's my watch. That is the appearance in conventional reality, but if you look more closely, is it true? Is it really my watch in an absolute sense, other than in a conventionally accepted sense or merely for normal usage? In an absolute sense, it is not my watch, because I am going to lose it one day. Something will happen to it or it will get stolen, or I will die and somebody will inherit it. So in an absolute sense it is not mine, but something that will be with me temporarily. It really belongs where it comes from -the resources of the planet. Where will it go back - to the resources of the planet, like the matter of the universe. That is where it comes from and it will go back there. It is mine temporarily. So it is not mine in an absolute sense.

 

Let us apply the same analogy to internal phenomena. That which is closest to me, 'my body', and we find that in actual fact when you apply this analysis, it is no different than the watch. As far as where the body comes from and where it goes back to, it is the same as the watch. Because of its changeability you can't say that it is mine. If it is mine I would make it different to what it is. It does not behave as I want it to, neither does your body behave as you want it to. You would notice this when we apply the same standards. If it is mine, I must have complete power to make it as I wish and I would wish everything that is mine be just as I wanted always, and I would be perfectly happy. Of course no one has ever been able to do that. But we all try and we all feel tremendous frustration at our inability to succeed.

 

So not mine are the emotional feelings, perceptions, mental formations, thoughts, consciousness itself and the way the mental process operates. We'll apply the same analysis and see whether you can make your feelings as you want them to be and your thoughts to be as you want them to be. How many times a day do you feel what you don't want to feel, and remember what you don't want to remember, and think what you don't want to think? Your consciousness may dwell on some state of mind you do not want to have. The more you do not want to have, the more it comes out. Is this I really yours? And what is it in there that is you? What is it in this being that is sitting here 'you'? Am I the centre 'me' standing independently of everything else or is there anything else? The Buddha said no, and he stated it in no confusing terms. He stated very clearly - anatta, not self over and over again. Somebody might try to reinterpret the teaching of the Buddha as if there is some other self. In the Buddha's teaching there is no self to be found in this mind and body, of any form or any shape either in it or out of it anywhere. No self - full stop.

 

But this is not to be accepted through belief, but to be realised through careful investigation. It is a well kept secret and only a mind which is extraordinarily well trained and disciplined and also knowledgeable can break through to this truth. The signs are not so easy to read. The conditioning is so strong. However we are fortunatethat we have the seeds. The seeds are being planted in our minds through the Buddha's teaching. You have heard the possibility, rather than hearing over and over again that the real you is within you, the soul - and after it dies it will go to heaven or hell. That is the real self. You believe it whether you understand or not. Maybe actually there is nobody there, nobody at home at all. So you can't forget that now. So when your mind is strong enough, through the practice of meditation, this inquiry will start. What is it that is me? What is it that I take myself to be? Look with clarity and attention, and it is possible to realise directly the teaching of non-self. The only time that one can really understand is when you see it with insight. Until then we can appreciate logically and intellectually, think about it, but we cannot have that direct seeing. Until we have that direct seeing we do not have right view. We cannot have the right view with regard to the nature of the body and mind. So one needs to get this as a personal subjective experience through insight. However it is sufficient for now to dwell and point out what the Buddha taught about anatta.

 

There is no self in this body or in the mind process. I stress the word process because the body and the mind is not one lump of stationary matter and stationary mental states. It is an ongoing process, dynamically moving, changing always, and becoming something else, and this is when we come to the other aspects of the teaching of the Buddha. When there is no self how can this continue, how can it keep going? What is there if there is no self, if there is no one there? How does this function? Here the Buddha mentions the fundamental laws that operate in the universe. They are not created by anybody. They are not dependent on somebody's power. The existence of samsara implies these laws. The laws imply samsara. This is what samsara is. These are the laws that control it. These fundamental laws can be broken down into several. The broadest one is the law of conditionality. Usually we say that this is the law of cause and effect. This is not a good terminology because it is much more complicated than that. It is the law of conditionality. Broadly speaking, what it means is that, whatever arises, arises from conditions. When the conditions are there the result comes about. When the conditions are not there the result cannot come about. The Buddha expressed in a very succinct statement:

 

When this is, that is.

When this arises, that arises.

When this is not, that is not.

When this ceases, that ceases.

 

You can apply this to a whole range of phenomena, physical and mental, internal or external, animate or inanimate. It is just a fundamental law that operates all the time without somebody ruling over it. That is all inclusive. There is nothing outside it. According to the law of conditionality based on conditions the results come about. When the conditions are not there the results cannot come about.

 

I often repeat this story - how a Buddhist and a Christian may perceive something. When I was in Perth monastery, it was raining and some people came to the monastery with some children. They were Christian children. Only the parents were Buddhist. I asked the children why it is raining, and they said because God makes the rain. I said I don't believe that. They asked me what I think about why it rains. I said because the conditions are right for it to rain - the atmospheric conditions, the temperature, wind and the clouds, and because everything is right for it to rain and it rains. Not because it is somebody's will to make it rain. This is an impersonal law, it is not biased. Completely unbiased and fair in its operation. It operates at the internal level too.

 

The law of kamma basically is that dependent on what we intentionally do, through body, speech and mind, there will be results. The nature of these results will be determined by the nature of the intention. If the intention behind the action is wholesome, the result will be pleasant or wholesome. If the nature of the action is unwholesome, the result will be unpleasant. This is the specific application of the law of conditionality. Dependent on the causes the result will come about.

 

Volition is one area of consciousness where the human mind has the ability to will. We can will the body to action, we can will our speech or thought. Quite often this is the mental attribute that people identify most strongly with as mine. If you have been meditating for some time you will probably know what I mean. When you look into yourself or listen to yourself, what does me identify mostly with? I 'will', so it must be me. I am the one who is doing this. I am the one who is asking and I am the one who is answering. I can choose to stand up or sit down. This must be me. We identify strongly with our will, intention or volition, because it appears to be the centre. But this is also no-self, and this is where you have to apply your attention very carefully. Even the volition is conditioned. Why do you will something? Why do you choose something? Why do you choose to come to the BSV and not go somewhere else? You have a choice. There is a volition there. That volition was conditioned by previous experience, thoughts, feelings and previous volition etc. So that volition or choice is not an independent thing. The choice that we make is also conditioned. Why do you think, why do you act, and speak the way you do, the choices you make? It is the result of past conditioning.

 

So even our choice (cetana), intention, or volition is kamma. This aspect of our mind is conditioned by the past. The fundamental force that drives us to make choices is the quest for happiness. Your volition comes from the quest for happiness. Your experience in the quest for happiness helps to shape your volitions, and in what directions they will drive you. So when you have this volition, intention to do, to speak and think, it is a force. Having spoken, having acted, having thought, is a force set in motion. It will have its consequences. It will shape something in the future. Immediately it will shape the state of your mind psychologically. You think an angry thought, or speak angrily, you will feel associated with it a negative state of mind. Psychologically you get a reaction almost immediately. But there will probably be other results, which can come later on, because you have set something in motion, and that will or intention is like sowing a seed. It will bring some growth with results and fruits. This is the law of kamma. Each volitional act will bring results which psychologically may be very quick, but quite often may take some time, to come about. The Buddha said that some results come in this life and some in future lives. The nature of the volition will determine the nature of the result.

 

Now at the time of death what will happen? Imagine how strong this force is. See it now in your life while you are living. This will or force that animates this body to walk around, drive it for how many years, to do this and that. Do you think at death this force will just expire and go into nothingness? The Buddha said it does not. This force, this volition which is kamma, at the time of death will in itself, just like any other force, cause the arising of a new conscious moment, as it does in the present existence. Consciousness is an arising and a ceasing. It is flowing, but that does not mean it is smooth. It is always arising and ceasing. Every conscious state of mind is flicking into existence and passing away. If you pay attention you can see that.

 

At the time of death as the mind ceases, the last ceasing consciousnessin this body causes the arising of consciousness in a new body, with a new physical base. And what arises is determined by the quality of the consciousness at the time of death. The quality of the previous consciousness conditions the arising of the new consciousness.

 

Now if there is no self, if there is no one there, can this process really continue like this on and on? The question that is often put is, if there is no self, the person who is going to inherit the kamma is a different person than that who he now is. Is it not? Why should I care? I am not going to get the results. I can do what I want. That poor guy down the road is going to get all the results.

 

It is interesting as an abstract thought. You can contemplate what you are experiencing now. Who is experiencing if there is no self? There is still experience. There is pleasure and pain, pleasant and unpleasant experience. There is no self, but the feeling is real, the state of mind is real, the happiness and unhappiness is real. These are real states of the mind though there is no self experiencing them. These states come about from past causes. The person who caused those conditions for the present state was you, or someone else. It does not matter. You are experiencing it now and it is a reality.

 

The Buddha's teaching is that there is an individuality in this process. The individuality of the process is there, the continuity of the mind and body in this life, conventionally speaking. You are the mind and the body process and there is a continuity and an individuality of the process. It's your mind and body and not my mind and body which continues from birth to death in this life. But there is the same continuity and individuality into the next life. You don't get cross wires. Your stream of mind and body does not get mixed up with my stream of mind and body. My state of mind and body does not get mixed up in what is in your account and vice versa. It stays in each person's account. There is a continuity in this stream of mind and body and this is the law of kamma. The individuality is there but there is no individual in it. So what you do now will bring about results down the road.

Who will experience it?

 

You will be there just as much as you are here now. You are here now just as much as you were present in this stream 100 years ago or a thousand lifetimes ago. You were just as much you then, as you are now. And as long as you are this stream now you will be the same stream a thousand lifetimes in the future.

What is the experiencing?

There is the pleasure, there is pain, there is suffering and happiness. How do you feel about pain and suffering now? It is not liked by anyone, whether it is you or another. It is the same a thousand lifetimes before, as now. The relationship with the experience is the same. No one likes pain. Even though there is no you like a constant personal entity in this stream, still there is this relationship that pain and unhappiness is not wanted. It is difficult to bear. So we don't create conditions that bring about this suffering. The person who is sitting here now is not completely different from the person who came here last week, but not completely the same person either. Dependent on the past the present is, dependent on the present the future will be. So the idea of kamma simply implies that the way we live, what we do intentionally, volitionally, will have consequences.

 

Not as punishment, not as reward. There is none who punishes, and none who rewards. That is because it is a law of nature, the law of conditionality. Volitional action will bring about results, and the nature of the results is determined by the nature of the volitional action. If it is positive it will bring about positive results, and of course if negative, unhappy results will follow and our relationship to the pleasant or unpleasant experience will be the same in the future as it is now. We do not want to be with that which is unpleasant. So the Buddha encourages over and over again, to cultivate good kamma.

 

Feel what you feel now, and you will know the importance of planting the right seed for the future. There is no contradiction at all in the teaching of anatta and kamma. They flow together very well because of the law of dependent origination and the law of kamma. That is why it works the way it does, without anybody ordering it. It is orderly by its very nature. Any teaching that has got the teaching of kamma could be expected to sow the seeds of goodness. Any teaching which denies the law of kamma would open the door to irresponsible selfishness because you can get away with it.

 

So this is considered the basic quality of a religion or philosophy, which will bring about good social structure and personal relationship, good moral standards, good virtuous upright living. It does not matter whether people have different religious beliefs, if they have the law of kamma by whatever word they call it, they can live together. It does not contradict with the law of anatta. Because there is no one driving, no one in the driver's seat, the laws operate and everything is orderly. No punishment, no reward, on favours, just orderly.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I wonder where you get your idea of being rid of responsibility from. There is responsibilities, there is conscious will, just no separate thinker. Again, you have a false understanding of anatta.

 

And yes, once you're enlightened like Thusness and Longchen, you will be freed from suffering, be blissful, and be free of fears.

 

You're actually criticizing all Buddhas and arhats since all of them have the same realisation of no-self and emptiness, and are freed from sufferings and are blissful (though also free from fears, are responsible, etc)

 

p.s. there is no such thing as 'a state of no self'. No Self IS a Dharma Seal, it is not a state, it is a realisation, an insight into the nature of reality, that you cannot enter into nor get out of. This in Zen is called the Great Samadhi that has no entry and exit.

 

Anyway, the whole goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. If there was no way to end suffering, Buddha wouldn't have bothered, since that is his only intention.

 

Thusness and Longchen are not enlightened. Freed from suffering is not being in a blissful state. Freed from suffering is to suffer and not suffer at will, and hence suffering and not suffering are transcended. Same with fear and responsibility. Fear is a valuable thing when seen for what it is.

 

Most people who adhere to this state probably suffered great damage to their egos of selves (most likely from a personal relationship), sought refuge and upon accidental or willful experience of I Am ness or I Am not ness, cling to the sense of release, a drug like orgasmic state (which is actually a healing practice) that comes from letting awareness be as conditioned habits allow it to be.

 

No self as a Dharma Seal makes perfect sense under my understandings. Most of your quotes, except those by Thusness and Longchen, make sense under my interpretations

 

And I will, for your sake, explain to you why being like them is like being a squirrel. A squirrel has no sense of him self (anatta), he experiences everything as they arise (oh, luminous clarity bullshit here), he lives on established instincts, lets whatever be, be. The main thing is that the squirrel is not self-conscious, hence experiences everything as simply flowing manifestations (man, that squirrel doesn't suffer from a "self"! Ha! he must be enlightened!). Denying of free will leads to all kinds of nonsensical conclusions such as these. Free will is paramount to the meaning of existence. If it is denied, I will hold the Buddha as nothing more and nothing less than a crawling cockroach or a serial killer. All just phenomena rolling on.

 

You have to also stop using quotes out of context and simply cutting and pasting. It is good if it is used wisely and selectively, but you don't. It makes your points very random and impersonal, and perhaps you've already lost the ability to think for yourself. It is very draining to go through them (not to mention most points you make are contradictory, just see how many times you use "but" "however" "this does not mean") and I imagine most who converse with you stop at a certain point because of these factors, not necessarily because they agree or disagree, but because you play like a broken record player.

 

I have posted this not as a reply to our endless talk over awareness, so please do not reply down that road.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Thusness and Longchen are not enlightened. Freed from suffering is not being in a blissful state. Freed from suffering is to suffer and not suffer at will, and hence suffering and not suffering are transcended. Same with fear and responsibility. Fear is a valuable thing when seen for what it is.

 

Most people who adhere to this state probably suffered great damage to their egos of selves (I'd say most likely from a personal relationship), sought refuge and upon accidental or willful experience of I Am ness or I Am not ness, cling to the sense of release, a drug like orgasmic state (which is actually a healing practice) that comes from letting awareness be as conditioned habits allow it to be.

 

No self as a Dharma Seal makes perfect sense under my understandings. Most of your quotes, except those by Thusness and Longchen, make sense under my interpretations

 

And I will, for your sake, explain to you why being like them is like being a squirrel. A squirrel has no sense of him self (anatta), he experiences everything as they arise (oh, luminous clarity bullshit here), he lives on established instincts, lets whatever be, be. The main thing is that the squirrel is not self-conscious, hence experiences everything as simply flowing manifestations (man, that squirrel doesn't suffer from a "self"! Ha! he must be enlightened!). Denying of free will leads to all kinds of nonsensical conclusions such as these. Free will is paramount to the meaning of existence. If it is denied, I will hold the Buddha as nothing more and nothing less than a crawling cockroach or a serial killer. All just phenomena rolling on.

What Thusness and Longchen realised about Anatta and Emptiness, is basically similar to what Buddha and other Buddhist masters have realised. It is your wrong understanding of it that causes you to think they're not enlightened.

 

Secondly, phenomena rolling on has nothing to do with being squirrel or crawling cockroach. Just because there is no producer or recipient of karma, does not mean the karma of a Buddha and a cockroach is the same.

 

 

Please read this carefully:

 

 

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.

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

 

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

 

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

 

- //Visuddhimagga//

 

 

 

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

 

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

 

Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,

 

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

 

- //Visuddhimagga//

 

 

p.s. The Dhammapada V203/204 mentions, "Nibbana is bliss supreme" and the Lord Buddha Gotama declares, "Nibbanam paramam sukham" - Nibbana is the highest bliss.

 

 

This is true, and when I met Thusness, he told us "the bliss I am experiencing right now is not something you can understand."

 

And that statement says a lot: it has nothing to do with orgasmic bliss, sexual bliss, drug bliss, or any ordinary bliss. It is also beyond even all meditation jhana bliss (jhana itself already beyond all sensual bliss). Ordinary beings can NEVER fathom it.

 

And pls, Thusness and Longchen are happily married. Thusness have 2 kids and loves his family, I've met with his whole family before. It's funny how you link personal relationship to anatta. Don't let your imagination run wild.

 

BTW, no where did Buddha ever say, "Freed from suffering is to suffer and not suffer at will". He says, it's the end of suffering, PERIOD. If you don't have ignorance, you don't suffer, just as simple as that, because suffering only arises when you have the wrong view of self, a.k.a. ignorance/delusion. You can come up with you own philosophy, but please don't attribute it wrongly with the Buddha.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

What Thusness and Longchen realised about Anatta and Emptiness, is basically similar to what Buddha and other Buddhist masters have realised. It is your wrong understanding of it that causes you to think they're not enlightened.

 

Secondly, phenomena rolling on has nothing to do with being squirrel or crawling cockroach. Just because there is no producer or recipient of karma, does not mean the karma of a Buddha and a cockroach is the same.

Please read this carefully:

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.

 

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

 

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

 

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

 

- //Visuddhimagga//

 

 

 

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

 

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

 

Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,

 

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

 

- //Visuddhimagga//

 

Phenomena roll on. Buddha roll on. Cockroach roll on. Longchen roll on. I roll on. Roll on, roll on. No doer, no one.

 

Great philosophy.

[xabir2005]

Oh by the way, the squirrel experience fears and is self-conscious. And it has all kinds of sufferings. And if you try to kill it, it fears. An arhat, however, does not fear, see the story of the lay arhat who doesn't fear and what the Buddha had to say about it in Verse 397 in http://www.vipassana.info/m.htm. And obviously, an arhat does not suffer, and I don't think I need to quote anything on that for you since that's the goal of Buddhism.

 

But just for the sake of argument, even if squirrel doesn't have a sense of self, so what? It's still not enlightened. Enlightenment is not the absence of the sense of self. Yes if you are fully enlightened you don't have a sense of a center. But that's not the point. The point is you realise there is no self from the beginning. Always already just scenery, sounds, no seer, hearer, etc.

 

That's why the emphasis on anatta as a dharma seal, not as a meditative experience. It's not something you can enter into (a state of no self), if it is a state, you will get out of it eventually. Rather, it is a permanent realisation.

 

How many times have I said that anatta is not the absence of a sense of self, but is the ever-present nature of reality (including at times in an unenlightened being when sense of self is present), in other words, a Dharma Seal?

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Phenomena roll on. Buddha roll on. Cockroach roll on. Longchen roll on. I roll on. Roll on, roll on. No doer, no one.

 

Great philosophy.

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

 

...This section is not about Maha as a stage to achieve but to see that Sunyata is Maha in nature. In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous...

[Marblehead]

... one 'feels' ... great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous...

 

You're talking about me again. Watch yourself!

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

You're talking about me again. Watch yourself!

 

Peace & Love!

 

[xabir2005]

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

 

...This section is not about Maha as a stage to achieve but to see that Sunyata is Maha in nature. In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous...

Something Longchen just posted today:

 

....Awareness (and essence) is never lost in any state.

 

There are roughly two stages of non-duality.

 

The first stage is understanding 'no subject-object division'. The second stage is a more refined transparency stage. The second stage has experiences and insight not found during the first stage non-duality. Second stage understand no-solidity, luminousity(light) and 'one-action with the universe'. The second stage understands the 'whole/universe' better.

 

...

 

IMO, 'Emptiness' is realised at the second stage non-duality. During the first stage, the visions has no inner-outer division, but all the 'colours' of visions are still there.

 

During the second-stage, the 'colours' becomes transparent and bright luminousity... resulting in better understanding of 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. Additionally, one experiences that one's action is the same as the action of the whole universe. One realises that space is an illusion and all activities are simultaneous with the 'entirety/whole'. This is meant by when we eat, the whole universe eats.

 

 

p.s. for Lucky, I wonder if you read Ajahn Jagaro's article too, which talks about karma/volition and its relation to anatta.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[C T]

Eventually everything becomes One Taste.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

 

...This section is not about Maha as a stage to achieve but to see that Sunyata is Maha in nature. In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous...

 

What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote above?

 

p.s. for Lucky, I wonder if you read Ajahn Jagaro's article too, which talks about karma/volition and its relation to anatta.

 

I did read it. It's filled with inconsistencies and subjective definitions and categorizations of "cause" "conditions" "Karma" and "will." All used to ameliorate the consequences of denying a self and the obvious result which is: no free will. No free will, phenomena roll on, Buddha = a monkey.

 

Something Longchen just posted today:

 

....Awareness (and essence) is never lost in any state.

 

There are roughly two stages of non-duality.

 

The first stage is understanding 'no subject-object division'. The second stage is a more refined transparency stage. The second stage has experiences and insight not found during the first stage non-duality. Second stage understand no-solidity, luminousity(light) and 'one-action with the universe'. The second stage understands the 'whole/universe' better.

 

...

 

IMO, 'Emptiness' is realised at the second stage non-duality. During the first stage, the visions has no inner-outer division, but all the 'colours' of visions are still there.

 

During the second-stage, the 'colours' becomes transparent and bright luminousity... resulting in better understanding of 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'. Additionally, one experiences that one's action is the same as the action of the whole universe. One realises that space is an illusion and all activities are simultaneous with the 'entirety/whole'. This is meant by when we eat, the whole universe eats.

p.s. for Lucky, I wonder if you read Ajahn Jagaro's article too, which talks about karma/volition and its relation to anatta.

 

LOL. The whole "universe eats."

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

 

And HE is enlightened?

 

HAHAHAHHAHHA.

 

The "universe" suffers, the "universe" enlightens (your definition of it), the "universe" become a Buddha, the "universe" meditates....

 

You're hopeless. You can only reply again and again with this luminosity, stages, subject-object, how great this state is being spontaneous and all that, when I ask logical consequences of adhering to this state as reality. It is like talking to a heroin addict, trying to convince him that there is life out of being high, and all he can talk about is how great getting high is and how this state is really the real way to experience "reality."

Edited January 16, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

What the hell does this have to do with what I wrote above?

I did read it. It's filled with inconsistencies and subjective definitions and categorizations of "cause" "conditions" "Karma" and "will." All used to ameliorate the consequences of denying a self and the obvious result which is: no free will. No free will, phenomena roll on, Buddha = a monkey.

LOL. The whole "universe eats."

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

 

And HE is enlightened?

 

HAHAHAHHAHHA.

 

The "universe" suffers, the "universe" enlightens (your definition of it), the "universe" become a Buddha, the "universe" meditates....

 

You're hopeless. You can only reply again and again with this luminosity, stages, subject-object, how great this state is being spontaneous and all that, when I ask logical consequences of adhering to this state as reality. It is like talking to a heroin addict, trying to convince him that there is life out of being high, and all he can talk about is how great getting high is and how this state is really the real way to experience "reality."

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.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005