There is no self

[ralis]

[xabir2005]

What is your experience?

 

ralis

My experience is that there is a clear difference between the 'sense of existence' or the One Mind and the experience of just the 'radiant world' which I both experienced. Both are the same experience: one taste, it is both the experience of luminosity, yet different level of deconstruction. For example one who experiences the I AM/sense of existence may not experience the impersonality aspect, and having experienced that aspect doesn't mean one has deconstructed the subject-object construct leading to the experience of non-division with the world, etc etc (stages before that have a sense of a Witness observing world).

 

However, even though I intuitively understand the difference, I cannot say that I have relinquished the Self, in other words there are mental constructs and tendencies to reference back to a Self.

 

An experience that is similar to Stage 5 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment 'just manifestation' doesn't mean one has given rise to the insight of anatta. If one has given rise to this insight however, then it is permanent, and the constructs and tendencies that prevent sustaining of non-dual experience are removed via insight.

Edited April 3, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

And yet Taoism says that First there was Only One, the One Chi, Wu out of which rose Yin, Yang and Chi. First there was only One, then two and then three and from there rose the 10,000 things...

 

Find a quote from Laozu or Zhuangzu that there was only one.. I hardly think any Taoist worth his damn would agree with that since the Tao is inexpressible, to say One is to imply another as a reference point, its a dualistic concept.

 

This is silly! The fact that you are making such a hue and cry about "No Self" is because you start with a "Self". So, your original premise is that there IS a Self that you are trying to prove as non existent.

 

So, to me, it makes sense that I consider this "thing" the Self, because that is what I have experienced in the gap between thoughts. To you, may be it is "Not Self". It doesn't matter...the experience is what is important...the direct cognition of it...the intuitive intelligence (Prajna) that rises from it. It makes us realize that material things are transient and don't matter, in face of the Eternal "Nothing/Something-ness".

 

What you're saying is true, to an extent. Except by 'Self' you mean existence, or AMness. Existence is undeniable since if there wasn't existence, there wouldn't be questions. Descartes made the same mistake though, he denied everything except existence and thus concluded 'I exist therefore I am' -- but where is this I?

 

The nature of Self or I as a word is a reference point, the concept refers back to something or someone here. The Buddhist no-self does not deny experience but it denies that there is someone here separate from everything else happening. This 'someone' is an interrelated phenomenological happening. To say 'I' is to cut up reality, to say Self is to deny Other. How can there be Self without Other? Experience itself is free of such dualistic concepts, there is only experience but no separate self from that experience. The concept 'I' isn't bad, it has pragmatic value but it bears no metaphysical truth value. It's just a deeply ingained thought pattern stemming from wrongly viewing reality based on a dualistic paradigm.

 

Meditation isn't what you think -- at least, not in the sense that there exists a pure non-conceptual state free from dualistic mind patterns. To access the state between thoughts does not mean that no subtle non-verbal thoughts exist in this 'pure consciousness' you refer to. It still has deep primal seeds of dualistic concepts in there. That's why you come out reifying. It's just a deep tendency. There's no self or Self. Both are dualistic concepts that limit nondual insight from being truly nonconceptual.

Edited April 3, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Find a quote from Laozu or Zhuangzu that there was only one.. I hardly think any Taoist worth his damn would agree with that since the Tao is inexpressible, to say One is to imply another as a reference point, its a dualistic concept.

 

Hi Mikaelz,

 

Please excuse my interruption:

 

How about some words from Lao Tzu?

 

Before the beginning,

Tao existed but all was chaos;

Tao did not have a manifest form.

 

The Tao gave birth to the One;

 

Sorry. I don't know who's translation this is. Dr. Wang's translation reads:

 

With Chaotic substance,

it exists before heaven and earth.

Silent and scant,

it stands independently without change.

It is the mother of heavben and earth.

We do not know its name,

and call it Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

Hi Mikaelz,

 

Please excuse my interruption:

 

How about some words from Lao Tzu?

 

Before the beginning,

Tao existed but all was chaos;

Tao did not have a manifest form.

 

The Tao gave birth to the One;

 

Sorry. I don't know who's translation this is. Dr. Wang's translation reads:

 

With Chaotic substance,

it exists before heaven and earth.

Silent and scant,

it stands independently without change.

It is the mother of heavben and earth.

We do not know its name,

and call it Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Thank you, though Dwai was saying first there was 'One' but that's not true, first there was Tao and Tao is timeless. Dwai was implying that Tao is monist concept but it's not.

 

Anyway, I like this quote, quite good.

 

 

The Tao that can be known is not Tao.

The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.

Tao is all that exists and may exist;

The World is only a map of what exists and may exist.

 

One experiences without Self to sense the World,

And experiences with Self to understand the World.

The two experiences are the same within Tao;

They are distinct only within the World.

Neither experience conveys Tao

Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World.

 

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v1.txt

But let us remember that the 10,000 things are just as 'real' as is "One".

 

Yes, all things are Tao. True, none except "One" are permanent and non-changing. But in the short term we observe the changes of the non-changing "One".

 

Yes, all things are dependent on the processes of Tao (Tzujan). Without change things would not exist.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Confused.. which translation and passage from which Taoist sage did you get this equating of Tao with 'One'? It seems in my reading that Tao has always been non-conceptual and never equated with such a concept.

Edited April 4, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101801.htm

 

Daoism and Buddhism are unique among the great religions in denying the ontological self. Anatma non-self is one of the three basic "facts" taught by Sakyamuni Buddha, along with anitya impermanence and duhkha dissatisfaction. Two of his basic teachings deconstruct the self synchronically into skandha "heaps" and diachronically into pratitya-samutpada "dependent-origination". These doctrines explain how the illusion of self is constituted and maintained. All experiences associated with the illusory sense-of-self can be analyzed into one of five impersonal skandhas (form, sensation, perception, volitional tendencies and conditioned consciousness), with no remainder: there is no transcendental soul or persisting self to be found over and above their functioning.

 

This skandha analysis has, however, been overshadowed and even subsumed into pratitya-samutpada, the most important Buddhist doctrine. Dependent-origination explains "our" experience by locating all phenomena within an interacting set of twelve factors (ignorance, volitional tendencies, conditioned consciousness, the fetus, sense-organs, contact, sensation, craving, grasping, becoming, new birth, suffering and death), each conditioning and conditioned by all the others. In response to the question of how rebirth can occur without a self that is reborn, rebirth is explained as one in a series of impersonal processes which occur without there being any self that is doing them or experiencing them. When asked to whom belong, and for whom occur, the phenomena described in pratitya-samutpada, the Buddha explained that each factor arises from the preconditions created by the other factors; that's all. The karmic results of action are experienced without there being anyone who created the karma or who receives its fruit, although there is a causal connection between the act and its result.

 

As one would expect from its very different literary style, the Zhuangzi is less systematic in its critique of the self, yet the rejection is no less clear. Chapter one declares that "the utmost man is selfless" and chapter seventeen that "the great man has no self" (pp. 45, 150). Chapter two, the most philosophical, begins with Ziqi in a trance, to reveal afterwards that "this time I had lost my self, didn't you know?" Like other anecdotes about mind-fasting, which explain how to lose one's self, these passages are not concerned to philosophically deconstruct the self into its elements, but they emphasize or presuppose the need to get beyond self.

 

Instead of offering an account of social development or evolution, Daoist history is the story of a progressive decline in our understanding of the Way. Some of the old sages knew the ultimate, which is that there are no self-existing things; everything is a manifestation of the Dao. Later, people perceived the world as made up of things, but these things were not seen as separate from each other; their interrelationships and transformations meant the world was still experienced as a whole. After that, people came to see things as truly discrete, the world became a collection of objects, yet even they did not use discriminative thinking to understand the world. Once people employed and became trapped in their own dualistic concepts, the Dao was lost.

 

In terms of the image, self-forgetting or mind-losing (wang xin) is the practice of polishing one's mind-mirror and keeping it clean of impurities. To say the least, such meditative techniques are also important in Buddhism, which is probably the richest of the world's contemplative traditions. Although Nagarjuna mentions little about such practices, as a monastic he was doubtless familiar with them and they provide the context within which his work must be situated, especially its emphasis on prapancopasama, the cessation of conceptual ways of understanding, which is necessary if one is to experience things as they are. Burton Watson suspects that the Zhuangzi must originally have been accompanied by similar practices to help students realize what it is talking about, yet all that survives in the text are some references to controlled breathing.

 

By such practices the xin of the sage becomes "the reflector of heaven and earth, the mirror of the myriad things" (ch. 13, p. 259). Nonetheless, the mirror-metaphor, like all metaphors, has its limitations. To be a perfectly-polished mirror is not quite the same as being no-thing at all: there is still a dualism between the reflector and the reflected. This may encourage the tendency of contemplative types to stand back from the world, but Zhuangzi will have none of that: "To be transformed day by day with other things is to be untransformed once and for all. Why not try to let them go? For the sage, there has never yet begun to be Heaven, never yet begun to be man, never yet begun to be a Beginning, never yet begun to be things" (ch. 25, pp. 110-111). To forget oneself completely, truly to become no-thing, means more than to reflect the transformations of things: it is to be wholly identified with them, to be them -- in which case there are no things and no transformations, since "that which is without anything is for ever without anything" (quoted above). Such a world is not a collection of things but is composed of events. Evidently someone who realizes she is no-thing remains no-thing even as she playfully assumes this or that form. When there is no thing or self that exerts itself to do things, there is the spontaneity (ziran, "so of itself") of actions that are experienced as no actions (wu wei), of transformations that are just as much non-transformations.

 

When I forget my-self I fall into the world, I become its manifold of interdependent phenomena transforming into each other. What does mean for language and truth? Do they too become such a manifold?

[Marblehead]

Thank you, though Dwai was saying first there was 'One' but that's not true, first there was Tao and Tao is timeless. Dwai was implying that Tao is monist concept but it's not.

 

Anyway, I like this quote, quite good.

 

The Tao that can be known is not Tao.

The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.

Tao is all that exists and may exist;

The World is only a map of what exists and may exist.

 

One experiences without Self to sense the World,

And experiences with Self to understand the World.

The two experiences are the same within Tao;

They are distinct only within the World.

Neither experience conveys Tao

Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World.

 

I agree. A good quote. The difference, perhaps, between realization and understanding?

 

But let us remember that the 10,000 things are just as 'real' as is "One".

Yes, all things are Tao. True, none except "One" are permanent and non-changing. But in the short term we observe the changes of the non-changing "One".

Yes, all things are dependent on the processes of Tao (Tzujan). Without change things would not exist.

 

Confused.. which translation and passage from which Taoist sage did you get this equating of Tao with 'One'? It seems in my reading that Tao has always been non-conceptual and never equated with such a concept.

 

Those are my words and I may not have presented them properly.

 

Henricks' translation of Chapter 42:

 

1. The Way gave birth to the One.

2. The One gave birth to the Two.

 

This can be understood as reading, "Tzujan gave (or caused the birth of) birth to the One", One being all things and all non-things (energy and potential) - that would be Tao.

 

I oftentimes relate "One" with "Singularity", that is, what existed before the big bang.

 

Yes, "One" is non-descriptive becaue it includes all things and all non-things. That is Tao, isn't it?

 

So we have the problem of talking about something that can't be talked about. Hehehe. But still we try.

 

Yes, there is something that has always been - never changing. I hold to the understanding that this is Tzujan (the natural processes), not Tao. In my mind, Tao is dynamic, ever-changing.

 

How did I do?

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

When I forget my-self I fall into the world, I become its manifold of interdependent phenomena transforming into each other. What does mean for language and truth? Do they too become such a manifold?

[/i][/i]

 

Hi Michael,

 

That is a fair quote.

 

I think it is important to remember though that when Chuang Tzu speaks about loosing one's self he is not speaking about believing that the self is an illusion. He is speaking to entering the full state of 'wu wei'. We are still our body, it is just that our body (and our mind) embraces the One. Loosing our self suggests that we have no opinion of our own and therefore can view reality as it truely is as opposed to placing our expectations and prejudices on externals.

 

I will never stop agreeing the "I" am only temporary. But "I", at this point in time, am a real part of the Manifest and therefore a part of "One". The body will die one day. "I" will no longer exist. All of what was "I" will recycle. Regretfully, I can't speak to anything about beyond death because I'm not there yet.

 

I will agree that there really isn't all that much difference between Buddhism and Taoism. Words and their translations and mis-translations and mis-understandings are what causes what appears to be great differences. There really are no 'great' differences.

 

Peace & Love!

[RongzomFan]

 

Why don't you tell us all how you have actualized Madhyamaka from your own personal meditation experience? It has been my experience that a person is best served by taking a technique, practicing it a lot, noting what you've learned, then use your own words to describe what you've gained or lost spiritually.

 

 

 

Copy of my first post, since you did not read it

 

If "I" is the body, when the body dies there would be nothing. Total annhilation. There would be no reason for spirituality or morality.

 

If "I" is Brahman/Self, death of the physical body would not matter at all.

 

So "I" logically must be something in the middle.

 

The thought "I" feels relatively solid and static, even though every aspect of you constantly changes. Emotions and thoughts are constantly in flux.

 

Focus on the CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the NOW instead of focusing on the thoughtstream.

 

Realize that "I" is literally a thought. You can even practice it right now. Repeat in your mind "I am looking at a computer screen", which you are. See how "I" is LITERALLY a thought. Notice that "my" and "mine" are literally thoughts. Thus how can a THOUGHT own anything? How can a THOUGHT own a plasma tv, or ipod? Saying "This ipod is mine" does not make sense. There may be an ipod in your hands, but thats about it.

 

Bring to mind various friends and family, and recognize how they exist in your mind as a flawed packet of memories (happy memories of childhood perhaps?) and future projections (projections into a fictitious future). When a person is standing in front of you, notice that even though their thoughts and emotions are constantly fluctuating, your thoughtform of them is relatively static. So thus realize the false nature of people-thoughtforms. By the way, this is the ultimate meaning of forgiveness, if you hold a grudge against someone.

 

Look at something valuable like diamonds and gold in a jewelry store window and then look at something not valuable. You will realize something interesting...I won't spoil the surprise though. Also imagine yourself as emperor of the world followed by imagining yourself as a poor bum on the streets.

 

Dalai Lama likes to say sunyata is simply the discrepency between every thoughtform and how reality is. Time, yourself, other people exist in your mind as highly flawed thoughtform packets/bundles. For example, go look at clock right now. It is just an object with two pieces of metal pointing at two different spots on a dial. There is no such thing as time.

 

Every thoughtform (and all of them are flawed) will produce either 1) affinity or 2) aversion. The key is to be centered enough in the the present moment beforehand. And everyone is already perfectly centered, you just have to acknowledge this. So this method is effortless and easy. It is already accomplished.

Edited April 4, 2010 by alwayson

[JustARandomPanda]

I started to read this thread but only got about 50% through. I don't know what's wrong with me these days but I'm questioning everything. I have begun to ask myself where and when I got my opinions or knowledge of anything and where/when it comes from. In other words - If I believe Taoism or Buddhism where did that come from and why give it any importance? I haven't been able to verify one iota of the supposed wisdom of either philosophy / way-of-life, etc. What's more the vast majority of people who are satisfied with it can't tell me what are the propensities and properties of their mind and life that pre-dispose them to accepting these religions / philosphies.

 

What floors me is how everyone seems happy to have an opinion but has no real desire to know where they came from or why they believe their opinion. It's as though the only standard is "I had/have this opinion, therefore it is valid and good". The lack of desire to question, to dig down deep and rip-up their beliefs and opinions to see the roots or even if there are roots I find disheartening.

 

Everyone in life is so confident and assured of their opinion. Everyone knows about themselves or even if they don't they're content not knowing and it doesn't disturb them that they don't know where their opinions, beliefs, volition comes from. Why do we believe these texts in the first place? Who taught us? Why do we believe what we believe now rather than an opinion we had 5 years ago that was different?

 

I feel so alone. One reason why I am posting less at TaoBums these days.

 

There is such a gap between arguments and the real deal.

 

Between the idea and the reality,

falls the shadow...

[Birch]

THIS!

 

Thank you SB.

 

This is OT but this post made me think of it.

 

There was a request a while back that people posting also post their practices - as in type, frequency etc. I'm starting to see how important that information might be to other people. For example, if you're practicing Vipassana then it could (might?) have some systemic effects that other people could maybe discern as being "path-specific" I'm thinking it might help. Maybe not...

 

If you're practicing Kunlun or KAP, then those might have some effects that other people could maybe discern. Again specific to practice. I know that a lot of this this happening in the mind, there would be a bunch of issues with reporting it vs reporting other effects. Then we'd also have to contend with the promoters of various practices...oh just forget the dumb idea

[Sunya]

I started to read this thread but only got about 50% through. I don't know what's wrong with me these days but I'm questioning everything. I have begun to ask myself where and when I got my opinions or knowledge of anything and where/when it comes from. In other words - If I believe Taoism or Buddhism where did that come from and why give it any importance? I haven't been able to verify one iota of the supposed wisdom of either philosophy / way-of-life, etc. What's more the vast majority of people who are satisfied with it can't tell me what are the propensities and properties of their mind and life that pre-dispose them to accepting these religions / philosphies.

 

What floors me is how everyone seems happy to have an opinion but has no real desire to know where they came from or why they believe their opinion. It's as though the only standard is "I had/have this opinion, therefore it is valid and good". The lack of desire to question, to dig down deep and rip-up their beliefs and opinions to see the roots or even if there are roots I find disheartening.

 

Everyone in life is so confident and assured of their opinion. Everyone knows about themselves or even if they don't they're content not knowing and it doesn't disturb them that they don't know where their opinions, beliefs, volition comes from. Why do we believe these texts in the first place? Who taught us? Why do we believe what we believe now rather than an opinion we had 5 years ago that was different?

 

I feel so alone. One reason why I am posting less at TaoBums these days.

 

There is such a gap between arguments and the real deal.

 

Between the idea and the reality,

falls the shadow...

 

I think it's quite good to question everything, that is the sign of a true inquirer and takes a real sense of character because questioning doesn't lead to happiness, at least not right away. I've had many moments of utter dispair and realizing I don't know anything. Doubting everything leaves you with this very moment free of concepts, but what about doubting the doubter? Who is asking the question? Is that a given or can it too be doubted?

 

Anyway, the opinions of others are not always opinions; some know what they are talking about. I think we should be very thankful for having others around. The path of the solitary realizer is extremely difficult, and even he learns from the world around him. There is truly no such thing as a solitary realizer due to that. Since we have the wisdom of others to guide us, their words to point us in the right direction, and their experiences to motivate us... we are very lucky. The teachings of the various paths serve as that, a Way for us to follow. It is all up to you on how you travel the path and whether you follow it at all. Some like to do things the hard way and figure things out for themselves through trial and error. That's my way, it's not fun. Others just pick it up intuitively and follow along and get quite far. Those of us who are extremely skeptical tend to make the slowest progress... but we also have a very beautiful inquisitiveness that might take us even further than those who don't question the teachings. Perhaps our skeptical nature allows us, eventually, to embrace the teachings even more fully once we realize through our skepticism that the teachings after all are true, and so we have even stronger devotion.

 

About opinions themselves, they require belief.. and sometimes that belief is necessary. If you want to rip up your beliefs then that is another matter and you are on a different path than those who need beliefs. Not everyone is ready for the brutal game of ego dissolution. But... I think beliefs in the right things can serve as gradual steps down into the true nature of non-conceptuality. They are actually quite unavoidable until you have direct insight into the way of things. As long as thoughts dictate your knowledge, you're stuck in beliefs. Thoughts all stem from beliefs, they truly are unavoidable.

 

So we are talking about the nature of thoughts then, that is the real essence of the topic. Not beliefs, not opinions, but thoughts. What is the underlying assumption of our pre-occupation with thoughts? All thoughts have an underlying assumption of a referential point -- they all seem to point inward at a self existing somewhere independent of thought, a soul or pebble of being that is somewhere but cannot be found. Even the desire of shredding apart beliefs depends on someone doing the shredding. Is there a thinker? I don't know!

Edited April 5, 2010 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

I started to read this thread but only got about 50% through. I don't know what's wrong with me these days but I'm questioning everything. I have begun to ask myself where and when I got my opinions or knowledge of anything and where/when it comes from. In other words - If I believe Taoism or Buddhism where did that come from and why give it any importance? I haven't been able to verify one iota of the supposed wisdom of either philosophy / way-of-life, etc. What's more the vast majority of people who are satisfied with it can't tell me what are the propensities and properties of their mind and life that pre-dispose them to accepting these religions / philosphies.

 

What floors me is how everyone seems happy to have an opinion but has no real desire to know where they came from or why they believe their opinion. It's as though the only standard is "I had/have this opinion, therefore it is valid and good". The lack of desire to question, to dig down deep and rip-up their beliefs and opinions to see the roots or even if there are roots I find disheartening.

 

Everyone in life is so confident and assured of their opinion. Everyone knows about themselves or even if they don't they're content not knowing and it doesn't disturb them that they don't know where their opinions, beliefs, volition comes from. Why do we believe these texts in the first place? Who taught us? Why do we believe what we believe now rather than an opinion we had 5 years ago that was different?

 

I feel so alone. One reason why I am posting less at TaoBums these days.

 

There is such a gap between arguments and the real deal.

 

Between the idea and the reality,

falls the shadow...

Practice Vipassana or Self-Inquiry (whichever you prefer). It will lead to unshakeable certainty beyond doubts about Reality. Then you will not get confused.

[Marblehead]

I started to read this thread but only got about 50% through. I don't know what's wrong with me these days but I'm questioning everything. I have begun to ask myself where and when I got my opinions or knowledge of anything and where/when it comes from. In other words - If I believe Taoism or Buddhism where did that come from and why give it any importance? I haven't been able to verify one iota of the supposed wisdom of either philosophy / way-of-life, etc. What's more the vast majority of people who are satisfied with it can't tell me what are the propensities and properties of their mind and life that pre-dispose them to accepting these religions / philosphies.

 

 

Hi Serene,

 

I practice life. Life is what took me to Taoism - I didn't go looking for it. Once Taoism found me there was no other place for me to go, nothing to do except keep on living.

 

Yes, question your beliefs. If the roots of your beliefs do not hold water then they should be discarded.

 

However, you don't need to have any established beliefs in order to live a full and satisfying life. You don't "need" to 'practice' this or that, just live.

 

The only other thing I will say is that if a belief causes you inner conflict then that belief is not true for you; find something else, or nothing.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

I started to read this thread but only got about 50% through. I don't know what's wrong with me these days but I'm questioning everything. I have begun to ask myself where and when I got my opinions or knowledge of anything and where/when it comes from. In other words - If I believe Taoism or Buddhism where did that come from and why give it any importance? I haven't been able to verify one iota of the supposed wisdom of either philosophy / way-of-life, etc. What's more the vast majority of people who are satisfied with it can't tell me what are the propensities and properties of their mind and life that pre-dispose them to accepting these religions / philosphies.

 

What floors me is how everyone seems happy to have an opinion but has no real desire to know where they came from or why they believe their opinion. It's as though the only standard is "I had/have this opinion, therefore it is valid and good". The lack of desire to question, to dig down deep and rip-up their beliefs and opinions to see the roots or even if there are roots I find disheartening.

 

Everyone in life is so confident and assured of their opinion. Everyone knows about themselves or even if they don't they're content not knowing and it doesn't disturb them that they don't know where their opinions, beliefs, volition comes from. Why do we believe these texts in the first place? Who taught us? Why do we believe what we believe now rather than an opinion we had 5 years ago that was different?

 

I feel so alone. One reason why I am posting less at TaoBums these days.

 

There is such a gap between arguments and the real deal.

 

Between the idea and the reality,

falls the shadow...

 

I think a lot of this crap we are discussing is due to our egos not letting the subject go. I know I am guilty of ego-gratification (perhaps less so in the recent period) via debating. I am certain that it doesn't matter one bit whether one believes in the self or no-self at the stage most folks on this forum are (myself included)...we are are engaging in is from the desire to "prove" ourselves "right" and others "wrong"...plain and simple.

[Marblehead]

I think a lot of this crap we are discussing is due to our egos not letting the subject go. I know I am guilty of ego-gratification (perhaps less so in the recent period) via debating. I am certain that it doesn't matter one bit whether one believes in the self or no-self at the stage most folks on this forum are (myself included)...we are are engaging in is from the desire to "prove" ourselves "right" and others "wrong"...plain and simple.

 

I'm not going to say anything but I am going to laugh.

 

Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

The bottom line is, it is all phenomena!

 

 

ralis

[3bob]

Hello Xabir2005, My blue text responses to your post which is in black text:

 

"To me I believe he is refering to the Mahayana definition of Enlightenment with the capital E - which is equivalent to Buddhahood, like Shakyamuni Buddha".

 

Ok

 

I have however no doubts he has attained at least enlightenment (no caps) in the sense of having entered the bhumi stages and considered an Arya, a Bodhisattva. Yes, many Buddhist scriptures actually referred to retinues of thousands of enlightened arhats at the Buddha's assembly.

 

Ok, and seems very possible.

 

And just because you graduated from a university doesn't mean you cannot recognise your professors and lecturers and treat them as your teacher and pay gratitude and respect to them.

 

True.

 

And of course there are lots of Buddhist teachers who became enlightened and are teaching others. They are no longer just 'students on the path'. But I don't think they will be arrogant enough to disregard the Buddha as having been their original teacher. In fact it is a natural result that having become enlightened, they are even more grateful for the Buddha's teachings for seeing the subtle wisdom and teachings the Buddha imparted out of compassion to sentient beings.

 

Agreed.

 

The Buddha however, in that life time (however he had learnt from many Buddhas in his past lives), did not have a teacher,

 

Not agreed, and such is refuted by Buddhist scripture. Namely that his "Hindu" teachers helped and taught him to attain the "liberations" that led right up to the point of the, "beyond the beyond".

 

and only the category of Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas do not have teachers because they have cultivated for a very very long time and the time was just ripe for their awakening and they did not have to rely on one. Arhats belonging to the Sravaka (hearer) category learnt from teachers within their lifetime, practiced, and then as a result gained liberation.

 

Ok

 

Of course it wouldn't. That is just your presumption. Given that there are countless universes in the Buddhist world views, there would be currently countless enlightened persons throughout the universe(s). But does the number mean anything? Not really. Just because there are a lot of enlightened people doesn't necessarily lead to 'mystic force' or whatever. Such things doesn't exist.

 

Not agreed. And shows lack of understanding of the pure life-force. (which can and does manifest as a compassionate Buddha.

 

Each person has their own individual karma. What do you expect enlightened beings to do? Do you think having enlightened beings means no more natural disasters etc? The world will still roll on, evil people will still be evil (if they have no intentions to change their ways), disasters still happen, etc. Wars will still happen because that is the karma of people - the Buddha tried to stop the Sakyans from engaging in war but he let go of his attempts at the end because he knew the past life karmas involved (involving a group of villagers hunting fish) and that nothing could be done.

 

Partially agreed in some cases, although a Buddha as in the big "E" can and does influence change through fulfillment of dharmas. (look around)

 

For example your friend can become enlightened and yet you can remain as evil as before and then become reborn in hell, for example. The Buddha couldn't stop his cousin who is a member of his sangha from being reborn in avici hell for his evil deeds of trying to hurt the Buddha and cause schism in his sangha. Being related or close to an enlightened person doesn't help. Similarly having thousands of enlightened persons doesn't matter, they may create a positive influence (but it is still limited considering that there are millions/billions of people in the world), but they cannot force a person to become enlightened - it's the individual that matters.

 

Nobody can force another person to become enlightened. That has to come by himself, his own willingness and practice. Having thousands of enlightened beings cannot help in that regard.

 

Agreed that no one can force another, but help does increase possibilities

 

This is just some new agey assumptions. I do not believe in them. Why do you think that having a percentage of enlightened humans = a new heaven and a new earth on a collective level?

 

Not agreed, for the exact time and space where dharmas are being fulfilled and lived up to is not the same exact time and space where dharmas are not being fulfilled. Thus the greater the force of one the less the force of the other. For instance: the force of "Mara" could not overcome the force of the Buddha in the exact same space and time nor in the very subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it, thus He overcame Mara in both local time and space and also in the most subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it; after which many Beings then came under his help and influence... so if we multiply the numbers of Beings such as His, then the help and influence is also multiplied.

 

Lets say if we manage to get 1% of our population enlightened, but does that mean the 99% will as a result become definitely enlightened too? I highly doubt so.

 

I'm not privy to the numbers and odds, and anyway in us taking care of the small things then the so called big things will also be taken care of.

 

A new heaven and a new earth is only for that particular individual. The same world we live in can still be hell for another. It is how each of us lives. Awakening is individual and up to the individual.

 

Partly agreed, although you are speaking of perspective. Also when speaking of individual rafts and group rafts... some debate is possible along those lines.

 

And unfortunately it will still be, even if a percentage of our population becomes enlightened.

 

Realms are accessible with attunement to the vibrations or frequency of such realms... the earth realm presently has both the highest and lowest of frequency of Beings accessing here; other realms do not have such a broad range and thus are not accessible by so many various Beings.

 

Om

Edited April 7, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Aha!!! A concept compatible with Taoist Philosophy:

 

... and anyway in us taking care of the small things then the so called big things will also be taken care of.

 

I knew there had to be a reason I was reading that post.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I know it seems too simple, and i know i keep mentioning it, but.. dang, after more that 30 years of this sort of seeking, searching, debating, etc.. nothing has more consistently revealed itself as the 'fundamental way' than.. still the mind. The entireity of the debate and the Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Yogi, competitions are no more than 'stories' about perceptions.. these perceptions will be made in the Clarity of a stilled mind, or the prejudice of an active mind.. the wood gets chopped and the water gets carried, regardless of the beliefs.. simplicity pays attention to chopping and carrying.. the rest, just mental distractions..

 

Be well..

Edited April 8, 2010 by TzuJanLi

[Cloudhand]

Thats when you are doing your true will. But to bring in thoughtforms which is just the mind playing tricks has nothing to do with true will.

Chinese we call it chi, in Japanese we call it ki, in English we call it the soul, in the old occult teachings they call it the light we bring to the middle pillar. We must not add to the mess like Bruce Lee said, or we will be bound forever. Cloud

[dwai]

Greetings..

 

I know it seems too simple, and i know i keep mentioning it, but.. dang, after more that 30 years of this sort of seeking, searching, debating, etc.. nothing has more consistently revealed itself as the 'fundamental way' than.. still the mind. The entireity of the debate and the Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Yogi, competitions are no more than 'stories' about perceptions.. these perceptions will be made in the Clarity of a stilled mind, or the prejudice of an active mind.. the wood gets chopped and the water gets carried, regardless of the beliefs.. simplicity pays attention to chopping and carrying.. the rest, just mental distractions..

 

Be well..

 

Love that Tea (Chop Wood, Carry Water)...BTW I was watching the Nisargadattaji Maharaj on google videos and this quote (by Maharaj-ji) struck me with it's simplicity and power:

 

"Realizing I am Nothing is Wisdom and Realizing I am Everything is Love. My Life moves between these two poles"

[xabir2005]

 

Not agreed, and such is refuted by Buddhist scripture. Namely that his "Hindu" teachers helped and taught him to attain the "liberations" that led right up to the point of the, "beyond the beyond".

Actually no, he is in fact disappointed with his teachers who reached the 7th and 8th jhana as it clearly was not the liberation he sought. Disappointed, he left off himself in search of the way, and discovered something that nobody else taught him. One of his titles is the Rightly Self-Awakened One.

Not agreed. And shows lack of understanding of the pure life-force. (which can and does manifest as a compassionate Buddha.

I don't know what you're refering to, but it is an individual thing I suppose.

Partially agreed in some cases, although a Buddha as in the big "E" can and does influence change through fulfillment of dharmas. (look around)

Agreed that no one can force another, but help does increase possibilities

Yes. But only those with the right karmas, and the willingness to follow his teachings, will he be able to affect people.

Not agreed, for the exact time and space where dharmas are being fulfilled and lived up to is not the same exact time and space where dharmas are not being fulfilled. Thus the greater the force of one the less the force of the other. For instance: the force of "Mara" could not overcome the force of the Buddha in the exact same space and time nor in the very subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it, thus He overcame Mara in both local time and space and also in the most subtle realms beyond space and time as we know it; after which many Beings then came under his help and influence... so if we multiply the numbers of Beings such as His, then the help and influence is also multiplied.

The amount of influence is limited - simply because not everyone is ready to hear or practice the teachings. I'm sure you're aware that many people just aren't interested in spirituality.

 

Even if one is considered a 'believer', how many are truly interested in developing wisdom and attaining liberation... many just want to accumulate more merits, achieve their worldly goals, etc.

Partly agreed, although you are speaking of perspective. Also when speaking of individual rafts and group rafts... some debate is possible along those lines.

Group rafts also require people's willingness to get into the raft. Buddha is one such 'group raft'.

Realms are accessible with attunement to the vibrations or frequency of such realms... the earth realm presently has both the highest and lowest of frequency of Beings accessing here; other realms do not have such a broad range and thus are not accessible by so many various Beings.

Yes.. and I would also add that human beings has the greatest potential to 'raise' or 'lower' their vibration, in other words, the ability to drop or raise to other lower/higher realms is most easiest in the human realm due to the great opportunity here to either accumulate wholesome or unwholesome karmas. Edited April 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

 

"Realizing I am Nothing is Wisdom and Realizing I am Everything is Love. My Life moves between these two poles"

 

Cheeezzzee! Another statement consistent with Taoist Philosophy!

 

Thanks Y'all. Keep them coming!

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

I am curious as to the reaction of the no self advocates as to what happens with religious fanaticism. Especially when it comes to abuse. I guess it is a no self abusing another no self and that is not seen as a problem? This is a disturbing article!

Most of this thread is really removed from reality!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/08/13-year-old-yemeni-bride_n_530349.html

 

 

ralis