There is no self

[3bob]

a collection of aggregates

 

Alwayson,

 

I'd say Zen (so to speak) knows better than that by alluding to such in a saying something close to:

 

"When the many have been reduced to one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

Om

[mYTHmAKER]

a collection of aggregates

 

Keep asking and your little collection of aggregates might disappear or not.

[RongzomFan]

The onus is on you to prove that there is a "Self", not on me.

 

Nagarjuna says "I make no claims, therefore I have none to defend"

Edited April 1, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Alwayson,

 

I'd say Zen (so to speak) knows better than that by alluding to such in a saying something close to:

 

"When the many have been reduced to one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

Om

 

 

I don't understand your point, but you do realize Zen is pure sutra Mahayana right? I am talking about real Zen, not western neo pseudo-Zen.

Edited April 1, 2010 by alwayson

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It must first be recognized, if we're talkin' about it, we ain't got it..

 

'Aggregates', and 'selfs', and 'proofs'.. turds in the punchbowl..

 

'Still the mind', and.. Be well..

[RongzomFan]

I agree

 

All you need to do is focus on the clarity and vividness of the NOW, instead of the monkey mind.

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi mikaelz: You just did it for me, thanks.. I like that about you, so helpful, so understanding.. and, to do it with the freshman ploy of 'prove it', was simply brilliant, great job!!!

 

Be well..

 

that's very convincing. actually, the whole idea of 'stuff' underlying everything is an idea that only exists in your mind. It's about as real as unicorns and elves, though more convincing than separate objects existing independently because you have deep experience of this 'stuff', but does experience mean that 'stuff' or 'Self' really is? What's so factual about your experience besides a convincing emotion and interplaying phenomena?

Edited April 1, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Well, "I" paid "somebody else" to wash and wax "My" truck today. So at least "I", "My money", "My truck" and "somebody else" exist.

 

Oh well.

 

Peace & Love!

[RongzomFan]

Well, "I" paid "somebody else" to wash and wax "My" truck today. So at least "I", "My money", "My truck" and "somebody else" exist.

 

Oh well.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Not really. When you typed all that you were just looking at a computer screen.

Edited April 1, 2010 by alwayson

[SFJane]

There is no self

 

A Buddhist and a Taoist are walking a path.

Buddhist says: "there is no Self"

Taoist says: "Orly?"

Buddhist: "Yea, it's all illusion."

Taoist: "I disagree and I think I can prove you are wrong."

Buddhist: "Surely, prove me wrong, if you can."

Taoist picks up hefty rock and drops it on the toes of the Buddhist.

Buddhist screams.

Taoist: "Who is it that screams? How can you be hurt if there is no Self? How can you feel pain if it's just an illusion?"

Taoist: "I posit that you do have a self and that it experiences and partakes of reality."

Buddhist: "F&$@ing ow dude."

 

Variations of this joke/parable abound here and there. It's primarily used to highlight the differences in basic premise. Buddhists are trying to transcend the Self and it's problems. Taoists are concerned with learning how to live fully as a Self. I generalize and it's not meant to belittle Buddhism but it does highlight how the Taoist works with the reality of the actual living experience of being a squishy bag of guts draped around a skeleton encased in a water filled sack.

 

Taoists do not deny the obvious human condition because the human condition is there to continually remind us that we can not transcend basic reality for a philosophical or intellectual construct such as Self or No Self. Not without being brought back to our senses by simply stubbing our toes into a rock and observing our mental, emotional and physical reactions to that event.

 

 

 

Realize that "I" is literally a thought.

 

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.

 

FWIW, I disagree with this line of reasoning. Our thoughts are not inherently flawed, they are just thoughts. Affinity and aversion are not the only mind action/response that can occur. I don't agree that people are walking around, perfectly centered. I could probably walk with you through a crowded place like a mall and point out all the people who are not centered. Centering does not come naturally to people. In America the concept of centering is largely a New Age energy related term or you find it in pop psychology. Present company aside I doubt most people even know what it really means to actually be centered so...

Edited April 2, 2010 by SFJane

[tyler zambori]

that's very convincing. actually, the whole idea of 'stuff' underlying everything is an idea that only exists in your mind. It's about as real as unicorns and elves, though more convincing than separate objects existing independently because you have deep experience of this 'stuff', but does experience mean that 'stuff' or 'Self' really is? What's so factual about your experience besides a convincing emotion and interplaying phenomena?

 

Buddhists talk about a "true nature" all the time, yet I have not seen one that

could give me a definition of what that is. That means they don't even know what

that is. So then why use the term at all?

 

TzuJanLi, you are pretty danged smart. I like that bit about turds in a punch bowl.

I will apply that to myself.

[RongzomFan]

 

Taoist: "Who is it that screams? How can you be hurt if there is no Self? How can you feel pain if it's just an illusion?"

 

 

 

Why don't you actually study buddhism for the answer?

 

Thats the problem with people. Noone really knows what buddhism actually teaches.

 

Study Madhyamaka.

Edited April 2, 2010 by alwayson

[Kunlun Enthusiast]

Thats the problem with people. Noone really knows what buddhism actually teaches.

 

 

 

Exactly, no one knows what Buddha taught as Suttas were compiled ages after he was gone. Even with those suttas, no one Buddhist agrees on one interpretation with the other. Lucky and Xabir were jumping at each other on the other thread for like double dozen pages lol! Some of you guys have been at e-sangha so you know what I mean right? So, its essentially Buddhism vs others at first and then My Buddhism vs Your Buddhism next. I like what Creation said on the other thread - 'Lighten up'!

 

A Buddhist and a Taoist are walking a path.

Buddhist says: "there is no Self"

Taoist says: "Orly?"

Buddhist: "Yea, it's all illusion."

Taoist: "I disagree and I think I can prove you are wrong."

Buddhist: "Surely, prove me wrong, if you can."

Taoist picks up hefty rock and drops it on the toes of the Buddhist.

Buddhist screams.

Taoist: "Who is it that screams? How can you be hurt if there is no Self? How can you feel pain if it's just an illusion?"

Taoist: "I posit that you do have a self and that it experiences and partakes of reality."

Buddhist: "F&$@ing ow dude."

 

Variations of this joke/parable abound here and there. It's primarily used to highlight the differences in basic premise. Buddhists are trying to transcend the Self and it's problems. Taoists are concerned with learning how to live fully as a Self. I generalize and it's not meant to belittle Buddhism but it does highlight how the Taoist works with the reality of the actual living experience of being a squishy bag of guts draped around a skeleton encased in a water filled sack.

 

Taoists do not deny the obvious human condition because the human condition is there to continually remind us that we can not transcend basic reality for a philosophical or intellectual construct such as Self or No Self. Not without being brought back to our senses by simply stubbing our toes into a rock and observing our mental, emotional and physical reactions to that event.

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I disagree with this line of reasoning. Our thoughts are not inherently flawed, they are just thoughts. Affinity and aversion are not the only mind action/response that can occur. I don't agree that people are walking around, perfectly centered. I could probably walk with you through a crowded place like a mall and point out all the people who are not centered. Centering does not come naturally to people. In America the concept of centering is largely a New Age energy related term or you find it in pop psychology. Present company aside I doubt most people even know what it really means to actually be centered so...

 

You TTB Gals rock! Taomeow, SFJane ... amazing stuff. You write what you have experienced and not what you read or heard or what someone else said. You gals make TTB worth visiting day after day. A humble thank you

 

I think this was the same guy who tried to pull Yogani into a debate or something on Buddhism as the only answer to everything. And if I remember right, no one paid much attention. The problem with most Buddhists is that they want to correct everyone else and show them wrong and right. Taoists seem to have no deadly itch to do that and offer no unsolicited advice or correction of concepts. Call them less compassionate if you like, sure! But seems way less irritating at times. With E-sangha gone, there needs to be some outlet for them to correct and disprove the rest. Man! did I just say that and still didn't get banned? lol

Edited April 2, 2010 by Kunlun Enthusiast

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhists talk about a "true nature" all the time, yet I have not seen one that

could give me a definition of what that is. That means they don't even know what

that is. So then why use the term at all?

 

TzuJanLi, you are pretty danged smart. I like that bit about turds in a punch bowl.

I will apply that to myself.

Maybe the whole point is that they don't define it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Exactly, no one knows what Buddha taught as Suttas were compiled ages after he was gone. Even with those suttas, no one Buddhist agrees on one interpretation with the other. Lucky and Xabir were jumping at each other on the other thread for like double dozen pages lol! Some of you guys have been at e-sangha so you know what I mean right? So, its essentially Buddhism vs others at first and then My Buddhism vs Your Buddhism next. I like what Creation said on the other thread - 'Lighten up'!

 

We came to an understanding.

 

And if there are two different interpretations, isn't it obvious to discuss and argue over which makes more sense? To reach an agreement?

[Lucky7Strikes]

A Buddhist and a Taoist are walking a path.

Buddhist says: "there is no Self"

Taoist says: "Orly?"

Buddhist: "Yea, it's all illusion."

Taoist: "I disagree and I think I can prove you are wrong."

Buddhist: "Surely, prove me wrong, if you can."

Taoist picks up hefty rock and drops it on the toes of the Buddhist.

Buddhist screams.

Taoist: "Who is it that screams? How can you be hurt if there is no Self? How can you feel pain if it's just an illusion?"

Taoist: "I posit that you do have a self and that it experiences and partakes of reality."

Buddhist: "F&$@ing ow dude."

It's not about the self existing or not. It's whether it exists independently, inherently, apart from phenomena.

[RongzomFan]

Taoists seem to have no deadly itch to do that and offer no unsolicited advice or correction of concepts.

 

 

You are kidding right? I did not even mention taoism, or honestly even think about taoism when I started this thread, yet you and your friend both asserted the superiority of taoism and its practitioners. And there was both "unsolicited advice" and "correction of concepts".

 

Get a reality check.

[Gerard]

If that is true, you should have memories of existence before you were born LOL...

 

?? Many do have them. I do have them. Impermanence permeates everything in Samsara that's why don't recall them, plus the fact that you no longer have a mind after death.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

[RongzomFan]

?? Many do have them. I do have them. Impermanence permeates everything in Samsara that's why don't recall them, plus the fact that you no longer have a mind after death.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

 

 

Any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories.

 

Even if you don't agree with this truth, you cannot rule it out.

Edited April 2, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

How did you come across this conclusion?

 

 

If "I" is the body, there would be annhilation. What is so hard to understand?

[SFJane]

Any memory of a previous life is actually caused by negative spirits that attach to various people, transferring memories.

 

Even if you don't agree with this truth, you cannot rule it out.

 

I see you are new at this. You don't realize what you gave away with just this.

[RongzomFan]

I see you are new at this. You don't realize what you gave away with just this.

 

 

You already gave away that you have no understanding of buddhism.

 

And you already gave away you are a taoism supremacist.

Edited April 2, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

AH NUTS!

 

AND YES WE HAVE NO BANANAS, WE HAVE NO BANANAS TODAY

Edited April 2, 2010 by 3bob

[C T]

Here's a short discourse given by Adyashanti entitled "The Experience of No Self".

[Gerard]

alwayson,

 

Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianism, Sufism, whatever "ism" fancies you, are just words that express different branches of a large tree called: spiritual practice. In the end the method you practice is irrelevant as they are all good.

 

Listen to this beautiful song to soothe your spirit:

 

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1750665/5825308