More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[3bob]

So I take it 3bob that you do not agree with the following?

 

3Bob, are you a Buddhist? For some reason from your posts I always thought you were a Taoist.

 

Hi SB,

 

Nope, I didn't agree with that, although there are parts of Buddhism I do agree with.

 

I find many truths in the teachings of many schools,

but don't claim any school at this point. (although I lean towards the teachings of the Upanishads)

 

Om

[C T]

The "Self" is indivisible from being cut into parts, even parts of light, thus not an aggregate...

 

Think, talk and debate forever in speculation or simply, "know the Self by the Self".

 

Om

Sometimes debates are used here (where we are, in the relative realms of existence) to clear mental blockages, and also to make us question some of the conditioned boundaries inherent in most, if not all of us. Of course with the ultimate aim (for some) to arrive at a view of the Self as you have suggested here.

 

What you speak of is a relationship from the level of the Absolute, whereas most of what is discussed here is relative, and relatively applicable (or not). It can be hard to ignore the relative just so one can maintain the view of the Absolute at all times. Of course it would be most ideal if one has attained to that level of 'resting in suchness', but until then, the goal of understandings and insights will still have to depend on conventional communicative means.

 

You may or may not see it this way. If not, then you must be one of the few individuals who can rest in constant samadhi then. That would be simply wonderful, 3Bob, to say the least.

[dwai]

[dwai]

I take it Xabir this is the crux where Buddhists depart with Dwai (and I presume other Advaita-ers)? Buddhists say upon examination even the True Self is discovered to be a collection of empty aggregates?

 

Am I understanding this right or not?

 

 

 

 

GiH said that the above statement is wrong (if I understood him correctly).

 

I said I had learned something like this from reading Buddhist books and said GiH's explanation of how Mind and Mindset work sounded very Hindu. Rigpa = Mind, Sems = Mindset. The mind reflects mindset. One can experience the Mind without Mindset just as a mirror can exist without reflecting anything. Or so he says - assuming I understood him correctly.

 

 

 

Dwai...do you agree the above is correct? Is this what one experiences when meditating long enough?

 

 

 

Awareness is a function of consciousness, when presented with an object (so be it a thought or a material object to sense with a sensory apparatus), it is phenomenal. Consciousness simply is...it exists, has always existed and will always continue to exist. Awareness and Consciousness are not the same thing!

[JustARandomPanda]

All I have to say is this -- An infinite number of Non-dual streams of consciousness is self-contradictory. They are all One Single Consciousness....to try and break it down into Alaya Vijnana is silly and irrational. And The Ultimate Truth is not irrational, it is arational (beyond reason)...you might think I'm being reductionistic, but that's all it really boils down to...the experience and the simplest way to express it without convolutions and confusion...I hope you see what I'm trying to convey here.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Despite your earlier reply to me that you are both right it still sounds as if both of you can not be. 3Bob and GoldisHeavy seem to agree with you. Xabir (and maybe LuckyStrikes) seems to agree with Vajrahidaya.

 

I am so utterly baffled at how so many people through the ages can have all these high and exceedingly deep Meditative Truths revealed to them and they all come out squabbling with each other over what they mean!

 

More and more I am thinking of Marble's story of the Old Sage who remained Silent when asked to explain the Tao was pretty darn wise.

[C T]

 

More and more I am thinking of Marble's story of the Old Sage who remained Silent when asked to explain the Tao was pretty darn wise.

Could this be the same story i wonder? http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Stories/cucumber.html

(just curious..)

[xabir2005]

All I have to say is this -- An infinite number of Non-dual streams of consciousness is self-contradictory. They are all One Single Consciousness....to try and break it down into Alaya Vijnana is silly and irrational. And The Ultimate Truth is not irrational, it is arational (beyond reason)...you might think I'm being reductionistic, but that's all it really boils down to...the experience and the simplest way to express it without convolutions and confusion...I hope you see what I'm trying to convey here.

Anatta is also a direct realization

 

To break down One Single Consciousness is trans-rational. It is a transrational realization. Only when we explain it that it seems rational. In the same way that 'One Consciousness' is a transrational realization, and only when we explain it that it appears like a rational theory - but it is a transrational realization. Anatta is neither silly, irrational, or rational: it is trans-rational. You have to realize/experience it to 'know' it (and it is not a form of dualistic knowledge).

 

As my highly enlightened forum friend Richard from NewBuddhist* (never mentioned him before - he has also gone through the various phases of experience) wrote,

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

 

 

*update: this is not Actual Freedom Richard but another Richard.

Edited July 29, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I take it Xabir this is the crux where Buddhists depart with Dwai (and I presume other Advaita-ers)? Buddhists say upon examination even the True Self is discovered to be a collection of empty aggregates?

 

Yes, except that it is not a mental analysis... it is a direct realization as I wrote above.

 

The mental analysis part is merely for those unenlightened to have a rough understanding... you have to practice a direct mode of observing reality, like Vipassana, to realise the truth in your experience.

[dwai]

Anatta is also a direct realization

 

To break down One Single Consciousness is trans-rational. It is a transrational realization. Only when we explain it that it seems rational. In the same way that 'One Consciousness' is a transrational realization, and only when we explain it that it appears like a rational theory - but it is a transrational realization. Anatta is neither silly, irrational, or rational: it is trans-rational. You have to realize/experience it to 'know' it (and it is not a form of dualistic knowledge).

 

As my highly enlightened forum friend Richard (never mentioned him before - he has also gone through the various phases of experience) wrote,

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

 

Anatta realization is rudimentary stage in neti-neti process...there is nothing groundbreaking or earth-shattering about it once one comes to terms with it. It does not remove the background because that which removes the background, that which thinks it is multiplicity is still the limited self/consciousness...

[Brian]

..

[xabir2005]

Anatta realization is rudimentary stage in neti-neti process...there is nothing groundbreaking or earth-shattering about it once one comes to terms with it.

No, Anatta is not a neti neti process because the neti neti process assumes a Self behind all the not-self. The neti-neti approach is contradictory to the Anatta teaching.

 

For example the Buddha specifically said that you cannot find the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas. This means, as explained earlier, the so called 'self' actually cannot be found or located just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently existing - it is merely a convention for a process of self-luminous but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'weather'/'self' can be found within nor apart from them.

 

Excerpts from Buddha's teachings http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

 

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."...

 

And all the great Buddhist masters from the past said the same things:

 

As Chandrakirti states:

 

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,

Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.

It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.

It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.

[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

 

And Padmasambhava states:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

 

And Nagarjuna states:

 

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other

than the aggregates.

The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.

The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.

What Tathagata is there?”

 

 

That process of neti neti is still part of the practice of self inquiry, and self inquiry leads to the realization of I AM, but the neti neti part is still part of the inquiry prior to realization - prior to Thusness Stage 1. The neti neti part itself is not realization, but is part of the process leading to the realization of I AM, but not the realization of Anatta (Anatta would require a different type of contemplation practice, particularly Vipassana).

 

But the realization of Anatta (Stage 5) is a direct realization and does not come from negating.

It does not remove the background because that which removes the background, that which thinks it is multiplicity is still the limited self/consciousness...

No. First of all, in realizing anatta, you don't 'think it is the multiplicity'.

 

Rather, the multiplicity affirms itself without thinking. Sound hears, scenery sees, there is no seer or hearer, etc.

 

It is deconstructing the One Mind by realizing that it is the process... just like realizing the word 'Weather' is simply a convention but does not mean something independent unchanging or inherent/located somewhere in or apart from the process of weatherly phenomena.

 

So as Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh said:

Sunshine and Green Leaves

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

Edited July 28, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Here's an experiential account from someone who realized Anatta and ascended the Thusness stages from 1 to 5 in the same order (though he did not know that Buddha realized anatta too, funny, and started his own 'religion' which he calls 'beyond religion' and 'beyond spiritual enlightenment' which is understandable because this is exactly what Buddha did in the past 2500 years ago, by claiming exclusivity in realization and doctrine from all other religions due to the Anatta doctrine, except that Buddha was truly the first and not AF - but I have already written a 23 page document to counter his lack of understanding at http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms )

 

His teaching is now very popular in the Dharma Overground forum, practiced even by the forum founder Daniel M. Ingram.

 

http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/abriefpersonalhistory.htm

 

Actual Freedom – Articles

A Brief Personal History

 

(click on link)

Edited July 29, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[JustARandomPanda]

Could this be the same story i wonder? http://www.serve.com...s/cucumber.html

(just curious..)

 

 

No, yours is a different story. I liked it very much and it did make a similar point toward the end. Marble would never post a story that featured Buddhism in any way. He makes sure to keep his Taoism "pure" from Buddhist influence. Although I gotta say it is a darn shame he doesn't read the third Classical Era Taoist - Lieh Tzu. Lieh Tzu is also pure Taoism.

[3bob]

Xabir,

 

Could you please paste just one or two paragraphs and then give a link below or attach a document below same...

Why, because you often or thus-ness bury strings and other peoples posts within tons of your material that is being presented in -hog the string- way. (even if you mean well from your pov) Btw, I know you sometimes give links, but you also often bury other voices with reams and reams of stuff, which those who want it can still get it through a doc. attachment.

 

Bob

[C T]

No, yours is a different story. I liked it very much and it did make a similar point toward the end. Marble would never post a story that featured Buddhism in any way. He makes sure to keep his Taoism "pure" from Buddhist influence. Although I gotta say it is a darn shame he doesn't read the third Classical Era Taoist - Lieh Tzu. Lieh Tzu is also pure Taoism.

Oh ok. I thought it was.

[Raymond Wolter]

Xabir,

 

Could you please paste just one or two paragraphs and then give a link below or attach a document below same...

Why, because you often or thus-ness bury strings and other peoples posts within tons of your material that is being presented in -hog the string- way. (even if you mean well from your pov) Btw, I know you sometimes give links, but you also often bury other voices with reams and reams of stuff, which those who want it can still get it through a doc. attachment.

 

Bob

 

 

Valid point. Giving a link and just quoting the relevant selections helps. Crowding the thread with lengthy copy pastes is a big turnoff.

[Raymond Wolter]

He makes sure to keep his Taoism "pure" from Buddhist influence.

 

A welcome change in this age of mix and match everything. Shakti marries Chi to reveal Anatta to African Bushmen who shake after dwelling in ecstatic practices of Egyptian Alchemy followed by a Sufi Whirl dance. Marbles, deeply respect your focus and habit of sticking to relevancy instead of posting lengthy sermons in flowery language which anyone can read any place and adds no value to the discussion.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Sunya]

Wow, very interesting account of realizing no-self by Richard.... thanks for sharing xabir.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

Could you please paste just one or two paragraphs and then give a link below or attach a document below same...

Why, because you often or thus-ness bury strings and other peoples posts within tons of your material that is being presented in -hog the string- way. (even if you mean well from your pov) Btw, I know you sometimes give links, but you also often bury other voices with reams and reams of stuff, which those who want it can still get it through a doc. attachment.

 

Bob

Ok.

[Marblehead]

Marble would never post a story that featured Buddhism in any way. He makes sure to keep his Taoism "pure" from Buddhist influence. Although I gotta say it is a darn shame he doesn't read the third Classical Era Taoist - Lieh Tzu. Lieh Tzu is also pure Taoism.

 

Thanks for the butt kick. Hehehe.

 

You are not the first one to tell me that though. Perhaps one day I will read the whole thing in earnest.

 

Funny thought just now. You know, when we reach our destination there no longer is anywhere to go. I think that is what keeps me contented with my state. I have not been called to go anywhere.

 

We'll see what tomorrow brings my way.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Marbles, deeply respect your focus and habit of sticking to relevancy instead of posting lengthy sermons in flowery language which anyone can read any place and adds no value to the discussion.

 

Thanks and WoW!

 

And I'm not even a part of this discussion. Hehehe. Y'all are talking about Buddhism and Hinduism and I feel I should remain silent. (But I have been at least scanning all the posts.)

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Ok.

 

Ok, and I'll also practice what I preach (and hopefully others to) since you are not the only one here who sometimes has a lot to share.

 

Thanks, and Good Day.

Edited July 29, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Now see what happened? I made a couple posts to the thread and it died.

 

BTW to SereneBlue: Okay, so I now have Leih Tzu's book (Giles' translation) in MS format on my computer so that when I get in the mood I can read it. Hehehe. (I might even look at what Eva Wong has done with it.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

Edited July 30, 2010 by Tao99