Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You and I will never agree on this concept. We have tried before and it didn't work. There must be a thinker before a thought can be had. There are no independant thoughts. Remember, all things are dependantly originated.

 

Yes, therefore both thinker and thoughts are originated dependent upon a beginningless flow of causation. So, when one is anchored in the experiential realization of emptiness, there is no more clinging to either thinker or thoughts, which is what is meant in "there are thoughts but no thinker." As in, even "I" the thinker is a "thought" within an infinite spectrum of inherently empty inter-weaving-causation.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

I'm sure there have been many Buddhas in many religions who did there best to teach according to the needs of their environment or within the capacity of their learned level of expression. That doesn't mean they taught the highest dharma though, then again, who knows? Lots of people have said things that have never been repeated or written down that I'm sure was of value for someone, somewhere at sometime?

 

And it doesn't mean they didn't.

 

Enlightenment is not a religious or cultural concept. It is an universal concept.

[Marblehead]

Your still creating a dichotomy between dualistic and non-dualistic vision.

 

Of course I am because both exist in my world. Both the Mystery and the Manifest exist even though the Manifest is a subset of the Mystery. (Mystery being non-dualistic and Manifest being dualistic.)

 

What I mean is that the inner state of recognizing the dual as non-dual is as simultaneous as a knowledgeable person differentiating between weeds and roses. The two states of perception are actually not-two for the liberated.

 

But in order to state that the two states are one and the same it must first be recognized that there are two states. There really are Vaj, there is the Manifest, the knowable, individual things, and there is the Mystery, the unknowable, where no dualities exist. (I was going to say where All is One but you seem to have a problem with this concept. Hehehe.)

 

And I still don't need to be liberated. I'm have never been in prison.

[Vajrahridaya]

And it doesn't mean they didn't.

 

Enlightenment is not a religious or cultural concept. It is an universal concept.

 

Actually, according to Buddhas, it is only for those that realize dependent origination/emptiness without remainder.

 

It's a deceptively deep concept that is missed by most. It's in fact not even a concept... really, it's the nature of all things and experiences.

[Marblehead]

Yes, therefore both thinker and thoughts are originated dependent upon a beginningless flow of causation. So, when one is anchored in the experiential realization of emptiness, there is no more clinging to either thinker or thoughts, which is what is meant in "there are thoughts but no thinker." As in, even "I" the thinker is a "thought" within an infinite spectrum of inherently empty inter-weaving-causation.

 

But you see, this is where we differ regarding our understanding of this concept. You look at emptiness and I look at fullness. You see no thinker whereas I see the thinker.

 

No, I do not cling to the fact that I exist. I simply accept it as fact. And therefore, since I am, I can say I think. The thought would not arise without the thinker.

 

Thinking of all this fullness spontaniously brought the thought to my mind of one of Janis Joplin's supporting bands named "The Full Tit Boogie Band".

 

Yes, cause and effect. One of the natural processes of the universe that existed before any Buddhas we born. I love those natural processes. They make the world go 'round.

[Vajrahridaya]

Of course I am because both exist in my world. Both the Mystery and the Manifest exist even though the Manifest is a subset of the Mystery. (Mystery being non-dualistic and Manifest being dualistic.)

 

 

This is why we learn the two truths first in Buddhism, then we get into the fact that there are not two truths. This is Dzogchen. I don't talk much Dzogchen though.

 

But in order to state that the two states are one and the same it must first be recognized that there are two states. There really are Vaj, there is the Manifest, the knowable, individual things, and there is the Mystery, the unknowable, where no dualities exist. (I was going to say where All is One but you seem to have a problem with this concept. Hehehe.)

 

There actually are not two truths. This is understandable through Dzogchen teachings of spontaneous liberation.

 

And I still don't need to be liberated. I'm have never been in prison.

 

According to Buddhas you are, even if you don't recognize the bars yet. You still think you were born to die and that will be the end of your mind stream as if it was based upon your brain. Your view is somewhat nihilistic in a sense and your vision only extends within the realm of the 5 senses. We've had this discussion before. You still have karmic seeds of unconscious re-birth and suffering within your mind-stream, so you are still a Samsarin from the point of view of a Buddha. But, since you are not open to that point of view, you will undergo your own process and in time... who knows?

[Marblehead]

Actually, according to Buddhas, it is only for those that realize dependent origination/emptiness without remainder.

 

It's a deceptively deep concept that is missed by most. It's in fact not even a concept... really, it's the nature of all things and experiences.

 

Hehehe. Yep. That's Tzujan and it didn't take a Buddha to realize it. It existed even before beginningless time.

 

Oh, your "dependent origination" is exactly the same thing as "cause and effect".

 

Again, emptiness vs. fullness. We have done this one before too. Remember?

[Vajrahridaya]

But you see, this is where we differ regarding our understanding of this concept. You look at emptiness and I look at fullness. You see no thinker whereas I see the thinker.

 

Emptiness is not the opposite of fullness. You are letting western conditioning interfere, which is understandable since you've not really studied what emptiness means within Buddhist context. So, you think it's referring to a jar being empty over and over again, like a habit that cannot be let go of. Emptiness merely means mutability, no inherent essence, no separate beingness, but it does not mean oneness as if all things were one transcendent substance/non-substance... whatever!

 

No, I do not cling to the fact that I exist. I simply accept it as fact. And therefore, since I am, I can say I think. The thought would not arise without the thinker.

 

How did the thinker arise, as well as the conditions behind the thinking? Regress into sub-components of components endlessly... expand!!

 

 

Yes, cause and effect. One of the natural processes of the universe that existed before any Buddhas we born. I love those natural processes. They make the world go 'round.

 

And around endlessly... without beginning and without end.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. Yep. That's Tzujan and it didn't take a Buddha to realize it. It existed even before beginningless time.

 

Oh, your "dependent origination" is exactly the same thing as "cause and effect".

 

Again, emptiness vs. fullness. We have done this one before too. Remember?

 

Actually, it's not the same as cause and effect, otherwise the Buddha would have simply stated that karma was the nature of everything. We've had this discussion before, but you refuse to really understand the nuance. So, we'll just let it be.

 

Dependent origination/emptiness is pointing to a much more profound realization than mere cause and effect.

 

By the way, there is no before in the concept of beginningless time.

 

Also, Buddhas have always existed, they have never not existed.

[Marblehead]

I don't talk much Dzogchen though.

 

And I am so glad for that.

 

There actually are not two truths.

 

There are no truths. Only assumptions.

 

According to Buddhas you are,

 

Well, fuck the Buddhas. I'm sorry but that is the only fair response I have to that statement.

 

You still think you were born to die and that will be the end of your mind stream as if it was based upon your brain. Your view is somewhat nihilistic in a sense and your vision only extends within the realm of the 5 senses. We've had this discussion before. You still have karmic seeds of unconscious re-birth and suffering within your mind-stream, so you are still a Samsarin from the point of view of a Buddha. But, since you are not open to that point of view, you will undergo your own process and in time... who knows?

 

But then I do not believe in a bunch of BS that is little more than a child's bed-time story. I used to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny but I gave them up a long time ago. I used to think that I believed in the Christian "truths" but gave them up a long time ago. I started reading Buddhist literature but gave that up a long time ago.

 

My life is not ruled by Buddhist concepts nor of the teachings of any Buddha. It is ruled by the processes of nature.

 

It is you who is nihilistic with your concept of emptiness and non-existance, not I. I accept reality as it is, as it truely is. I accept the fact that I was born and that I will die. I have never seen a single piece of evidence that indicates that there is life after death. Why do people believe in such BS? Can't they find enough enjoyment while living this wonderful life we have been afforded?

 

Yes, I will continue to live my life the best way I know how without any help from any Buddhas. Lao Tzu did really wonderful things for me and the Chuang Tzu kicked my butt and got me living my life that way it is supposed to be lived.

 

No, I don't worry about reincarnation because I don't even believe in the concept.

 

Please don't tell me what is going to happen to me because you have totally no idea. Reminds me of a preacher man who came to my house one day and said that if I did not accept Jesus as my savior I would go the hell and I told him he could go the hell right now and leave me the fuck alone.

 

There is no man on this planet, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, who know what will happen to me even one moment of time in the future. How could anyone presume to know what will happen to me when I die? It is all BS.

 

If it can't be tested and varified it is probably just a figment of someone's imagination. These are called illusions and delusions. So you go ahead and cling tenaciously to your illusions and delusions and I will go ahead and live my life based on what I can sense through my capacities and capabilities.

 

Was I pretty clear on that point? Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Emptiness is not the opposite of fullness. You are letting western conditioning interfere, which is understandable since you've not really studied what emptiness means within Buddhist context. So, you think it's referring to a jar being empty over and over again, like a habit that cannot be let go of. Emptiness merely means mutability, no inherent essence, no separate beingness, but it does not mean oneness as if all things were one transcendent substance/non-substance... whatever!

 

Well, again we disagree because I hold that the Manifest is just as real as every other aspect of everything (Tao). You speak emptiness (which is misleading) and I speak fullness (which is self-explanatory).

 

How did the thinker arise, as well as the conditions behind the thinking? Regress into sub-components of components endlessly... expand!!

 

Oh for Pete's sake Vaj. My mother and father had sex and my mother got pregnant and then I was born. How regressive do I need to get?

 

And around endlessly... without beginning and without end.

 

In Taoism this is referred to as the concepts of reversion and cycles. 'Round and 'round, without beginning and without end. And we don't need a Buddha to tell us that it is true.

[Marblehead]

Actually, it's not the same as cause and effect, otherwise the Buddha would have simply stated that karma was the nature of everything. We've had this discussion before, but you refuse to really understand the nuance. So, we'll just let it be.

 

Actually, the truth is that I refuse to accept your unacceptable explanation of the truth. I have my own truths - I don't need yours.

 

Dependent origination/emptiness is pointing to a much more profound realization than mere cause and effect.

 

Yes, deep, deep, I mean, really deep stuff (sometimes referred to as deep shit). Far too deep for any mere Taoist to ever understand.

 

By the way, there is no before in the concept of beginningless time.

 

Well, if you do not comply with the law of space/time you will get lost in space. I think that this may have happened to you but I'm not sure yet.

 

Also, Buddhas have always existed, they have never not existed.

 

Yes Vaj, I know. And they rode dinosaur and beat all the non-Buddhists on the head with their clubs.

 

Before man evolved there were no Buddhas. Before the first Buddha was claimed to be a Buddha there were no Buddhas. That gives us about 2500 years at maximum. NO, they have not always existed. Stop trying to feed me your magic mushrooms!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

There are no truths. Only assumptions.

 

 

For you... the two truths paradigm is probably what you need.

 

 

 

 

But then I do not believe in a bunch of BS that is little more than a child's bed-time story. I used to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny but I gave them up a long time ago. I used to think that I believed in the Christian "truths" but gave them up a long time ago. I started reading Buddhist literature but gave that up a long time ago.

 

It has nothing to do with belief, but more with experience, logic and intuition.

 

I know you think you are completely logical.

 

My life is not ruled by Buddhist concepts nor of the teachings of any Buddha. It is ruled by the processes of nature.

 

Yes, Samsara.

 

It is you who is nihilistic with your concept of emptiness and non-existance, not I.

 

Emptiness does not mean non-existence. There is no such thing as non-existence.

 

I accept reality as it is, as it truely is.

 

You accept it within the limits of your current level of experience and interpretation of experience based upon the level of your remembered experience and interpretations.

 

That's not reality, that's a dream clung to as reality.

 

I accept the fact that I was born and that I will die. I have never seen a single piece of evidence that indicates that there is life after death.

 

So, be agnostic about the possibility that you will at some point see that there is.

[Vajrahridaya]

Why do people believe in such BS?

 

It's not belief, it's experience. There are children who remember past lives before they are even conditioned by the concept. I am one of those kids. I had this gift of awareness due to past life practice in deep meditation and contemplation.

 

Can't they find enough enjoyment while living this wonderful life we have been afforded?

 

Sure! Through understanding it's endless continuum, directly and in an experiential way of open insight into the nature of it, one has even more expanded joy in the moment!

 

Yes, I will continue to live my life the best way I know how without any help from any Buddhas. Lao Tzu did really wonderful things for me and the Chuang Tzu kicked my butt and got me living my life that way it is supposed to be lived.

 

That is good, and that's your process. Nothing wrong with that.

 

No, I don't worry about reincarnation because I don't even believe in the concept.

 

It's not a concept anymore than a seed dropped from a tree carries the impressions of an endless line of trees. But, as the sentient being that you are, you have the power to invert into your awareness into your unconscious and remember this lineage directly.

 

 

There is no man on this planet, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, who know what will happen to me even one moment of time in the future.

 

Wow, you haven't met any masters then. Or you don't allow yourself to be open to any that you have met?

 

How could anyone presume to know what will happen to me when I die? It is all BS.

 

Through experiential awareness of dependent origination, incredible things can be known. But, because you are not ready to know, this has not been shown to you as of yet.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Yes Vaj, I know. And they rode dinosaur and beat all the non-Buddhists on the head with their clubs.

 

Before man evolved there were no Buddhas. Before the first Buddha was claimed to be a Buddha there were no Buddhas. That gives us about 2500 years at maximum. NO, they have not always existed. Stop trying to feed me your magic mushrooms!

 

Wow, you really do hold tightly to your sensually perceived limitations. Ok...

 

Density it is!

[Marblehead]

That's not reality, that's a dream clung to as reality.

 

And that is commonly referred to as bull shit.

[Marblehead]

It's not belief, it's experience.

 

No, it is your illusions and delusions.

[Marblehead]

Wow, you really do hold tightly to your sensually perceived limitations. Ok...

 

Density it is!

 

Yes, I accept my truths. I don't need your illusions and delusions or anyone else's for that matter.

 

Remember, I am a Taoist! You cannot teach Buddhist concepts to a Philosophical Taoist. Yes, you might oftentimes get away with it with a Religious Taoist but it will never happen with a Philosophical Taoist.

[xabir2005]

This is a very important phrase. And it is consistent with the Taoist concept of not holding tightly to any of our opinions.

 

 

 

You and I will never agree on this concept. We have tried before and it didn't work. There must be a thinker before a thought can be had. There are no independant thoughts. Remember, all things are dependantly originated.

 

I had no thoughts before I was born. I will have no thoughts after I die. I am the thoughts. (Well, there's a lot more to me than just thoughts.)

I never said that there is an independent thought. I said thoughts interdependently originate without agency/controller.

 

It is the entire universe, including latent tendencies, including a previous moment of intention and so on... that serves as a condition for this arising thought.

 

But there is no controller or thinker apart from this process of thinking. Inter-dependent origination completely does away the need for an Agent, be it an internal self, or an external God. There is only this process, no 'I'.

[Marblehead]

BTW We don't need that "Density it is!" crap.

 

I could easily say the same thing to you but I have more respect for you to do that.

[Marblehead]

Hi Xabir,

 

Nice to see you back with this discussion.

 

I never said that there is an independent thought. I said thoughts interdependently originate without agency/controller.

 

Okay. I will agree that this does happen. But I also state that "I" can control my thoughts. That is one of the primary reason I meditate - to get control of my thoughts. Actually, to eliminate all thoughts for a short while.

 

It is the entire universe, including latent tendencies, including a previous moment of intention and so on... that serves as a condition for this arising thought.

 

So you are speaking of cause and effect. One thought causing the next thought, a string of thoughts. And yes, this can go on for a long time if we take no action. But we can stop this train any time we wish to do so (if we know how to do it).

 

But there is no controller or thinker apart from this process of thinking. Inter-dependent origination completely does away the need for an Agent, be it an internal self, or an external God. There is only this process, no 'I'.

 

I can' agree with you here. I love myself too much to be able to go there with you. I don't want to do away with the Agent (me). I agree, there are processes, and "I" live within these processes and act and react to and with the processes. At least, "I think" that's the way "I" do it.

 

Once again, I am a Taoist therefore I am therefore I think.

 

Surely you can see how much "I" love "me".

[xabir2005]

Hi Xabir,

 

Nice to see you back with this discussion.

 

 

 

Okay. I will agree that this does happen. But I also state that "I" can control my thoughts. That is one of the primary reason I meditate - to get control of my thoughts. Actually, to eliminate all thoughts for a short while.

 

 

 

So you are speaking of cause and effect. One thought causing the next thought, a string of thoughts. And yes, this can go on for a long time if we take no action. But we can stop this train any time we wish to do so (if we know how to do it).

While we are on this topic... I would like to point out a really good article. Called Quietening the Inner Chatter

 

It deals with this topic very well. In it, it says:

 

(a short excerpt, refer to link for whole article)

 

...So when approaching meditation we do the same "I want to stop these thoughts that are driving me nuts", so we sit down but we can't get the thoughts to stop. Why is this? It's because life does not work like this. Just look at the clouds, can more wind make the clouds go away? No, its just makes more clouds. This isn't a metaphor, I'm talking directly and literally about the very nature that drives the existence of things like wind and clouds and rain are the same forces that drive our minds and thoughts and pain. To break through the clouds the sun has to come out. Why is this? Let us go back to the house building metaphor for the answer.

The Laws behind Inner Chatter

 

Going back to our house building metaphor the answer isn't to move into another house, the answer is to deconstruct the current house we live in .... completely. We need to stop building and let the current house get old and collapse. If we stop building and improving on a house what happens? It slowly cracks, the wood rots, it gets weathered, things fall off and eventually it falls down. So, asking again, why is this? This is very important and the heart of this entire article. It is because the conditions that support the survival of the house are removed, so eventually it dies. All things in life are exactly like this.

 

Clouds require a certain condition. Certain moisture content in the air and certain temperature creates the conditions for them to exist. When the sun comes out the conditions that supports the existence of the clouds passes and so too do the clouds. When a flower doesn't get enough water, or gets too much sun, or gets uprooted from the soil it too dies. It's conditions cease, so it ceases. If our body doesn't get food or water eventually it will die. Look around you, everything, absolutely everything you can see or experience or think are exactly like this and all exist due to the dependent conditions that support their existence. There is not a single thing in the universe that does not obey this law. Not one! I'm not asking you to believe me, investigate yourself, look around. Is there anything you can find that doesn't obey this law?

 

Your mind and thoughts are exactly the same. They require a certain conditions to exist and certain conditions to keep them going. The cycle of inner chatter requires certain conditions too. Through repeating the same process we just perpetuate their existence and in fact make them stronger. This is why when we approach meditation and want to stop the inner chatter it doesn't work. We don't realise, by approaching it in this way, that we are just running the same old patterns that creates and supports the very existence of the inner chatter.

 

The other thing to consider, like the momentum of the heavy freight train, is that it's going to take time to stop. If you're 20, 30, or 40 years old how many years have you been supporting the inner chatter? You can't just sit down to try meditation and expect it to stop right away. Again, life just doesn't work like this.

 

we want it to be. In doing this we ignore and don't respect these laws that all things are bound by, and in doing so we create conditions that support the perpetuation of inner noise. The process is so obvious, so inherent in our nature, that we simply just don't notice it. In reality you could say it's so obvious that in growing up with it since a baby we don't notice the obviousness of it any more. But all it requires is us to look around and observe the way everything works. You can see it right there in everything.

 

So in Part 1 I explained how inner chatter is a problem and what the effects are like. In Part 2 we talked how that problem functions and in Part 3 I'll discuss what we can do to quieten the inner chatter, how that healing process works, a common trap to look our for and how to apply this. Check back tomorrow for Part 3...

 

 

So as you can see, D.O. replaces the notion of a 'controller'.

 

If you try to suppress thoughts, it will not make them go away - it makes things worse and let those thoughts remain in the subconscious and later strike back harder.

 

There's another article.. an older one, by my friend Longchen, a few years ago:

 

Are we suppose to get rid of unwholesome thoughts?

 

This article is related to a common misconception with regards to spiritual practice. Many spiritual teachings say that one must get rid of unwholesome stuffs in one's life. So does that include getting rid of unwholesome thoughts that one is having?

 

Are we suppose to get rid of unwholesome thoughts? Before we can answer this question, we must first ask..."Can the self or 'I' get rid of thoughts that are deemed as unwholesome?" The answer to the latter question is a NO.

 

As already mentioned and explained here, the sense of self or 'I' is not the doer of action. As much as this 'sense of self' desires, it simply has no power over the arising and ceasing of thoughts. Thoughts, are for most part, related to the functioning of memory. Because of that, thoughts and memory cannot be removed by will.

 

So, if thoughts cannot be stopped from arising using volition, are we powerless with regards to its influences. No.

 

While thoughts cannot be stopped, the attachment or aversion to them can be diminished with training. Both attachments and aversions are types of grasping.

 

So to be precise, during spiritual practice, we are not supposed to try to stop unwholesome thoughts from arising. This will prove to be ineffective and all we get will be more frustrations. What we can do, is to let go of the grasping to the thoughts. There is an energetic difference between the two.

 

About this letting go, it is really a gentle process and cannot be forced. Excessive forcing re-enforces the arising of 'sense of self' and ineffective grasping kicks into action again.

 

Often, the thoughts that arised are in conditioned response to what is being perceived by the senses. The speed of the arisal of the thought often is very fast. Because there is a perception, which is followed rapidly by the conditioned thought, the conditioned reaction(grasping) to the thought often is almost immediate. The rapid change that occur within this short span of duration is what makes 'recognising' the grasping from the perception and thoughts difficult.

 

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

 

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

 

 

 

These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles .

I can' agree with you here. I love myself too much to be able to go there with you. I don't want to do away with the Agent (me). I agree, there are processes, and "I" live within these processes and act and react to and with the processes. At least, "I think" that's the way "I" do it.

 

Once again, I am a Taoist therefore I am therefore I think.

 

Surely you can see how much "I" love "me".

You can't do away with something that never was. Just look and see in direct experience no agent can be found. It is not a matter of whether you want to 'go there'... It is a matter of what is true. There is no you. Look and see if that is true. Don't blindly believe in dogmas - especially the primary dogma/unexamined belief of a 'self'. And I can assure you there is nothing to be fearful about, instead you will feel an immense liberation and weight being lifted. 'You' will feel boundless, free, blissful when it is realised there is no 'you'.

 

Experiences arise. Sounds are heard. Scenery seen.

 

Only after that experience do you think "I saw that sight" "I heard that sound". There is this reference to an 'I' that did that.

 

But in that actual seeing, hearing, was there an 'I' responsible for that? No. It was an after-thought of the actual experience, it was an inference. And can the thought 'I hear' hear? Can the thought 'I see' see? Obviously not. The actual seeing is without 'I' - 'I' is merely an inferred reference point as an after-thought of an arising experience. There is ever just this process of seeing, hearing, thinking, etc, that is the sights, sounds, thoughts... arising and subsiding moment by moment according to interdependent origination.

 

And 'I' is that all along - an inferred thing. Never actual. Never found. Never located. Because it never is.

 

But this arising sound, sight, thought, is what is actual and is simply arising as this process according to dependent origination... without an agency.

 

When insight of Anatta arises, one enters the stream and is assured a straight path to Nirvana without ever the chance of falling back into the lower realms. And the Buddha has even said that if you have the right view (without experiential realization), that alone ensures you will attain stream entry in this very life. If you love yourself... consider this a worthy contemplation of the highest kind.

Edited November 20, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Hi Xabir,

 

Two separate posts here in resopnse to your last post.

 

This one to the article.

 

Apparently the author has not learned how to meditate in the state of "wu".

 

No, we do not consciously try to stop the thoughts. We allow them to arise but we pay no attention to them. We allow them to arise and drift back into nothingness. When the thoughts recieve no attention they stop coming. This is when we are fully in the state of "wu". No thought, no attention afforded anything around us but full aware (subconsciously) of everything around us.

 

The sky/cloud metaphor (although he/she said it wasn't a metaphor) is invalid because there are days where there is no cloud in the sky.

 

To break through the clouds the sun has to come out.

 

That's not true. The sun was always there. We just couldn't see it.

 

The rest of the article (I just scanned it) is saying basically the same thing Taoist say when they say that we need to get rid of all the flawed knowledge we have been taught during our lifetime - too tear down the house and build a new one based on varifiable facts.

[Marblehead]

You can't do away with something that never was. Just look and see in direct experience no agent can be found. It is not a matter of whether you want to 'go there'... It is a matter of what is true. There is no you. Look and see if that is true. Don't blindly believe in dogmas - especially the primary dogma/unexamined belief of a 'self'. And I can assure you there is nothing to be fearful about, instead you will feel an immense liberation and weight being lifted. 'You' will feel boundless, free, blissful when it is realised there is no 'you'.

 

Experiences arise. Sounds are heard. Scenery seen.

 

Only after that experience do you think "I saw that sight" "I heard that sound". There is this reference to an 'I' that did that.

 

But in that actual seeing, hearing, was there an 'I' responsible for that? No. It was an after-thought of the actual experience, it was an inference. And can the thought 'I hear' hear? Can the thought 'I see' see? Obviously not. The actual seeing is without 'I' - 'I' is merely an inferred reference point as an after-thought of an arising experience. There is ever just this process of seeing, hearing, thinking, etc, that is the sights, sounds, thoughts... arising and subsiding moment by moment according to interdependent origination.

 

And 'I' is that all along - an inferred thing. Never actual. Never found. Never located. Because it never is.

 

But this arising sound, sight, thought, is what is actual and is simply arising as this process according to dependent origination... without an agency.

 

When insight of Anatta arises, one enters the stream and is assured a straight path to Nirvana without ever the chance of falling back into the lower realms. And the Buddha has even said that if you have the right view (without experiential realization), that alone ensures you will attain stream entry in this very life. If you love yourself... consider this a worthy contemplation of the highest kind.

 

Okay, with intent, I placed my hand on my head and there I was. I exist!!! WoW!!!!! I am sitting in (on) my chair. It Exists!!!! More Wows!!!

 

Am I eternal and will last forever? NO. Will the chair? No. But for now both exist.

 

Oh My Goodness!!! How many times do I need to tell you folks that I am not in prison and I do not need to be liberated? You folks sure do love to use that word!

 

But I am already boundless, free, and blissful. I even have peace and contentment in my life.

 

No, "I" did not create the sounds, smells, sights that I experience of other things. They produced them in their own manner. I percieved them in my own manner.

 

When I turn on my stereo you cannot hear the music but I can. The sound does not exist for you but it does exist for me. If I told you what song was playing and you knew the song then you would be able to hear the song as well but it would be generated by your thoughts and not by my speakers.

 

Now you know that I do not accept the concept of reincarnation into my life so what you said about it does not apply to me.

 

I was born, I have lived and I plan to live for many years still and one day I will die. Once I die I will no longer have all these experiences I have had and will have in my life. What is me will become something else. NO, I have no idea what that might be and I'm not a bit concerned about it.

 

But if I did believe in reincarnation I would enjoy doing this whole thing all over again. There were a lot of women I didn't have the chance to give a hug and kiss so maybe I can catch them the next go-round.

 

I really do exist even though my existence is only temporary. I am today of the Manifest and one day parts of me will return to the Mystery. Beyond that I have no thoughts or words.

[xabir2005]

Hi Marble,

 

I'm not suggesting you are an unhappy man. But the 'I am already boundless, free, and blissful. I even have peace and contentment in my life.' can be taken to a whole new level with true realization of Anatta.

 

Sound arise without hearer, they arise and subside according to conditions. They are vivid, clear, pristine, undeniable. Sound does not arise in my mindstream because there is no such causes and conditions. But the fact remains that there is no hearer apart from sound/perception. It just so happens that a particular sound is arising within one mindstream and not another. But arisings happen without agent. Individual mindstreams are not denied in Anatta... a perceiving/controlling agent is denied. The word 'I' is simply a label for a conglomerate of arising and subsiding experiences, not a fixed locatable essence... much like the word 'weather' refers to a conglomerate of arising and passing phenomena but not to a fixed findable essence.

 

Place your hand on your head... sensation arises, clear, vivid, undeniable! But the thought 'I felt it' is an after thought... an inference.

 

I live in the undeniable vividness of manifestation... without the belief in self-hood. Self-hood is just that - a belief, an inference... nothing actual.

 

What is actual is Life... in its wonderful diversity and manifestation... It is not a dead emptiness, it is Fullness itself.

 

It is fullness shining and presenting itself (and vanishing) every moment without an agent, an experiencer.

Edited November 20, 2010 by xabir2005