Lucky7Strikes Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) I want to apologize to Dwai, for being mean and condescending. And I feel a bit bitter towards Vaj for imposing sectarian views so strongly when it wasn't necessary . And I want to thank GIH for challenging our understandings. And I hope Xabir doesn't get too technical. I want to thank others who have been patient with Buddhist theory nonsense. The discrepancies we have made often in the long threads between Self and no-self, I realize only pertain to techniques and methods of teaching, and are actually hindrances to practice if one clings to them as solid descriptions of our daily experience (note: I didn't say "truth" or any of that mumble jumble). The more directly I experience, I see better where these concepts fit in. I am going to lay back on so much Buddhism, which I think offers wonderful teachings, and acknowledge and rest in the mystery of things. Be a bit more Taoist. . Edited January 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted January 21, 2011 Yep. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted January 21, 2011 You haven't understood what emptiness actually means if that's what you're saying. It's not about being sectarian or not. It's about concepts and which insights particular concepts bring us to. 'Self' is a concept with an implied identification that leads to a psychological attitude of grasping toward experience. No-self is a deconstructive concept which has the purpose of eliminating identification and grasping. Truth is completely beyond concepts, but you need the proper raft to get you there. A raft with an anchor won't get you to the the other side of the shore. I'll take you part of the way and you'll think you made it, and then you'll blame Buddhists for being sectarian, spewing their 'nonsense,' and 'not getting it.' 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) double post Edited January 21, 2011 by Sunya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted January 21, 2011 Lovely post Lucky! (Hehehe. Let's see how well you and I can stay true to your ideal.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 21, 2011 I like an Allan Watts kind of approach or getting along. Om Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted January 21, 2011 I keep forgetting, is it "no-self" or "not-self" that the buddhists teach? The "not-self" stuff I'm very much in line with. The "no-self" stuff I'm in line with when it comes to "not-self" (i.e. (fake) self or "ego"). The "no-self" stuff I'm not in line with is the stuff that negates "true-self" - but then there's also the counter-teaching that there "is such a self" so I guess that gets handled there? But I guess one shouldn't teach each one of these concepts beyond the realization of the student. Plus, one should be realized enough oneself to see when a student has reached a specific realization. I wonder how many teachers of buddhism are realized, rather than just repeating the teachings? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted January 21, 2011 You don't have to think about no-self. Buddhists make no claim therefore have none to defend. It is the others that claim there is a Self, and they have to defend that claim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted January 21, 2011 You don't have to think about no-self. Buddhists make no claim therefore have none to defend. It is the others that claim there is a Self, and they have to defend that claim. Wasn't there the "there is such as self" teaching from Buddha as well? That was what I was referring to. Which "others"? And why would one set of folk have to "defend" a claim more than another? It doesn't seem to ring true for me on this board at this point. I read more "buddhists" "defending" their perspectives (and attacking others, incidentally) here than anything else. I expect the counter-argument to that to be something along the lines of my obviously flawed and personal perspective that can't be other than projection... But if that's the way that you define "reality" then it would make sense that you wish to impose it on everyone else. Claiming something "is" or "is not" seems to me to be both equally worthy of a requirement "to defend" and one's defense in the matter IMO is NOT a sign that one is necessarily in error. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Unlike other buddhists on this board, I actually know something about buddhism. Emptiness is simply negation of another person's claim of self, according to Mādhyamaka. Emptiness itself does not make a claim. Edited January 21, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted January 21, 2011 "Emptiness is simply negation of another person's claim of self" Right, but why bother going around negating other people's claims of self? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted January 21, 2011 "Emptiness is simply negation of another person's claim of self" Right, but why bother going around negating other people's claims of self? Ok maybe not a person, but another philosophical system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) The onus is on each person. For instance: "...those who only have faith in me and affection for me will not find the final freedom. But those who have faith in the truth and are determined on the path, they will find awakening." (Majjhima Nikaya discoure) Edited January 21, 2011 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gendao Posted January 21, 2011 I keep forgetting, is it "no-self" or "not-self" that the buddhists teach? The "not-self" stuff I'm very much in line with. The "no-self" stuff I'm in line with when it comes to "not-self" (i.e. (fake) self or "ego"). The "no-self" stuff I'm not in line with is the stuff that negates "true-self" - but then there's also the counter-teaching that there "is such a self" so I guess that gets handled there? Buddhism teaches that ultimately, the "self" is illusive. Enlightenment is the experiencing of no self. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted January 21, 2011 Buddhism teaches that ultimately, the "self" is illusive. Enlightenment is the experiencing of no self. Oh, that. Thanks Mr V. ----moves on to investigation of less boring things Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) You haven't understood what emptiness actually means if that's what you're saying. It's not about being sectarian or not. It's about concepts and which insights particular concepts bring us to. 'Self' is a concept with an implied identification that leads to a psychological attitude of grasping toward experience. No-self is a deconstructive concept which has the purpose of eliminating identification and grasping. Truth is completely beyond concepts, but you need the proper raft to get you there. A raft with an anchor won't get you to the the other side of the shore. I'll take you part of the way and you'll think you made it, and then you'll blame Buddhists for being sectarian, spewing their 'nonsense,' and 'not getting it.' Whoa. No need to impose meaning on my post. I didn't mean to sound insulting to Buddhists for spewing nonsense. That was not the intention of the post. That part was directed at Vaj. But you are right. There is conceptual understanding, which is good but it doesn't get to the core of practice and direct realization. The conceptual understanding of emptiness is so that it may give one the capacity to see reality directly by loosening some logical nonsense we cling to. The attempt to "understand" emptiness is where one is plastering on concepts into a pure unfiltered view of reality. The conceptual understanding is a ground work and most of the way it is presented in Buddhism is through refutation of cognitive grasping. BUT the problem can arise when one thinks concept can "lead" to insight, which is not so correct in my view. It rather gives us the assurance, a confidence, to practice and try to see reality as is. The danger here is also viewing things as "Truth is beyond concepts." It's not that this statement is wrong, it's that upon hearing, one's mind can easily revert to "ok, I need to find the Truth, or understand the truth, or interpret the truth." This leads to an intellectual path, which is not what direct insight is about. Edited January 21, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted January 21, 2011 You don't have to think about no-self. Buddhists make no claim therefore have none to defend. It is the others that claim there is a Self, and they have to defend that claim. Yes, I agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted January 21, 2011 Buddhism teaches that ultimately, the "self" is illusive. Enlightenment is the experiencing of no self. Actually from what I remember from reading the article, Norquist understands only part of the equation where he realizes there is no fixated self in an experience, but that the "universe" itself is not fixated and ungraspable. As in, he still takes outer appearances to have a reality to them beyond one's mind, as in "other"/"universe". Integration of both understandings does not produce a state where one is "disinterested" in thing or in an "Orwellian" mode, but a blissful appreciation for life and a natural compassion for all things. I'm not saying this conceptually, I am beginning to experience this daily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Wasn't there the "there is such as self" teaching from Buddha as well? That was what I was referring to. The "self" that is talked about in the Parinirvana Sutra, is not an ultimate source of all things, it's not an established self in the sense that it inherently exists. It's a realized intention of seeing the interconnection of all things. It's the self of a Buddha, established only in the sense of full realization of the empty and inter-dependent nature of all things. It's the awakened self of compassion and the rest of the virtues that are engendered by this realization. It's not a "self" in the sense of the Hindus. As in, it's not Brahman. Buddhism is inherently sectarian in the sense that it expresses a uniquely viewless view, where all other traditions seem to establish some true, and self shining existence that is a transcendent and independent source of all things. This fact seems to allude most people, because if you don't internally understand these concepts on a level beyond concepts, it seems like a fight. But, really, it's just an insight that is unique to full awakening. Where other traditions generally stop, now I'm not talking about the possibility of individuals going beyond the appearance of the concepts and coming to the same awakeness through another tradition, but in explanation and method, Buddhism is unique in it's concise application of concepts and methodology. As in, if you understand the concepts within the context of the entire Cannon of Buddhist explanation, you don't make the mistake of either positive or negative grasping or Eternalism or Nihilism and you understand the middle way of the Buddha. Most every single tradition is Eternalistic, from Jainism to Jewdaism. Even in their assumption of a transcending, non-conceptual, and formless absolute. Buddhism, even conceptually, never makes this assumption. Even though, some translations into English and out of context can seem to be making an Eternalistic assertion, it is not and it's either the mistake of the translator or the reader who doesn't understand the context that is the entirety and intention of the Cannon. Which "others"? And why would one set of folk have to "defend" a claim more than another? It doesn't seem to ring true for me on this board at this point. I read more "buddhists" "defending" their perspectives (and attacking others, incidentally) here than anything else. People only take it as attacking due to grasping at a view or a misunderstanding of the concepts. Buddhism doesn't actually attack in that sense, it subverts wrong views, which can make someone who is deeply attached to a wrong view, very nervous on a level that they are probably not aware of. So the feeling of fear arises, and then the person has to defend that attachment to the arising fear as "self." Not knowing the inner cause of the fear is itself ignorance of the truth of dependent origination/emptiness. Claiming something "is" or "is not" seems to me to be both equally worthy of a requirement "to defend" and one's defense in the matter IMO is NOT a sign that one is necessarily in error. Buddhism doesn't say that there is not a self, but that all selves are relative, and not ultimate. Even the such "self" of the parinirvana sutra. That "self" of a Buddha is only ultimate in the sense that it's reflective of the ultimate insight into the relativity of everything including itself (his/herself). So, actually there is nothing inherent to defend as an ultimate truth, there is only the assertion that all views are false and do not lead to ultimate liberation of the viewless view of Buddhahood. Of which you can make the choice to accept it, understand it, or leave it and take up any one of the proliferation of views as an ultimate stance to anchor to. Edited January 21, 2011 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 21, 2011 You don't have to think about no-self. Buddhists make no claim therefore have none to defend. It is the others that claim there is a Self, and they have to defend that claim. Er....how is the "Extra-ordinary claims calls for extra-ordinary evidence" logic applicable to this? Everyone experiences a "self". Buddhists go a long way to claim there is "No Self". With that locus standii in mind, the extra-ordinary claim is made by the buddhists and not vice versa. Therefore the onus is on the buddhists to prove that there is indeed no Self. I really don't want to re-re-re-hash the drivel we've been throwing at each other pretending to be "spiritual" discussion in this thread. Lucky, I acknowledge your apology. I repeat my position that one day you will understand what I was trying to convey. The proof of the pudding is in eating it...so bon apetit! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted January 21, 2011 Er....how is the "Extra-ordinary claims calls for extra-ordinary evidence" logic applicable to this? Everyone experiences a "self". Buddhists go a long way to claim there is "No Self". With that locus standii in mind, the extra-ordinary claim is made by the buddhists and not vice versa. Therefore the onus is on the buddhists to prove that there is indeed no Self. I really don't want to re-re-re-hash the drivel we've been throwing at each other pretending to be "spiritual" discussion in this thread. It's really on a personal basis, and I don't think we should subject such claims so strictly to specific religions. Codified teachings don't do the teachers justice. Lucky, I acknowledge your apology. I repeat my position that one day you will understand what I was trying to convey. The proof of the pudding is in eating it...so bon apetit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Er....how is the "Extra-ordinary claims calls for extra-ordinary evidence" logic applicable to this? Everyone experiences a "self". Buddhists go a long way to claim there is "No Self". Not really. You have been listening to fools on this forum who don't understand buddhism. I, as someone who is knowledgeable in buddhism, am saying very plainly that emptiness is simply a negation of your claim that everyone experiences a self. This is the actual technical definition from Madhymakia. Emptiness is a nonimplicative negation. Think about President Obama. In a way he only exists in your mind as a thoughform. Similarly you exist as a thoughtfrom in your own mind. Edited January 21, 2011 by alwayson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted January 21, 2011 Er....how is the "Extra-ordinary claims calls for extra-ordinary evidence" logic applicable to this? Everyone experiences a "self". Buddhists go a long way to claim there is "No Self". With that locus standii in mind, the extra-ordinary claim is made by the buddhists and not vice versa. Therefore the onus is on the buddhists to prove that there is indeed no Self. Actually, there is no such "no-self" either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted January 21, 2011 Actually, there is no such "no-self" either. Hey! You can play that game forever ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted January 21, 2011 "Think about President Obama. In a way he only exists in your mind as a thoughform." Well, if you ask me to think about him, yes, agree. But if I don't think about him, does he still "exist" and if so, in who's mind? (Thought I'd throw you an ole "tree in the forest" thing). "Similarly you exist as a thoughtfrom in your own mind" Yes, and your point being? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
