The Nature of Self

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have experienced the union of the mind and body. I know that I am my body because I feel it. I know my spirit is alive because I experience it. I have compassion for others, not because it's the moral thing to do, but because it's the correct action. I am constantly trying to allow the highest forms of virtue to arise from my spirit, my original nature, because I understand that it is an essential part of me as a human being. I know that in order to reverse the conditioning that has occurred within my own mind-self, that I must be willing to awaken and allow my spirit to work through me. If that's not the highest form of enlightenment, I'm fine with that. For me I follow the path of my own heart, not the path that I have been directed to take. I believe that by following what's within my heart, my spirit-self, that I am also following what's within the spirit-self that resides within you, for both of our spirits are the same and connected. You may not feel the connection, but it is there and if one is willing to open themselves to it then they will feel the unending peace and serenity that abounds from it.

 

And who will judge whether it is virtuous or not? How will you know if it arises from the so called heart?

 

Unending serenity and peace...lol, how boring.

[Jetsun]

Hello Jetsun,

 

Here are the links that were originally posted in the Repression and Supression of Sexuality thread...

 

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/abuse-alleged-at-monastery-for-tibet-exiles-698788.html

 

These actually were not the first times I'd heard about this. If you do a search on the internet I'm sure you'll find many more. The fact is that it's just coming to light and the social stigma attached to these acts is preventing many of the victims from coming forward. I wouldn't make the allegations if there wasn't some evidence to back them up.

 

Again, I didn't want this to be the focus of this thread. If you want to discuss the topic of sexual abuse in Buddhist monasteries, I recommend you start a new topic. My point is that the belief that one can transcend emotion and ego is illusory. And even more importantly that one should not be considered enlightened just because they've passed a test, but rather one's actions should dictate that (Of course that's a topic for another thread as well).

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the nature of self. I don't discourage people from providing evidence to support their claims, but lets not let the evidence become the focus of the discussion.

 

Aaron

 

No doubt there are some abuses of power in Buddhism and in closed communities there are sometimes individuals who take advantage of positions of power given to them, but I see no evidence there is anything approaching a cover up with parallels to the Catholic church. I would be careful if I were you accusing someone who works tirelessly for the welfare of mankind of such serious things, there is not an abundance of sites talking about this like you suggest and can't find even one person who has come forward to say they personally were sexually abused in this way in a monestary where the Dalai Lama is associated, unlike the Catholic church where there are hundreds of individual case studies and personal witness testimonies.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Jetsun

[Otis]

But at the moment I'm forced to concentrate in writing my CV and finding a more suitable job : (

 

Mandrake

Good luck, Mandrake, in finding that job.

[Birch]

There is a great conversation going on here, with a lot of insightful things being said on all sides.

 

I do want to make a small criticism, not of any specific individual, but of a style of posting, that I think is turning this into an unnecessary conflict.

 

It is the use of "you" that I object to. Many times in this thread, posters have said things along the lines of: "you do not understand", "you are at ____ level of awareness", "once you see it, you will know" etc.

 

This use of "you" seems problematic at best, and possibly, intellectually dishonest. All we have of each other, are some words on a screen. There is no "you" there, only an argument and some assertions.

 

By all means, let us take on the argument. Let us take on the assertions. But let us leave "you" alone.

 

Have any of us have ever been inside each others' heads? Have any of us shared each others' experiences? It doesn't seem very likely. In fact, it seems delusional, it seems like projection, it seems like ad hominem fallacy.

 

All I have to share is my experience. I have absolutely nothing else. Even what I am taught or what I intuit or what I remember is just part of my experience. So that is what is legitimate to share. The rest is delusion.

 

If I say "X is real", instead of "X seems real" or "IME, X is real", then I am lying. I do not, cannot know what is real. Because I am always relying on myself as the standard, and that standard is inherently limited.

 

And - I absolutely cannot know what is "you". I feel no hesitancy, responding to what has been written, but I think it is shameful to make projections in a philosophical argument. How would I expect anyone to take me seriously, as having a clear view of my own mind, if I am busy creating false and impossible assertions about the contents of someone else's mind?

 

 

If could've multi-millioned plussed it I would've. I haven't checked, but I reckon I gave up that particular use of "you" a while back. I think I keep the use of "you" for questions, maybe some jokes. A few insults.

 

Edited: to add my use of "you" as a hypothetical person. Not sure who that would be exactly

 

And used to give an example using Otis and the tires I saw him jumping over. I know we have eprime day or whatever. Do we have "it's not you it's me day" ?

Edited May 3, 2011 by -K-

[Birch]

I think that we reach outward because we are conditioned to believe that we are separate from God and separate from the universe and separate from each other. So we look for answers outside of ourselves and in words and books and in other people - politicians, religious leaders, gurus. Because if I am just this little, separate, individual, ignorant me - how could I possible contain the secrets of the universe? They must be out there and that big whatever it is, somewhere...

 

If we would come to understand (and feel) that we are the same stuff as the universe and each other and God and that we are all intimately and perfectly integrated and interrelated, then we would realize that there is no where that we can possibly be more in touch with truth than in our selves. Then we would look inward rather than outward for our answers. I think this awakening is what brings many folks to this forum and to the various forms of cultivation.

 

I wonder if we are conditioned to believe that to begin with. I think we might be conditioned to believe that we need to believe in something like "god" or whatever as a play into to our very helplessness at the beginning of our lives. That some people take advantage (ad nauseum) of this natural state of affairs seems to me to be horrendous...plausible.

[Aaron]

No doubt there are some abuses of power in Buddhism and in closed communities there are sometimes individuals who take advantage of positions of power given to them, but I see no evidence there is anything approaching a cover up with parallels to the Catholic church. I would be careful if I were you accusing someone who works tirelessly for the welfare of mankind of such serious things, there is not an abundance of sites talking about this like you suggest and can't find even one person who has come forward to say they personally were sexually abused in this way in a monestary where the Dalai Lama is associated, unlike the Catholic church where there are hundreds of individual case studies and personal witness testimonies.

 

 

Hello Jetsun,

 

I don't want to have this discussion here, since it's off-topic for this thread. The only thing I would ask is if you actually read both of the articles? If not perhaps you should check out this blog which has links to numerous other incidents of the sexual abuse of children by Buddhist monks.

 

http://mysticbanana.com/how-would-one-go-about-practicing-traditional-theravada-buddhism-in-the-west.html

 

Please message me if you want to have a discussion about this.

 

Aaron

Edited May 3, 2011 by Twinner

[C T]

No doubt there are some abuses of power in Buddhism and in closed communities there are sometimes individuals who take advantage of positions of power given to them, but I see no evidence there is anything approaching a cover up with parallels to the Catholic church. I would be careful if I were you accusing someone who works tirelessly for the welfare of mankind of such serious things, there is not an abundance of sites talking about this like you suggest and can't find even one person who has come forward to say they personally were sexually abused in this way in a monestary where the Dalai Lama is associated, unlike the Catholic church where there are hundreds of individual case studies and personal witness testimonies.

In the bardo of becoming, as in any bardo, what is transient and ever-ungraspable would appear to be fixed and graspable. It is the confusion in these intermediate states that causes the 'traveller' to form certain fixated opinions, which then directs him/her to grasp at certain pleasant scenes, and ignore some others, as though unable to distinguish between what is real and what is false.

 

Often, the scenes which are grasped at are the exact ones that appear to tie in with their particular preferences at a particular stage in the bardo. There will be horrendous scenes appearing as well - naturally, these would immediately ping the habitual tendency to deflect, avoid, negate, and avert. Hence, the traveller only sees what he or she wants to see, and take what is seen as real. It is in this way that people remain within the wheel of samsara.

 

In the seeing, if nothing is grasped, or rejected, whatever arises is spontaneously liberated into the primordial purity of the vast expanse of the empty, yet luminous dharmakaya, thus instant freedom remains. There is no attainment, achievement or any doing of any practice to bring about this state since there is no 'one' to attain anything. There is only the requirement to recognize that it (the mind) is already free from beginningless time. By resting and remaining in this recognition, which could be anything from an instant, a flash of seeing, to a complete state of non-distracted 'beingness', 24/7.

 

Without seeing into the true nature of self, it is impossible to tell that there really is no essential difference in all the various bardos - what appears to be the bardo called life is merely an extension of the bardo of dying. Everything is intermediate and fluxing. Fixated views arise simply because the tendency to cling to what is deemed 'real' overpowers that which is truly 'real', and the beauty of it all is that the only thing, the one thing (called by many names) that is truly real is ever-changing!

 

What the OP is clinging to here, his views, is the exact thing that is causing him pain. The appearances are not the cause of this anguish - it is his assertions that the appearances are real that brings about such reactivity in him. Please understand the nature of things as they are, and not what we choose to assign them to be, based on habits.

 

Just to prove a point - the response (if there is one) to this post have already been 'seen' - Buddhist preaching, dogma, open your own thread, your opinions are not valid here, dont derail the topic etc. In other words, the OP only wants to read what fits into his paradigm, and anyone who presents one that does not fit into his own is unwelcome here, for it is HIS thread, says he. C'est la vie.

[deci belle]

In the second chapter of Chuang tzu, On Equalizing Things, there is the short passage, "…As long as they follow their fixed mentalities as guides, who is alone and without guidance? Why should they substitute knowledge, when they have what their minds take for themselves?"

 

What constitutes the nature of self? What follows is not a meditation-state, nor is it reached by action on your part: Until one experiences no-mind in the absence of even nothing whatsoever, who has the wherewithal to propose, much less assume the likely-hood of conceptual understanding. It is not a matter of inconceivability. It is a matter of direct knowledge without equal, mediatory sufficiency or person. Knowledge is not a person. There is no such thing. Enlightenment is seeing your nature as your nature— it is not being. You are not your nature. Your nature is you. I don't talk about nature. I talk about the knowledge. Who has direct experience? When you see your nature you are not the person. Seeing your nature is a direct result of ceasing to exist. Nonexistence is the nature of yourself. That is the whole natural unborn undying selfless inconceivable fact. There is no thought, self, identity, soul, traveller, knowing, volition, person, beginning or end here.

 

You cannot philosophize on the nature of self. The nature of self is not a person. Human being is not a noun. You who think or believe that this realm is a matter of opinion or spirituality based on anything you can know— do not know.

 

Those who tout one wisdom tradition over another on the basis of historic accountability are full of it. You do not know. Because if you did know, you would not refer to a nameable tradition— you would refer to your self. Wisdom traditions are a result of the knowledge of the nature of self. The nature of self does not follow. It is miraculous awareness not one iota different than the awareness in you reading these words.

 

The nature of self precedes the organization of creation. Even though it is not created, there is that which is beyond the nature of self. So seeing your nature isn't such a big thing, really. The mysteries never end, regardless of self or no-self. YOU must see for yourself— don't substitute your present mind for knowledge. Knowledge is direct, unequivocal and inconceivable. Do not mistake reality for your mind that thinks.

Edited May 8, 2011 by deci belle

[Aaron]

In the bardo of becoming, as in any bardo, what is transient and ever-ungraspable would appear to be fixed and graspable. It is the confusion in these intermediate states that causes the 'traveller' to form certain fixated opinions, which then directs him/her to grasp at certain pleasant scenes, and ignore some others, as though unable to distinguish between what is real and what is false.

 

Often, the scenes which are grasped at are the exact ones that appear to tie in with their particular preferences at a particular stage in the bardo. There will be horrendous scenes appearing as well - naturally, these would immediately ping the habitual tendency to deflect, avoid, negate, and avert. Hence, the traveller only sees what he or she wants to see, and take what is seen as real. It is in this way that people remain within the wheel of samsara.

 

In the seeing, if nothing is grasped, or rejected, whatever arises is spontaneously liberated into the primordial purity of the vast expanse of the empty, yet luminous dharmakaya, thus instant freedom remains. There is no attainment, achievement or any doing of any practice to bring about this state since there is no 'one' to attain anything. There is only the requirement to recognize that it (the mind) is already free from beginningless time. By resting and remaining in this recognition, which could be anything from an instant, a flash of seeing, to a complete state of non-distracted 'beingness', 24/7.

 

Without seeing into the true nature of self, it is impossible to tell that there really is no essential difference in all the various bardos - what appears to be the bardo called life is merely an extension of the bardo of dying. Everything is intermediate and fluxing. Fixated views arise simply because the tendency to cling to what is deemed 'real' overpowers that which is truly 'real', and the beauty of it all is that the only thing, the one thing (called by many names) that is truly real is ever-changing!

 

What the OP is clinging to here, his views, is the exact thing that is causing him pain. The appearances are not the cause of this anguish - it is his assertions that the appearances are real that brings about such reactivity in him. Please understand the nature of things as they are, and not what we choose to assign them to be, based on habits.

 

Just to prove a point - the response (if there is one) to this post have already been 'seen' - Buddhist preaching, dogma, open your own thread, your opinions are not valid here, dont derail the topic etc. In other words, the OP only wants to read what fits into his paradigm, and anyone who presents one that does not fit into his own is unwelcome here, for it is HIS thread, says he. C'est la vie.

 

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

Two things. First, I'm not asking people to talk about what I want to talk about, but rather pointing out that what several people were discussing had nothing to do with the topic of self, in the context of this thread. Their opinion was that there was no self, that it was an illusion. My argument and the original intent of this post wasn't regarding that at all, but rather that self does exist and my hope was to talk about the nature of self in that regard. What happened is that I was inundated with people that seemed to think my idea was an affront to Buddhist philosophy. In defense of my argument I cited reasons why I felt the Buddhist method of enlightenment was no more valid than any other, including my own.

 

With that said, in the end no one can prove they are enlightened or they have reached an enlightened state, rather it is a state of consciousness and ego, even if that state of consciousness is the absence of consciousness. Otis made this abundantly clear and I agree with him. I regret my behavior now and I see that I didn't go about it in a way that was harmonious with others. I am human and I am not perfect. I do fail, but my intentions weren't to upset or diminish people, but rather validate a point that I thought deserved to be validated. If I did upset anyone then I am sorry.

 

I think that this thread still has potential and the topics that we're addressing are of the utmost importance for anyone that seeks awareness, awakening, enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it. I think that ultimately it is the knowledge of self that will lead one to understanding the actual nature of self. With that said, I hope we can continue this dialog in a kind and compassionate manner, respecting each other.

 

One point that I especially enjoyed in your post, and something I think I've been trying to allude to is that when one does reach a degree of awakening that they can begin to experience a place of non-distracted beingness. I believe I have experienced that on several occasions and it's an indescribable experience.

 

I also agree with you in regards to the connected nature of life and death. I think people are so caught up in duality at times that they rarely understand that everything is connected. Birth and Death are just the beginning and end of the same experience. It's the same with good and evil, right and wrong, hate and love, and the list goes on. As long as we cease to see how these abstract ideas are essentially just the beginning and end of the same experience, we will never really be able to understand them. I think when you talk about one who has reached enlightenment having problems with extreme emotions, that's part of it, the realization that these emotions are not separate, but rather expressions of the same experience in different ways.

 

Again, my apologies for any misunderstandings. I do hope we can keep this dialog going and that we can remember to respect each other and show compassion for each other. I will do my best to continue this discussion with that in mind.

 

Peace be with you,

 

Aaron

Edited May 3, 2011 by Twinner

[Lucky7Strikes]

Eh? Seems like the only one upset here is you. .

[Otis]

I wonder if we are conditioned to believe that to begin with. I think we might be conditioned to believe that we need to believe in something like "god" or whatever as a play into to our very helplessness at the beginning of our lives. That some people take advantage (ad nauseum) of this natural state of affairs seems to me to be horrendous...plausible.

Sure. A baby is entirely dependent on having the parents look out for it. Once it grows older, and is no longer under the direct guard and supervision of the parents, the child now feels the need for a "heavenly father", who watches over the safety, and enforces the morality of the child. Eventually, the belief system itself becomes the deity.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Otis

[manitou]

I wonder if we are conditioned to believe that to begin with. I think we might be conditioned to believe that we need to believe in something like "god" or whatever as a play into to our very helplessness at the beginning of our lives. That some people take advantage (ad nauseum) of this natural state of affairs seems to me to be horrendous...plausible.

 

I wonder if a feral person would have any sense of Why, where, or who?

[Aaron]

Eh? Seems like the only one upset here is you. .

 

 

Hello Lucky,

 

Rather than make snide comments like this, could you just let this go so we can get back to discussing the topic of the thread in a civil manner.

 

Aaron

Edited May 3, 2011 by Twinner

[Wayfarer64]

The constant is change. Am I the same "person" I was at 2 or 10 or 30 years old? I seem to possess a continued conscioussness over those years, but I am not the same person.

I have also had out of body experiences that lead me to believe that my self is not perminently tied to my ever-changing corporial "self" anyway!

 

My take is I have an eternal spirit that has a soul of its own, and a "borrowed" body and mind to allow me this human experience...

That consciouss self has had several incarnations and shall have more until I realize a permenent spiritual being...

[adept]

Hello Jack,

 

No offense, but I have read many, many, many books about Buddhism and it's no different from any other -ism

 

Therein lies your problem with Buddhism.

[Aaron]

Therein lies your problem with Buddhism.

 

 

Hello Adept,

 

I want to clarify that I have no more of a problem with Buddhism than I do Taoism, Christianity, or Islam. In my mind they all serve a purpose and if one wishes to practice one of these religions they should be able to. I made that comment to explain that I'm not making these assumptions based on ignorance, but rather based on what I know about the religion. In fact I have a great deal of respect for Zen and Ch'ang Buddhism.

 

If I made comments that seem to be attacks, they weren't, rather they were examples of why I feel Buddhism doesn't work for me and what eventually led to my current beliefs regarding self and the nature of self. I am not inclined to argue, in fact it pains me to argue. I would much rather have a kind and courteous conversation about a topic, one that doesn't attack someone, but rather discusses the topic at hand. That's what I think we should aspire to here. You have your opinion and I have mine, rather than continue to try to prove which opinion is wrong I say lets discuss the differences and accept that we have differences of opinion.

 

Aaron

[stan herman]

The question of whether there is a'Self' and if so its nature is an intriguing one. The Buddhist Abhidhamma, reputedly the 'highest' teachings of the Buddha , says there is no self other than a flowing stream of karma--the arising and disappearing of an impersonal process. Other traditions see the true-self as soul, or ego, or as the containing vessel of individual mind-brain consciousness.

 

I suppose I've entertained most of these views at one time or another. Recently it occurred to me, that it may not be an either-or question. In other words, the self can be any, all or none of the above, depending on how the particular perceiver constructs it. At least that's the way it looks to me now.

[三江源]

The question of whether there is a'Self' and if so its nature is an intriguing one. The Buddhist Abhidhamma, reputedly the 'highest' teachings of the Buddha , says there is no self other than a flowing stream of karma--the arising and disappearing of an impersonal process. Other traditions see the true-self as soul, or ego, or as the containing vessel of individual mind-brain consciousness.

 

I suppose I've entertained most of these views at one time or another. Recently it occurred to me, that it may not be an either-or question. In other words, the self can be any, all or none of the above, depending on how the particular perceiver constructs it. At least that's the way it looks to me now.

 

 

 

Funny, we found out the world isnt flat, but we expect our selves to be so.

 

Either this or this..

 

I think is a function of existing in time that we are habituated to think is 'now' or 'then'.. surely not both?!?!?! that would be unpossible!

 

we dont see the model of layers ( simultaneity) as integral to everything, although we see it in trees and sedimentary rocks and millefeuille.

[Aaron]

The question of whether there is a'Self' and if so its nature is an intriguing one. The Buddhist Abhidhamma, reputedly the 'highest' teachings of the Buddha , says there is no self other than a flowing stream of karma--the arising and disappearing of an impersonal process. Other traditions see the true-self as soul, or ego, or as the containing vessel of individual mind-brain consciousness.

 

I suppose I've entertained most of these views at one time or another. Recently it occurred to me, that it may not be an either-or question. In other words, the self can be any, all or none of the above, depending on how the particular perceiver constructs it. At least that's the way it looks to me now.

 

Hello Stan,

 

In my non-scientific opinion we are a bit of both. Again, in my opinion (that stems from a deeply religious experience) I believe our spirit continues to pass on from lifetime to lifetime until we reach a point where we understand what we're doing here, then we cease to return. I can't prove this at all, the only reason I believe it is because I experienced something so profound that there is no doubt in my mind. I also think the spirit, the part that continues on is our self, just as much as my body and mind. Yes the body and mind may cease to exist, but what truly makes us, us, is the singular being that is the mind, body, and soul as one while it does exist.

 

Aaron

Edited May 4, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

Hello Stan,

 

In my non-scientific opinion we are a bit of both. Again, in my opinion (that stems from a deeply religious experience) I believe our spirit continues to pass on from lifetime to lifetime until we reach a point where we understand what we're doing here, then we cease to return. I can't prove this at all, the only reason I believe it is because I experienced something so profound that there is no doubt in my mind. I also think the spirit, the part that continues on is our self, just as much as my body and mind. Yes the body and mind may cease to exist, but what truly makes us, us, is the singular being that is the mind, body, and soul as one while it does exist.

 

Aaron

 

How very close this seems to saying the unsayable. Well done.

 

To take it a step further, maybe the understanding of what we're doing here is merely the realization of the God-self. To realize Who we really are.

[Aaron]

How very close this seems to saying the unsayable. Well done.

 

To take it a step further, maybe the understanding of what we're doing here is merely the realization of the God-self. To realize Who we really are.

 

That's very Vendantic. If you haven't already, you should read Allan Watts "The Book". From my own personal beliefs I would argue that you're probably correct, but there's no way of knowing until we reach that final step.

 

Aaron

[manitou]

That's very Vendantic. If you haven't already, you should read Allan Watts "The Book". From my own personal beliefs I would argue that you're probably correct, but there's no way of knowing until we reach that final step.

 

Aaron

 

Maybe we know when we're infused with perfect love for all, regardless of any judgment.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack