The Nature of Self

[Aaron]

Are you absolutely sure that The Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu do not mention anything about a "self?" From The Tao Te Ching by D.C. Lau: "Therefore the sage puts his person last and it comes first, Treats it as extraneous to himself and it is preserved. Is it not because he is without thought of self that he is able to accomplish his private ends?

 

From the Chuang Tzu by Berton Watson: "Joy, anger, grief, delight, worry, regret, fickleness, inflexibility, modesty, willfulness, candor, insolence - music from empty holes, mushrooms springing up in dampness, day and night replacing each other before us, and no one knows where they sprout from. Let it be! Let it be! [it is enough that] morning and evening we have them, and they are the means by which we live. Without them we would not exist; without us they would have nothing to take hold of. This comes close to the matter. But I do not know what makes them the way they are. It would seem as though they have some True Master, and yet I find no trace of him. He can act - that is certain. Yet I cannot see his form. He has identity but no form."

 

I called you delusional not because you disagree with Buddhism, but: Because even after Marblehead posted a section of the Tao Te Ching, that was clearly talking of a "self;" you denied it and tried to say it was saying something else. Also because your misinterpretations of Buddhist principles, that when told you were mistaken, you then got all defensive. Of course we can't forget about your self proclaimed view that ALL teachers are deviants.

 

I never said that your insight was wrong: Just that there are insights that go further. The highest principles are usually the most simple; just that people are not able to recognize this. Change/impermanence can be observed in the changing of the seasons and in the birth, aging, and death of an individual. Interdependence of cause and effect can be observed in everyday human affairs.

 

Wow, two decades of meditation and you didn't get very far huh? Such is every individuals karma. You are aware that Vedanta talks of samadhi states too, right?

 

Hello Jack,

 

You're entitled to your opinion. Since you've resorted to insults, I'm not going to continue to have this conversation with you.

 

Aaron

 

edit- The last comment I'll make regarding this topic is that I do think what is really upsetting you is that you still can't prove anything that you're advocating. It's all conjecture based on someone else's experiences, which you admit you yourself have never had. I can prove what I'm talking about based on my own experience and so far no one has been able to disprove it, because it is based on an actual experience that everyone has participated in.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Twinner

[Simplicity Rules]

Started reading this thread this morning and it took a good hour. Twinner, you seem to be represent the Buddhist ideal more than any of the so called Buddhists here who exhibit not even civil behavior, forget compassion and equanimity. Just had to say that, I will let the "Buddhists" continue arguing and throwing insults and judge another's level of insight/realization.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Simplicity Rules

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

Ummmmm, I do have experience in what I have typed in this thread........where in all my responses since the "consciousness" thread have I said that my realizations wasn't based on experience? Again I'm not saying you didn't experience anything. Earlier in this thread you claimed you "see things as it is;" what I'm debating with you, especially with those dzogchen passages I posted, was that you haven't yet directly realized "emptiness." Or how Xabirs link to the site puts it:

 

Anatta is a seal, not a stage.

Awareness has always been non-dual.

Appearances have always been Non-arising.

All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.

Emptiness is the ground of all experiences.

 

I made the comment I did earlier, based on the fact that none of your posts I've seen since the "consciousness" thread have you describing reaching any state of samadhi. Most of your posts seem to revolve around your own conjectured ideas and not totally what on Vedanta teaches. Vedanta, just like every other Indian philosophy, talks of some sort of state of meditative absorption.

 

Don't take what I say so personal: Just keep meditating, keep going further. YOU can do eeeeeeeeeeeeet!

 

Hello Jack,

 

This is the point I'm trying to make, which seems to be getting dismissed. When someone gives you directions, they have to give you landmarks in order for you to know which direction to take. If they say, "you'll know when you get there because you'll see a big tree with a sign saying, "you feel empty", then when you get to that location, you more often than not look for what you've been told to expect, rather than what else is there. So you reach your destination and see the sign and say, "okay, I'm here!" But in being there you don't realize everything else that is there. So lets for one second consider that someone has reached that destination without being directed there, then it is highly likely that they may be more apt to look around a bit more and see what else is there.

 

I'm not saying that Buddhist's don't experience what they experience when they reach these destinations, what I'm saying is that if you are told what to expect, then more often than not, that is what you will experience. I have no doubts that I have experienced a lot of what's being mentioned here, I'm just saying that because I experienced it without any prior direction, that what I got from the experience is different, because I didn't enter the experienced with a preconceived notion of what to expect.

 

Hence, I don't feel the need to "meditate more" because I've already realized what is being talked about and came away with a different understanding.

 

When I say I understand the nature of the physical world and that I am connected to everything in the physical world, it's because I have not only understood it intellectually, but also I have experienced it. I can experience it when I see the tree and see it's branches, not as simply branches, but as expressions of myself reaching out to the sun. I can see it in my mind-self, not only intellectually, but when I experience my interactions with you and I feel the nature of your argument, but also the capacity for kindness and love that resides within you. I can experience it in my spirit-self when I feel it prodding me to compassion, to love you for who you are and not simply for what I believe you to be.

 

My argument is that in order to fully realize our self, we must be done with beliefs and instead rely on our experience as we experience it. To look at what we've been told objectively, rather than follow it based on blind faith. I think it is only when we can do this that we can really experience the nature of self and our original nature, the nature that, if it was allowed to grow as it should have, would recognize all these things without any doubt or questioning, without any need to seek out the truth and rather it would experience the authenticity of everything that is experienced for what it actually is.

 

I'm willing to discuss this with you further, so long as remain objective and don't presume to know my experience or decide it's validity based on yours. When I mentioned that you admitted to not having these experiences yourself, I am referring to your comments in I believe the Nature or Consciousness thread. I didn't mean to infer that you haven't experienced these things, in fact you might have, but what you came away with may have been different from what I did, based on your own expectations about that experience.

 

Honestly, peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 7, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

Actually I experienced the "natural state" before studying or reading anything from Buddhism. It is definitely non-denominational. Why do you choose to ignore this in my posts?

 

Also samadhi is universal, it's non-denominational also. All the major religions describe samadhi states.

 

I NEVER, ever said I did not experience anything that I have written on this forum. Now you're just making shit up.

 

I don't have "blind faith." I study Buddhism because I have faith based on direct experience. Please don't talk of the "original nature" when you have no idea wtf its actually describing. You say you have read Zen, correct? Then you would know that "awakening" in Zen means, realizing emptiness of yourself and phenomena. Most of what you type is based off of your own conjectured ideas.

 

I'm saying you can go further, much further. That is all, I'm trying to say.

 

Hello Jack,

 

You are too emotionally attached to this topic, so I will not be able to continue to have this conversation with you.

 

Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead: I like my Tea hot and plain, to chase the Cointreau on the rocks..

 

Be well..

 

Hehehe.

 

Well, here we are again, at the point where we can't even agree to disagree and move on with the discussion.

 

We each have our own personal experiences in life. And this is one of the causes that make us different individuals.

 

We each are our own "self" with our own "nature".

 

The nature of our self is what we are at this very point in time. We change - our nature changes.

 

Let's have a cup of tea and dance a little afterwards.

[3bob]

om-na-ma-si-va-ya

[Encephalon]

"Where are we taking this?"

Edited May 8, 2011 by Mal
Pic removed

[Marblehead]

No! I will not dance with her. She just isn't my type.

[Nanashi]

Haha, that image is hilarious. Even the monkey is like "I don't know what to do with this."

[Mal]

I know you're not responding to me, Jack, but I have to point out this awful use of "you" again.

 

Well spotted Otis

 

I made the comment I did earlier, based on the fact that none of your posts I've seen since the "consciousness" thread have you describing reaching any state of samadhi. Most of your posts seem to revolve around your own conjectured ideas and not totally what on Vedanta teaches. Vedanta, just like every other Indian philosophy, talks of some sort of state of meditative absorption.

 

Don't take what I say so personal

 

Simple Jack it may have been easier to do that if you have posted the comment above, which is much more reasonable than the insulting value judgment of "you didn't get very far huh"

 

Still I'm VERY happy that everyone tried to stay civil, just remember

 

Here is a repost of our insult policy, please read it and abide by it:

 

No personal insults.

 

It is totally fine to vocally disagree with a person's opinion, technique, politics, approach, lifestyle choice, etc.

 

But no insulting (or links to attacks) of individuals, nationalities, genders, political preferences, lifestyle choices, etc.

 

As for

"Where are we taking this?"

try not to fan the flames, thanks.

[Encephalon]

try not to fan the flames, thanks.

Fair enough. Caffeine is psychotropic.

[Marblehead]

try not to fan the flames, thanks.

 

Yesterday I listened to a song titles "Feed The Flame".

 

Now what am I supposed to do?

 

(Yes, the nature of my self is still cocky.)

[Encephalon]

Yesterday I listened to a song titles "Feed The Flame".

 

Now what am I supposed to do?

 

(Yes, the nature of my self is still cocky.)

 

Me too. In some ways I've actually gotten cockier as I've gotten older but I don't feel unconscionable in these expressions, rather an outburst of exuberant laughter at the absurdity of life. I can see how this is not always well-received by the greenhorns.

[Marblehead]

Me too. In some ways I've actually gotten cockier as I've gotten older but I don't feel unconscionable in these expressions, rather an outburst of exuberant laughter at the absurdity of life. I can see how this is not always well-received by the greenhorns.

 

That actually caused me a good belly laugh. I do realize that some here view me in that regard. Too bad, I suppose, that it really doesn't matter to me all that much if they can't take a joke.

 

We all need to laugh and we all should dance often. Life shouldn't be taken all that seriously - we all are going to die.

[Encephalon]

seriously - we all are going to die.

 

I don't find that kind of morbid fatalism all that amusing, Marblehead. Please keep your notes of despondency to yourself or I shall be forced to report you to the...

 

Besides, Immortal4Life is on the verge of developing a new and improved form of 'science' that can render us immortal... for life!

[Aaron]

That actually caused me a good belly laugh. I do realize that some here view me in that regard. Too bad, I suppose, that it really doesn't matter to me all that much if they can't take a joke.

 

We all need to laugh and we all should dance often. Life shouldn't be taken all that seriously - we all are going to die.

 

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

In my opinion our actions define who we are. We choose how we interact with people and that interaction inherently effects how others define us. The Tao Teh Ching references this notion, that it is what we do that shows others who we truly are, rather than what we say. It is fine to laugh, but should we laugh at others expense? It is fine to disagree, but should we diminish others when we disagree. I try very hard to respect others, even if I disagree with their beliefs. I oftentimes try to examine people's actions in the context of their culture, what drives them to do what they do. When I can see this, then it is easier for me to be tolerant of their behavior and understand that if fate had been different, it could be me doing what they are doing. This is, I believe, part of understanding the bigger picture, how we are each connected and when we can understand this we can truly behave in a conscionable and compassionate manner. It is one of the reasons I think it's very important to understand the nature of self, because in understanding our nature, we can understand the nature of others.

 

Aaron

Edited May 8, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

I don't find that kind of morbid fatalism ...

 

Morbid fatalism? Just a simple fact. Therefore it is important to live while we have life.

 

Besides, Immortal4Life is on the verge of developing a new and improved form of 'science' that can render us immortal... for life!

 

Immortal for life! Yes. That's what it is. A lifetime of immortality.

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

In my opinion our actions define who we are. We choose how we interact with people and that interaction inherently effects how others define us. The Tao Teh Ching references this notion, that it is what we do that shows others who we truly are, rather than what we say. It is fine to laugh, but should we laugh at others expense? It is fine to disagree, but should we diminish others when we disagree. I try very hard to respect others, even if I disagree with their beliefs. I oftentimes try to examine people's actions in the context of their culture, what drives them to do what they do. When I can see this, then it is easier for me to be tolerant of their behavior and understand that if fate had been different, it could be me doing what they are doing. This is, I believe, part of understanding the bigger picture, how we are each connected and when we can understand this we can truly behave in a conscionable and compassionate manner. It is one of the reasons I think it's very important to understand the nature of self, because in understanding our nature, we can understand the nature of others.

 

Aaron

 

What can I say Aaron? Your view is a very valid one.

 

Was I making a joke of anyone? I don't see where I did that. The joke was more at my own expense rather than anyone else's. But I agree with you, to make a joke of someone else is not good.

 

And I agree that we should not attempt to diminish the value of what others hold of value unless it is with the intent to cause the other to reconsider what it is they hold value to or to indicate that youtotally disagree with and think what they have said is totally false.

 

When I was in the service I mingled with the locals as often as I could in order to learn their customs and why the lived the type of life the lived.

 

As to compassion, I think that if someone is messing up the person needs to be told that they are messing up. Can that be done compassionately? I don't know. I simply tell things the way I see them. It sometimes isn't gentle. Like the statement: We all are going to die. That is a simple fact of our physical essence. It is one of the processes of Tao. Need that be somehow stated compassionately?

 

True, in many of the translations of the TTC the word 'compassion' is one of the Three Treasures. But I think to be compassionate at the cost of not telling the truth is an error.

 

I admire your wish to spread love and compassion amongst others. A noble goal. My goal is to cause others to look at the reality of the physical world. It ain't alway a nice place. Be aware! I generally leave the concepts of spirituality and the 'higher' plains of life to others.

 

So sure, we should use compassion when it is warranted. But we should also be able to use a big stick for when we need to. And as to love, loving the creations of Tao is not a problem. Loving someone who is constantly hateful is not a capacity I have.

[Encephalon]

oh my gosh never mind

Edited May 8, 2011 by Blasto

[Aaron]

What can I say Aaron? Your view is a very valid one.

 

Was I making a joke of anyone? I don't see where I did that. The joke was more at my own expense rather than anyone else's. But I agree with you, to make a joke of someone else is not good.

 

And I agree that we should not attempt to diminish the value of what others hold of value unless it is with the intent to cause the other to reconsider what it is they hold value to or to indicate that youtotally disagree with and think what they have said is totally false.

 

When I was in the service I mingled with the locals as often as I could in order to learn their customs and why the lived the type of life the lived.

 

As to compassion, I think that if someone is messing up the person needs to be told that they are messing up. Can that be done compassionately? I don't know. I simply tell things the way I see them. It sometimes isn't gentle. Like the statement: We all are going to die. That is a simple fact of our physical essence. It is one of the processes of Tao. Need that be somehow stated compassionately?

 

True, in many of the translations of the TTC the word 'compassion' is one of the Three Treasures. But I think to be compassionate at the cost of not telling the truth is an error.

 

I admire your wish to spread love and compassion amongst others. A noble goal. My goal is to cause others to look at the reality of the physical world. It ain't alway a nice place. Be aware! I generally leave the concepts of spirituality and the 'higher' plains of life to others.

 

So sure, we should use compassion when it is warranted. But we should also be able to use a big stick for when we need to. And as to love, loving the creations of Tao is not a problem. Loving someone who is constantly hateful is not a capacity I have.

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

There is never an instance when one cannot act compassionately. Compassion is caring for someone and doing what is in their best interest. In the same way, you must also not lose sight of the greater picture, so if a person is harming others, then you must act. If your dog gets rabies, you still love the dog, but you still must put it down, not only for the sake of others, but to ease its own suffering as well. Do you beat the dog to death or try to find a quick and painless way to deal with it? That's what I'm talking about, taking the gentlest approach that one can take. When we allow hate and avarice to dictate our actions then we lose sight of compassion and begin to tread a dangerous road, one that is rife with pain and suffering. The degree of suffering is almost always dictated by the degree of hate.

 

I believe that one who is even minimally aware of their own nature can sense this and understand that it's not just a hypothesis but part of who we are. Where we lost our way, I don't know, but I am certain that we can find our way back, that if we as a people and race cease to view each others as competition, but rather as brothers and sister, mothers and fathers, then we can begin to find a way to live in peace.

 

We as individuals can start this process simply by extending our hand when we can. Whether that is giving food or a kind word, it does matter, regardless of how small the gesture is. Kindness breeds kindness, hate breeds hate. It's as simple as that.

 

Sincerely, I do love you and I wish you well, but I also wish that you could understand how your actions effect others.

 

Peace be with you,

 

Aaron

 

edited- To correct who I was actually talking to. I still love Blasto.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hello Blasto,

 

There is never an instance when one cannot act compassionately. Compassion is caring for someone and doing what is in their best interest.

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I'm Marblehead but I take no offense as I have been called many worse things than "Blasto". (I'm joking.)

 

Sorry, but I cannot care for someone who is evil. That's just the way I am. And I therefore cannot hold any compassion for these kinds of people.

 

I do not, nor have I for many years, conduct my life based in hatred. I stopped hating a long time ago. But I still think the world would be a much better place if certain individuals were removed from the face of this Earth. And I would have no problem with helping to remove them.

 

An example for you is a person who has been trained in military tactics going out and killing unarmed, innocent women and children. Those people are murders and they do not deserve anyone's compassion, in my opinion. I am not, nor have I every been a pacifist. I do not believe that evil people should be allowed to do evil things.

 

Where we lost our way? Was 10,000 years ago any different, at the roots, than it is today? I don't know. But from the time that man learned to write language there have been stories of wars, greed, and the desire for power. Nothing has changed.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't make thing better. We can stop all wars. We can educate the people. We can create employment of the people. We can eliminate greed and the desire for power. The question is: Well we do it?

 

WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars. Didn't seem to work out very well, did it?

 

No, I cannot have compassion for those who start wars and cause the death of many innocent people. I cannot hold compassion for the greedy who already have too much and smile when they are taking away from those who do not already have enough. Not can I hold compassion for those who seek power over others and then treat them like dog poo.

 

But yes, there is compassion in my life. I give to charities. I help those I know whenever I can. I try to console those I know who are having problems in their life and help them when I can.

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

I'm Marblehead but I take no offense as I have been called many worse things than "Blasto". (I'm joking.)

 

Sorry, but I cannot care for someone who is evil. That's just the way I am. And I therefore cannot hold any compassion for these kinds of people.

 

I do not, nor have I for many years, conduct my life based in hatred. I stopped hating a long time ago. But I still think the world would be a much better place if certain individuals were removed from the face of this Earth. And I would have no problem with helping to remove them.

 

An example for you is a person who has been trained in military tactics going out and killing unarmed, innocent women and children. Those people are murders and they do not deserve anyone's compassion, in my opinion. I am not, nor have I every been a pacifist. I do not believe that evil people should be allowed to do evil things.

 

Where we lost our way? Was 10,000 years ago any different, at the roots, than it is today? I don't know. But from the time that man learned to write language there have been stories of wars, greed, and the desire for power. Nothing has changed.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't make thing better. We can stop all wars. We can educate the people. We can create employment of the people. We can eliminate greed and the desire for power. The question is: Well we do it?

 

WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars. Didn't seem to work out very well, did it?

 

No, I cannot have compassion for those who start wars and cause the death of many innocent people. I cannot hold compassion for the greedy who already have too much and smile when they are taking away from those who do not already have enough. Not can I hold compassion for those who seek power over others and then treat them like dog poo.

 

But yes, there is compassion in my life. I give to charities. I help those I know whenever I can. I try to console those I know who are having problems in their life and help them when I can.

 

 

Hello Bla... err... Marblehead,

 

I would say one should never say "can't", but rather that they are unable to right now, at least in matters such as these. I am simply stating the opinion that hate propagates hate, that in order for us to ever be able to live in peace with each other, that we must first be rid of hate, and more importantly fear. Fear is the basis of hate after all.

 

As far as people that hurt children and women, they are sick and need to be treated, but again, a society and culture is defined by how they treat the most heinous of their people.

 

Aaron