The Nature of Self

[xabir2005]

Twinner, you appear to have realized the I AM (see first two stages at Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment), but there are further stages of insight/realization

 

Also see my e-book http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

Edited May 2, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote in my forum today.

 

-----------

 

Experience, Realization, and View

 

Our paradigm, view, insights, experiences, affect our every moment perception of life, self, the universe. Speaking from experience, this is what a seeker might go through:

 

Duality

 

Generally every normal non-spiritual person sees himself as a subject, self, perceiver, doer, which is a psychic entity conceived as locating inside the body - be it inside the head behind the eyes or in the heart or some other locations.

 

This conceived psychic entity causes a sense of alienation as 'I' am inside my body, looking outwards at the world through my eyes, ears, etc. I am self-contracted, separated from the world out there, and so experience is divided into 'inner' and 'outer'. Reality consists of three components: I, the seer, sees the world out there. (Seer, seeing, seen) I, the doer, does the deed (Doer, doing, done). All these actions, and perceptions, are felt to have occured by virtue of this psychic entity residing inside my body, which I call Me.

 

This mentally conceived sense of alienation from a separate objective world resulting from the perceived existence of a separate self and psychic entity residing within this body-mind results in all manners of passionate feelings such as fear, anger, craving, malice, sorrow, and all forms of destructive undertakings endemic in our world: war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence, corruption and so on.

 

Basically it comes down to this: craving (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for extermination), which arises due to the view of there being an inherently existing self alienated from the world, whereby the self must always get away from unpleasant experiences and chase after pleasant experiences, in search for happiness and the attenuation of suffering, not knowing this process of craving is precisely what causes suffering.

Self-Realization, Partial Duality

By the practice of contemplating on the Source of experiencing ("Who am I?", "Who is the Source?"), we trace the radiance back to the essence of mind-consciousness. At the moment where the seeker reaches the pinnacle of his self-inquiry, one has a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate perception of the self-luminosity of mind's Presence. The self-felt certainty arising from the non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception (NDNCDIMOP) of mind's luminosity leads to a self-felt certainty that results in utter conviction of having touched the essence of being and existence. As all doubts pertaining to the nature of one's identity can no longer linger, one's self-inquiry into 'Who am I' comes to a closing conclusion. Being absolutely intimate as a sheer sense of Presence, Beingness, and Existence, shining in plain view prior to conceptual sullying, it is nevertheless immediately reified due to the paradigm and view of duality and inherency, even though in itself it is a non-dual perception.

 

What it is reified into is a grander entity than the psychic entity conceived as locating in the body as previously conceived. Though the psychic entity located inside the body, aka. the ego, is now being released through seeing the falsity of a personal self, the Identity remains intact at large, now expanding to become a Metaphysical entity transcending space and time, the grand, impersonal, and universal Self that is birthless and deathless. Due to the view of duality still largely being intact - Presence and Awareness is also seen as the Eternal Witness, an impartial and unchanging watcher of all phenomena that passes. 'I' am God, the ground of being, the source of all animate and inanimate objects, the universal consciousness underlying all my manifestations which comes and goes like waves in the ocean of Being.

 

All along not knowing that what they have realized is simply an aspect of luminosity pertaining to non-conceptual thought, a manifestation of mind-cognizance, and is as such nothing ultimate or special (as compared to any other manifestations).

Non-Duality

Via the contemplation into the absence of a separate self or the seamlessness of awareness and its contents, a direct and experiential realization that the subject-object separation and dichotomy is illusory arises. Everything is experienced at zero-distance in the absence of the bond of dualistic psychic construct.

 

Nevertheless at the beginning, as the insight of non-duality arises but not the insight into no-inherency, one ends up falling into:

Substantial Non-duality

 

- subject-object dichotomy collapses, and is subsumed, into inherent oneness

 

- due to the view of inherency (that reality must have 'existence' located somewhere and somewhen, even if it is Here and Now), the vivid 'realness' of non-dual luminosity is being treated as something Absolute, as having inherent, independent and unchanging existence, and is being reified into Noumenon (in contrast to illusory phenomenon), and as being the ultimate non-dual Self

 

- the intimacy experienced via the collapse of subject-object dichotomy is being referenced to a grandiose all-pervasive Self ("I am Everywhere and I am Everything")

 

- all phenomena are seen to be illusory projections of a single underlying source, such that all phenomena are self-expressions of the single nature of Awareness, as depicted by the analogy of the mirror and its reflections - reflections as such do not have an objective, independent existence outside the mirror - and in fact only the Mirror is seen to have absolute, independent, inherent existence - only the Mirror is Real, and the appearances are only Real as the Mirror

 

- appearances are inseparable from the Source, and yet the Source is independent of appearances

Insubstantial Non-duality

- also known as the arising insight into anatta, it is seen that seeing, cognizing, awareness is precisely and only what is seen, heard, tasted, touched, manifesting

 

- the intimacy experienced via the lack of separation has no frame of reference due to the lack of something inherent - in the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard, there is no True Self of any sorts - the world only references itself without an agent

 

- there is no grandiose, universal consciousness, only individual bodies and mindstreams interacting with each other due to interdependent origination, without any conceived 'underlying oneness behind multiplicity' - absolutely no identity remains, even the notion that "I am you and you are me" is seen as absurd

 

- there is no such thing as 'seamlessness of awareness and contents' or 'inseparability of awareness and its contents' - for awareness IS the process and activities of cognizance only, there is no such thing as 'awareness + its contents'

 

- seeing, cognizing, awaring never exists as nouns pointing to a noumenon but as verbs collating various activities of cognizance - what is seen, heard, taste, touch, are activities manifesting on its own accord with the presence of requisite conditions and factors via interdependent origination, without an agent, perceiver, controller, doer

 

- further penetration into anatta reveals that all phenomena are disjoint, unsupported, unlinked, bubble-like, insubstantial, dream-like, and self-releasing - there is absolutely nothing, not even an Awareness that underlies two thoughts, two manifestations - in fact there is not even two thoughts as such, just this thought, which spontaneously self-releases upon inception leaving absolutely no traces

 

- there is absolutely no collapsing of subject-object dichotomy into a base or oneness existing somewhere, even as a Here/Now - there is no linking base, oneness or source at all, only the experience of dispersed-out and de-linked multiplicity

 

- all manifestations are intrinstically luminous and vivid yet insubstantial and vanishes without a trace upon inception like drawing pictures on water manifests vivid appearances that does not leave trace - no existence of any sorts can leave traces when reality is a dream-like process with no inherent existence, like an illusion but not an illusion

Edited May 2, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hello Lucky,

 

Thank you for your advice. I'm sure that what you believe to be enlightenment differs from what I believe it to be. If you need to be right, then you're right. There is no right or wrong though, only what is. I am sure you've already been told what that is, so you know what to expect. I was not so easily convinced and had to look for the answers. Good luck on your travels, but I've been down the path you're talking about and found it to be less than satisfactory. You will find that suffering does not pass, the body does not pass, that the shedding away of reality only takes place within your consciousness. When you think you know what reality is, we will still be right here. Peace be with you.

Suffering does pass. Bodily boundaries disappear and you feel universe. Bliss arises with the realization, sleep begins to disappear you begin to feel more and more awake. The body no longer is bound by hunger. Signs of awakening are unmistakable as consciousness begins to transform. The heart and the central channels open. Death experience arises.

 

The body may disappear altogether.

 

I don't think you have gone through these, much of what you have written comes from the mind. Also, there is no need to say "thank you" or sound so polite when you don't necessarily mean so. Speak honestly as with your feelings.

 

edit- Also, if you believe that you will achieve enlightenment without contemplation and introspection, I'm afraid you're in for a rude awakening.

True contemplation ends contemplation. It leads to more and more abstraction. Read through the Madyamika for this.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh, listen to Xabir! .

Edited May 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Something I wrote in my forum today.

 

-----------

 

Our paradigm, view, insights, experiences, affect our every moment perception of life, self, the universe. Speaking from experience, this is what a seeker might go through:....

If you look through this model of progress, it's basically ending all mode of interpretations of the mind, and its tendency to give legitimacy to "thingness" of things...A complete and fearless opening to what arises, without giving ground to what was, is, or will be.

 

But I hesitate to write things such as "there is no grandiose universal consciousness." It's just that whether there is, or isn't one is an unnecessary supposition. Once you have gone, who is there to know?

Edited May 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

If you look through this model of progress, it's basically ending all mode of interpretations of the mind, and its tendency to give legitimacy to "thingness" of things...A complete and fearless opening to what arises, without giving ground to what was, is, or will be.

 

But I hesitate to write things such as "there is no grandiose universal consciousness." It's just that whether there is, or isn't one is an unnecessary supposition. Once you have gone, who is there to know?

Yeah I understand. At present, I embrace a view that can allow me to fully experience whatevar arises fearlessly and unreservedly and that has helped me tremendously. E.g. from intimacy to "thingness" of things, then more to "thingness" of whatever arises.

 

For example, what exactly is Consciousness? In Anatta, I do not deny consciousness. All is experienced as consciousness in a dependently originated way. In the eighteen dhatus. Awareness is understood and experienced in terms of the eighteen dhatus. For example, I do not say eye-consciousness is the same as ear-consciousness, or that eye-consciousness turns into ear-consciousness, or that a previous moment of thought is the same as this moment of thought. As 'Awareness' is not an entity and is a mere label collating experiences, it has to be these diverse manifestation. This understanding enables practitioners to fully and completely experience whatever arises.

 

Now, let's say I tell someone to "experience consciousness as sound". How are you going to experience that? How thorough can it be? First of all there is already this delineation - there is sound, and consciousness. Either consciousness is here or sound is there, or is taking place in here, or out there. But when you say, in hearing only heard - or there is only sound - sound-consciousness, sound, is fully and totally experienced. This moment of 'arising sound' is fully experienced.

Once you have gone, who is there to know?

Whatever arises speaks thusly.

 

A thousand petals

Drift into an empty house.

 

Though the sound of the herder's flute passes by,

The man and the ox are no where to be seen.

Edited May 2, 2011 by xabir2005

[C T]

This moment of 'arising sound' is fully experienced.

 

Recognize one, other is lost.

Recognize other, one is lost.

 

What is there to do?

[xabir2005]

Recognize one, other is lost.

Recognize other, one is lost.

 

What is there to do?

Although everything arises vividly, nothing is done. Although everything passes, nothing is lost.

[Aaron]

Hello Dear Buddhists,

 

It's nice to know that you are so open to other people's ideas. I thought you might be close minded like the Christians. That was sarcasm, but I'm allowed because I don't believe in the four noble truths or the eightfold path, or that some designated form of practice will help me to achieve enlightenment as it's intended.

 

The experience that you have is the experience that has been expressed to you over and over. Simple fact about meditation, you are highly suggestible in that state, much like dreaming and hypnosis. If someone tells you that you will experience something and sends you off to meditate, more often than not, you will experience what they tell you.

 

Step back, examine yourself, realize what you really are and then you will see the world as it really is. Your problem stems from the fact that I've told you that you are mistaken. You repeat the same phrases over and over like you're either trying to convince yourself or me. I would suggest that you just live life and let it help you decide. Good luck on your journey, but this thread isn't about the Buddhist's idea of true self, so in the name of right speech and right action, if you cannot help but spread your religious ideology, please start another thread for that discussion, but I really would rather not have it sidetrack this discussion anymore.

 

You will not agree with me and I will not agree with you, so further discussion will warrant nothing but suffering, so again, I implore you, for the sake of compassion and tolerance, please stop pushing your ideology on me and this thread and allow others to disagree.

 

Aaron

Edited May 2, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

With consciousness I mean the luminous quality that builds up subjective experience, that has direct cognition, and can't be transferred or communicated completely to others; it can't be shown that others than I have it. I can envision a universe without it, yet we/I have it.

 

It is still an "assumption" that consciousness arises from the brain. There's some repetetive evidence I know of , in favor of that "assumption". However, there are some grave problems with this proposition, not the least, showing that a non-physical property can emerge from matter which is a task for physics, not neurology.

I think the real assumption, is that consciousness is only the function of our brain. That's the claim that seems much more open to doubt, since there's so much empirical evidence in support of the contrary.

 

Mandrake

Certainly I would never make that claim (material absolutism), nor can I imagine science making that claim (individual scientists might be a different matter). There's no way to prove a negative. What science has done is amass a great deal of evidence to support the positive (consciousness arises from matter), and I think we neglect that evidence, at our own peril.

 

Like with evolution, an enormous amount of good honest thorough work is dismissed out-of-hand, when a creationist insists on dismissing it all with: "scientists have bias". It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is; the believer will still throw it all out, if it doesn't match with his firmly-held beliefs.

 

Here we are, a discussion group that spends a lot of its time talking about consciousness. Shouldn't we at least give strong consideration to what science tells us about the matter?

 

As for consciousness, I know that it feels like a "luminous quality". But it could easily be argued that consciousness is merely an illusion that arises from function. Just like with our closest attempts at A.I., consciousness may just be layers upon layers of subroutines (mental habits) that feel and appear like individuality. I don't think we should dismiss these possibilities, because otherwise we're just doing like fundamentalists everywhere, and insisting on our own beliefs, evidence be damned.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

Something I wrote in my forum today.

This is awesome!

[Otis]

If you look through [Xabir's] model of progress, it's basically ending all mode of interpretations of the mind, and its tendency to give legitimacy to "thingness" of things...A complete and fearless opening to what arises, without giving ground to what was, is, or will be.

 

But I hesitate to write things such as "there is no grandiose universal consciousness." It's just that whether there is, or isn't one is an unnecessary supposition. Once you have gone, who is there to know?

Excellent.

[doc benway]

 

It seems that the one thing that all mankind has in common, whether here in the U.S., or in Libya, or in Bali, or in Antarctica - is the need to ask Why? We seem to be the only species that contemplates this question. The snake is in a totally zenlike state; as is the spider. But us? Wow. Our brains (and particularly the TTB brains) are somehow being pushed to understand more, to reach a little further and further; and the outcome? The final outcome of all this? Maybe it's just for It to recognize or recreate Itself. And the funny thing is....we reach outward and outward, when in fact we should be reaching inward and inward.

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.

[Aaron]

Twinner:

 

Once again you're misinterpreting what Buddhism teaches and adding your own ideas to it. It never spoke of destroying anything. You're just seeing the nature of things. For something that doesn't inherently exist, there's no need to "destroy" it: You're just seeing it, as it is.

 

You like to go on about how religions brainwash you into believing something, but what you don't realize is that your own "beliefs" that you hold onto, are constructs that are also ungrounded and do not inherently exist.

 

When your insight goes deeper you start to realize that all conceptualizations, beliefs and thoughts on how you view reality, are unborn.

Using myself as an example: I didn't start studying Buddhism, because I needed to believe in something. I had already had an experience of the natural state, when I still hated it. When you "awaken" to this ground of being; It's like as Confucius said: "You have no more doubts." To me: Buddhism is just another raft to get to the other side, and ultimately must be discarded. I am not attached to these teachings and see them as just skillful means to help me realize moksha. It's like it says in the Diamond Sutra: "This is why the Tathagata always says, " Ye Bhiksus, know that the teaching that I expound is like a raft. Even the Dharma must be cast aside; how much more so no-Dharma.

It's like what the Third Patriarch of Zen, Seng-tsan, said to a student; when asked how one could reach the highest state of enlightenment: "Just stop picking and choosing." He is talking about letting go of all ones held beliefs and conceptualizations on reality. Going beyond all dualities of subject and object.

 

Though there lies a problem and I'm also using myself as an example:

 

IF, if you actually recognize this state, it's possible that after you experience something like this; that the conceptualizations and held to beliefs, that are based on your karma, can start to try and delineate the fine aspects of this state of "mind." I find these two examples as some very common beliefs that keep one from recognizing things as they are:

 

1. Believing in some sort of "creator," something separate from the rest of existence, that is responsible for reality.

 

2. If you can go beyond that hurdle, this is another thing I find that is common: Thinking that phenomena in the "external" environment are separate from "you." People fail to realize that all phenomena (internal and external) are of one nature. You can say external phenomena are "manifestations of awareness," co-dependently arising in each moment.

 

This is why Buddhism stresses Right View. Without it, you won't be able to get very far. In fact it's not so much what words you use to describe these things to people: It's how you explain this to people. Even a Cristian or Muslim can have right view, yet still use words like "god," (not in reference to something external or separate; that is the creator of everything,) but mean that "god" is within us (the essential nature that Taoism and Buddhism speak of.)

 

Anyway's, as there are subtler energetic planes of existence that you haven't reached; there are insights much deeper than yours that you haven't reached. This doesn't mean that they don't exist: It means that you haven't gone far enough in your meditation, Period.

 

Hello Jack,

 

No offense, but I have read many, many, many books about Buddhism and it's no different from any other -ism. It promotes a moral agenda and offers something that is unattainable as a reward for following that agenda. I no more believe in the Buddhist idea of enlightenment than I do the Christian concept of heaven. That's the end of the story for me. Buddha is no more real to me than Christ or Lao Tzu. Maybe they were all real people, but somewhere along the lines they became deified and made to be more than human, when in fact they weren't. I asked once and I'll ask again, please go somewhere else to spread the word of Buddhism. Even if my opinion is wrong, I can guarantee that I wont be swayed. Not because I'm stubborn, but because I don't believe in the four noble truths or the eightfold path.

 

Now if you continue to wish to debate this, I will be happy to go over exactly why Buddhism fails as a religion and how the enlightened masters are still being controlled by their passions. I really want to be compassionate, but I don't think compassion is sitting around and allowing you to bully people until they agree that you're right and they're wrong. It's really up to you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 2, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

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?

Edited May 2, 2011 by Otis

[Aaron]

You obviously don't get what I just typed. You really do have a loooong way to go.

 

You're wrong about the "enlightened masters are being controlled by thier passions" part. It's true that Chogyam Trungpa and others had their personal demons, even at such a high level. Hell, I'm still dealing with a lot of personal baggage myself. To say that ALL masters are deviants is way too far of a generalization. I have studied under a number of teachers to know this first hand.

 

I'm not bullying anyone. You just don't like to be told that you're wrong and that there is something higher than what you have currently realized. You also don't have a proper understanding of what Buddhism teaches. Go find a teacher.

 

You won't believe what I say because you're holding onto your own delusions. Though I think you're already a goner; maybe someone else will benefit from what I say?

 

This is a public forum and as far as I can tell, I can also contribute to discussions. The fact is what I just typed in my last posts are ALREADY INHERENT IN TAOISM. I'm not expounding anything that goes against the teachings of Lao Tzu and others. You just don't have the experience and wisdom to see this though.

 

The fact that you're getting angry at being told that you're wrong, shows you haven't really progressed that far.

 

You can debate me all you want. I'll make sure to make a response.

 

Have a nice day, Twinner.

 

Hello Jack,

 

I'm really not angry, if I sound stern, it's only because I'm tired of having this discussion. I disagree with you, it's as simple as that. I don't want to continue to debate it, because I've already stated it numerous times and it's not changing anyone's mind. What I will say is that what we're finding is that the Buddhist religion is as corrupted at the heart as the Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of the systematic cover up of the sexual abuse of boys in monasteries is coming out. Whether it's the monasteries in Tibet or Shri Lanka, take your pick. What I can assure you is that it's a practice that's occurring within the entire Buddhist religion and the people covering up this abuse and moving the abusers to other institutions are those leading the religion. In another thread evidence has been mentioned that points to the Dali Lhama's involvement in these cover ups. The fact is the abuse could not have escaped his knowledge, but he did little to nothing to stop it. The reason is simple, the monastic life is the lifeblood of the institution, to openly state that a large number of the senior monks within these monasteries were raping children and forcing other brothers to engage in sexual acts would damage the image of the organization. When I say it's like any other religion that's what I mean, the base desires of the ego perpetuate the direction that the religious institution takes.

 

Religions are inherently founded on the principle that man can rise above the nature of the ego through divine intervention, but what we find is that this is not true. Man is man and no amount of practice diminishes that. If it seems like I dislike Buddhism, that's not true. I think a lot of the principles in Buddhism are beneficial on the whole, but if one does not objectively examine the end result, one cannot understand whether or not the practice works. You have admitted that you haven't reached complete enlightenment, so what you are claiming is merely an assertion of what others have told you. What I am claiming is based on what I know about Buddhism and the monastic life.

 

Now what Buddhists can do is continue to ignore this abuse and encourage the victims to remain silent out of shame or admit what's going on and go from there. But even if this occurs I think it's important to examine the practice as well, to admit its flaws. The Roman Catholic Church has failed to do this, but I sincerely hope the Buddhist Institutions don't follow suit.

 

Invariably what you find is that with power comes corruption. That enlightenment does not remove the inner demons that plague man, that at best it just makes one more aware of it. If you disagree with my notion of enlightenment that's fine, but I think most people that are not Buddhist, that do not have a bias can see that I'm not making my assertions simply out of ignorance, but rather through knowledge and experience.

 

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.

 

I am sorry if it seems like I am making a personal attack on you, that's not the case. I am stating what I believe is inherently harmful within religions. I don't want to argue about this, but rather make people aware of another way to look at self that is different from what they might have been taught to believe. If it seems like I'm fighting, I'm not, I just understand that sometimes one must stand against the rushing water, because if they don't, they'll simply be drowned in the waters of ideology.

 

I say this sincerely, peace be with you and yours.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also I would ask if we wish to talk about Buddhism as a religion that we take that discussion elsewhere. My hope is that in this thread we can continue to examine the idea of self without pointing fingers and telling people that they're wrong, but rather debate the philosophies and ideology surrounding the self.

 

In regards to your comments about Taoism, I think that the original texts surrounding Taoism, the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu make no mention of the self or ego as it's described in Buddhism and that only after Buddhism began to influence Taoism were these ideas integrated into Taoist philosophies. For me the Taoist idea is simply a watered down adaption of the Buddhist, which was adapted so that the Taoist temples didn't alienate the masses and the emperors.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Twinner

[Jetsun]

Those are some pretty scandalous claims there Twinner, I would like to see some reliable sources to back them up. Trying to associate Dalai Lama with covering up sexual abuse would get you banned on some forums for slander without some good sources backing you up. It seems like you have some sort of agenda here.

[Mandrake]

As for consciousness, I know that it feels like a "luminous quality". But it could easily be argued that consciousness is merely an illusion that arises from function. Just like with our closest attempts at A.I., consciousness may just be layers upon layers of subroutines (mental habits) that feel and appear like individuality. I don't think we should dismiss these possibilities, because otherwise we're just doing like fundamentalists everywhere, and insisting on our own beliefs, evidence be damned.

 

Otis, I think this is so interesting that we perhaps should start a separate thread for it? But at the moment I'm forced to concentrate in writing my CV and finding a more suitable job : (

 

Mandrake

[Marblehead]

See why I faded out of this discussion?

[Aaron]

Those are some pretty scandalous claims there Twinner, I would like to see some reliable sources to back them up. Trying to associate Dalai Lama with covering up sexual abuse would get you banned on some forums for slander without some good sources backing you up. It seems like you have some sort of agenda here.

 

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

Edited May 2, 2011 by Twinner

[Lucky7Strikes]

No one here said he or she was a Buddhist. The four noble truths or the eightfold paths weren't mentioned. This thread is about the nature of self.

 

Also, Buddhism as an institution and a teaching are completely different topics. Yes, institutions that happen to be thousands of years old will have the tendency to be corrupt, have flaws, etc.

 

Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, Mahavira, Krishna and all the different sages in the past were all seekers like you and me who wanted to seek beyond societal conditions. No reason not to listen to them because they have become popular.

 

Also, you have a very narrow view of Buddhism it seems. One's actions have little to do with showing how enlightened one is. This is precisely the reason why we have all these pretentious new age teacher going around smiling at everyone and pretending to be so nice. Read about the Mahasiddhas of the Tantric lineages and they drank, slept with women, ate meat, lived like beggars.

 

Enlightenment transcends the parochial notions of good and bad.

 

As for the topic going off topic, it was really started by you. Look back on the thread.