The Nature of Self

[manitou]

In other words, I must surrender into "I don't know".

 

An accompanying thought is "I don't care". The outcome is not of our making.

Edited May 6, 2011 by manitou

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

An accompanying thought is "I don't care". The outcome is not of our making.

It seems disrespectful to the simple principle of Life to 'not care', because it is clear that we are the catalyst of our own outcome.. without each individual's contribution to its own existence, there would be no 'outcome'.. the truth of this is simple honesty, not intellectualized complexities wherein desire is disguised as truth..

 

Be well..

[manitou]

Greetings..

 

 

It seems disrespectful to the simple principle of Life to 'not care', because it is clear that we are the catalyst of our own outcome.. without each individual's contribution to its own existence, there would be no 'outcome'.. the truth of this is simple honesty, not intellectualized complexities wherein desire is disguised as truth..

 

Be well..

 

 

Yes, we are the catalyst of our own outcome. I didn't mean 'not care' in a calloused heart way. I meant it in a 'leaving the outcome of our catalyzation to the wind' way, to give up control.

[Otis]

An accompanying thought is "I don't care". The outcome is not of our making.

Agreed with not having control over the outcome. I would, however, use different words than "I don't care". I would say: "I accept".

 

It's just a word choice, but I think the positive statement, the "Yes" is important for engaging. "I" am still involved in accepting, but the acceptance dissolves the boundaries of "I". Of course we're not saying very different things, because you're always bringing up the importance of love on the path, which I fully agree with.

 

I see caring as one of the twin virtues of the path, along with courage. Courage allows me to live without beliefs, and care is how I stay wedded to the moment. Courage allows me to surrender control and concepts, and care (being in love with the now) allows me to do it without crashing into things.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Otis

[C T]

Yep.

 

I'd be curious to know how a thread about the nature of the Self (with a capital S, no less!) posted in a forum ostensibly devoted to Asian Studies can go on for Nine Pages without a single mention of Buddhism's Three Marks of Existence -

 

Anicca - the fact that all phenomema are in a permanent state of flux or impermanence;

 

Dukkha - the reality of suffering, the inherently imperfect or unsatisfactory nature of the phenomenal world;

 

Anatta - the impermanence and illusory nature of a separate isolated self: no-self.

 

I realize the OP has a less than charitable regard for Buddhist psychology, as well as a less than accurate grasp of its components, but these Three Marks characterize the essential difference between Western and Eastern theories of self. They may not be axiomatic but they are consistent with what modern psychology teaches us and what we know from our own postmodern realization, a point the Buddha nailed 2,500 years before we got around to it.

Nothing ambiguous here, sir.

 

Psychological integrity can be cultivated by simply understanding the 3 Marks, and one who seeks to do just this has no further duty to abide by any of the other Buddhist precepts unless there is a willingness to devote one's life to servitude of the Dharma and the Bodhisattva ideal, otherwise there will be the likelihood of making the mind even more murky because the western mind is not ready for subservience and servitude, at least not as ready as the eastern one. Having lived in the west for so long, i have met a good few Westerners who practice Buddhism, but without any clue that they also have to fully allow Buddhism to practice them. The struggle at reconciling this dualistic dilemma is still very much on-going for this select group of practitioners.

[manitou]

Agreed with not having control over the outcome. I would, however, use different words than "I don't care". I would say: "I accept".

 

It's just a word choice, but I think the positive statement, the "Yes" is important for engaging. "I" am still involved in accepting, but the acceptance dissolves the boundaries of "I". Of course we're not saying very different things, because you're always bringing up the importance of love on the path, which I fully agree with.

 

I see caring as one of the twin virtues of the path, along with courage. Courage allows me to live without beliefs, and care is how I stay wedded to the moment. Courage allows me to surrender control and concepts, and care (being in love with the now) allows me to do it without crashing into things.

 

 

"I accept" the fact that your word choice is a much better one than mine, lol. Thanks for the nudge toward the sun.

 

I read a book once that said 'I alone am muddled and nebulous'. Different side of the same coin, I guess....

Edited May 6, 2011 by manitou

[Aaron]

Yep.

 

I'd be curious to know how a thread about the nature of the Self (with a capital S, no less!) posted in a forum ostensibly devoted to Asian Studies can go on for Nine Pages without a single mention of Buddhism's Three Marks of Existence -

 

Anicca - the fact that all phenomema are in a permanent state of flux or impermanence;

 

Dukkha - the reality of suffering, the inherently imperfect or unsatisfactory nature of the phenomenal world;

 

Anatta - the impermanence and illusory nature of a separate isolated self: no-self.

 

I realize the OP has a less than charitable regard for Buddhist psychology, as well as a less than accurate grasp of its components, but these Three Marks characterize the essential difference between Western and Eastern theories of self. They may not be axiomatic but they are consistent with what modern psychology teaches us and what we know from our own postmodern realization, a point the Buddha nailed 2,500 years before we got around to it.

 

 

Hello Blasto,

 

I have you on ignore, so I missed this post until Cowtao quoted it. I wanted to respond to your comments, because I think they shed an untruthful light on my regards for Buddhism. I am very fond of certain sects of Buddhism, in particular Zen and Ch'an. In fact I hold a very deep regard for Zen. I practiced Zazen for years without knowing it, so it would be very hypocritical of me to denigrate the process.

 

If I have issues it's with the idea that Buddhism is the only real truth and everything else is delusional. On this forum in particular if you post something that seems to contradict what Buddhism says people come out of the woodwork to instruct you on the grand truth. If you disagree then it's because you are incapable of realizing or understanding this great truth, or that your own beliefs are delusions.

 

I didn't start this thread with the intent of debating what form of self is true, but rather to discuss the nature of self as we experience it, by sharing my own view. If I made a comment about religions in the original post it was to show how my view was different from the contemporary views held by most religions.

 

Aaron

Edited May 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

From the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained anything by annuttarasamyaksambodhi? Does the Tathagata in fact expound a Dharma?" Subhuti replied, " As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma called annuttarasamyaksambodhi, nor is there any definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Lucky7Strikes]

I was talking about jk cos subjectivity quoted from him, and I was pointing out that jk is not about the I AM insight but more about nondual.

 

As for jk and osho, both sounded like they are describing nondual as a state. The clear insight into anatta isn't really clear. Also I thought osho was at least in substantialist nondual phase but recent readings gave me the impression that he is still at the I AM stage with glimpses of nondual experience but lack realization.

I find Osho to be very good for tips on day to day living, on relationships, love, wealth, basically he is very practical. He is great introductory material for people interested in spirituality because his lectures are so grounded in societal issues. Osho's focus is on the I AM, anything beyond that, concepts of no-self, non-dual, he only hints at. But I believe it's very difficult for anyone to pinpoint where he is, because he taught according to the student.

 

Reading books are good until you come to a point where you realize you are entering rare territories and you have to navigate yourself (unless you are as fortunate as I am to know of someone who has been through all these, who can still give you good advices)... And at that point direct experience becomes more important. But not to stop reading too early which is the common tendency... I.e stopped reading after I AM realization before realizing non dual, or stopped reading books after non dual before realizing anatta, etc.

 

Edited May 7, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Aaron]

Actually Buddhism accepts all religions/philosophies. There is only one truth, not two. The only difference being that some wisdom traditions go deeper than others.

 

From the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained anything by annuttarasamyaksambodhi? Does the Tathagata in fact expound a Dharma?" Subhuti replied, " As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma called annuttarasamyaksambodhi, nor is there any definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

 

Taoism/Confucianism has a lot in common with Buddhism and has teachings that can lead to Buddhahood. Look back at my posts on this thread. Regardless if Buddhist concepts were introduced later into Taoism; the fact still remains that Taoism/Confucianism adopted these concepts into their existing philosophy. Taoism/Confucianism/Buddhism heavily influenced each other during the Tang dynasty.

 

You just don't want to accept this, because it goes against your current beliefs.

 

P.S I do think it very possible that Jesus achieved full enlightenment. Though it's debatable if anyone who came after him did.

 

 

Hello Jack,

 

Actually I've known about the influence of Buddhism on Taoism and Confucianism for awhile now and I've actually commented on it several times in other threads. My point was the original teachings from the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu make no mention of it.

 

The problem here is that you feel Buddha must be right and because I don't believe Buddha was right, I'm wrong. What I know for a fact is that what I made mention of can not only be proven scientifically, but also is a logical argument that can't, at its base, be disproved. What you're stating is conjecture based on a mystical experience that can't be scientifically proven or logically proven for that matter.

 

That's fine with me, but don't say I'm nuts because I prefer to believe in something that can be explained without having to meditate in a cave for ten years. This notion that the true answer is the most complex answer is really ridiculous. Sometimes the answer is simple and it's so simple it's smacking you in the face and you don't even realize it. I've chosen not to look for the answers based on the teachings of mythical figures from the 5th century BC, but rather what I understand and experience in the here and now.

 

What I do tend to take offense at, is this notion that because I don't agree with you, that somehow I am ignorant and incapable of understanding what you're quoting. I would wager I understand it a bit more than you could imagine. I spent two decades meditating every day and in that time I experienced a great deal of what you're talking about, the only difference is I didn't have any dogma to define it for me, so I came about my own conclusions.

 

I'm not going to argue with you about this, but can't you see how constantly attacking people who differ in opinion to the Buddhist ideology is not only disrespectful but definitively non-Buddha-like? You said it for yourself, buddha's words were essentially, "forgetaboutit" so I recommend you do that and let this conversation return to it's original topic, rather than the topic the Buddhist's have created, which is, "How to prove there is no self."

 

Aaron

Edited May 7, 2011 by Twinner

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The nature of 'self' is to be very curious, to take itself apart and find-out what it 'is'.. then, it becomes curious as to why other selfs don't think they are like the personal self thinks it 'is'.. then, especially based on this thread, the selfs decide to try to take each other apart to prove to the other selfs they are like the personal selfs think they are.. it's an odd dance the selfs do, taking each other apart and disagreeing with what they see.. i don't quite understand it..

 

Be well..

[Encephalon]

[Otis]

People think they are this body and it's five senses looking "out" at this world. They think it's all firing of neurons from a 3 lb. hunk of tissue in their heads.

 

This is why philosophies talk of identification with being a body, being an obstacle in cultivation.

I disagree. I think that what they warn against is not "being a body", but "having a body".

 

Having a body means believing my own concepts about my body, including my shame or narcissism. It is believing my (view of my) mirror. It is the body-map (the construct of how kinesthetic sense relates to body lay-out). It is seeing the body as a vehicle for the self, or as an indicator of my worth. All these things are delusion.

 

When I "am my body", then the body map goes away. I do not feel each limb as separate from the others, nor each sense as being separate from the next. There is no concepts about my body or its worth, and I do not experience myself as being "within" my body. When I am my body, suffering vanishes, old habits are transcended without trying, and "I" don't exist at all.

[adept]

Actually Buddhism accepts all religions/philosophies. There is only one truth, not two. The only difference being that some wisdom traditions go deeper than others.

 

From the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained anything by annuttarasamyaksambodhi? Does the Tathagata in fact expound a Dharma?" Subhuti replied, " As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma called annuttarasamyaksambodhi, nor is there any definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

 

Taoism/Confucianism has a lot in common with Buddhism and has teachings that can lead to Buddhahood. Look back at my posts on this thread. Regardless if Buddhist concepts were introduced later into Taoism; the fact still remains that Taoism/Confucianism adopted these concepts into their existing philosophy. Taoism/Confucianism/Buddhism heavily influenced each other during the Tang dynasty.

 

You just don't want to accept this, because it goes against your current beliefs.

 

P.S I do think it very possible that Jesus achieved full enlightenment. Though it's debatable if anyone who came after him did.

 

Very good points SJ.

This book goes into the role that Taoism and Confucianism play as a stepping stone to Buddhahood.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Comparing Taoist thought prior to its Buddhist and Confucianism influence with it after the influence, is like drinking tea.. there is the original Tea, then you add sugar and milk.. describing how much you like Tea with sugar or Tea with milk, or with both, is not the same as the Original Tea.. what flavor is your Tea?

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

... what flavor is your Tea?

 

Be well..

 

With some sugar and a little Southern Comfort.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

People on this forum don't want to believe that Taoism could be talking about the same principles as Buddhism. A lot of the concepts we associate with "Buddhism," was already inherent in the earliest works of Taoism/Confucianism. To do so would go against everything they believe to be "Taoism."

 

 

I am so glad that there are a few people on this board who understand this.

 

Thaks for mentioning it.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

Wow, two decades of meditation and you didn't get very far huh?

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

 

In the past, I've usually liked what you post, but all of this projection about someone else's awareness "level"; I don't see how that's not just pure delusion. Whenever I hear you telling someone else who they are, it sounds like you're lying (to yourself), because all you are responding to, are words on a screen.

 

Somehow, you believe in the non-substantiality of the imagined 'self', but you insist on the substantiality of your imagined "Twinner" and "Otis". Can you really justify this talk? If you take zero short cuts in your reasoning, can you really find a solid and non-self-referential reason to make such distinctions about people you've never met? Can you really distinguish worth, without relying on your own beliefs as yardstick?

 

I don't know what's in your head, or how far your senses reach, but I don't see a reason to distinguish what you've written about others from just a projection of your own wishes and fears (like every other ego).

 

I am the same, Jack. I have a limited view, because I am a limited organism. But that's why I won't tell you what "level" you've achieved, because that concept would just be a creation of my own imagination. I will, however, point out when I hear what sounds like delusion, but which is trumpeted as wisdom.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[TzuJanLi]

With some sugar and a little Southern Comfort.

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

 

Be well..