Ruthless Truth

[Andy_W]

I messed up that post please read below :-)

Edited May 14, 2011 by Andy_W

[Andy_W]

[C T]

Hi CowTao: Now, i have read the posted link.. the use of self or no-self is trivial, the observation, regardless of what it is labeled, is of unique identifiable beings relating with their environment.. self hould not be an issue, Buddha should not be an issue, only the experience is the issue..

 

Be well..

Basically there are no issues, but you keep making it difficult not to address some of the things you lend weight to - you know what is being inferred here, i hope. You do not realize how often you belittle others, whats worse, you disguise your motives and intentions. I do not know you, but i read your words, and its your attitude expressed thru these that i happen to find unsavory.

 

If you want to take this as an insult, or feel that you are being slandered, then this is wholly my fault, and in no way the fault of the Buddha, or Buddhism.

 

All the same, thanks for taking the time to read the link.

[三江源]

Yeh, the 'no self' thing really does freak people out.

 

 

So here's a challenge, for anyone who wants to have a go.

 

Write a very clear and concise laymans definition if it, designed bearing in mind the activation of resistance reflex which so often sabotages clear grasp , and attempt to bypass that mechanism.

 

Virtual applause awarded for any good attempts.

[xabir2005]

To Andy:

 

In that case may I suggest you try self-inquiry, a direct path to self-realization and the initial direct realization of what Awareness is.

 

After you matured that experience and insight, you may continue to investigate on 'no self'.

 

See my e-journal/e-book which contains pointers and instructions on self-inquiry: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

[Mandrake]

"Self" can be just as much of a belief as "No-self".

 

"Invisible Pink Unicorn" can be just as much of a belief as "No-Invisible Pink Unicorn".

 

In the end beliefs have various bearing on existence; some beliefs matter more, some are dispensable.

 

 

Mandrake

[Encephalon]

Yeh, the 'no self' thing really does freak people out.

 

 

So here's a challenge, for anyone who wants to have a go.

 

Write a very clear and concise laymans definition if it, designed bearing in mind the activation of resistance reflex which so often sabotages clear grasp , and attempt to bypass that mechanism.

 

Virtual applause awarded for any good attempts.

 

Clarity and concision? Surely you jest! My most recent post on Joanna Macy and the experience of no-self is one such attempt.

[xabir2005]

There is more to it than only nothing. Nothing is but a piece of the greater picture.

 

there seems to be little

evidence in this sutta to support either "instant" enlightenment, nor for a

dry and stoic enlightenment. Bahiya, after all had been a contemplative for

many years before meeting the Buddha, thus there was nothing instantaneous

about his journey. It is, however, good evidence for how hard one can engage

in the contemplative life and yet miss a small but important thing and thus

miss liberation (vimokkha). But, once that simple detail is presented, one,

as well prepared as Bahiya, could then make an end of suffering (dukkha).

 

The object of this sutta is presented in the 8th stanza. Here Siddhartha

Gotama presents Bahiya to the core concepts of liberation (vimokkha).

The object of this sutta is to relinquish the

cognitive elements of self. Thus this sutta would be excellent to use in

support of non-dualism in the Buddhist context.

.

 

Bahiya Sutta (U 1.10)

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen,

there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In

reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only

the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will

be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to

the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in

reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that.

When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is

no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This,

just this, is the end of dissatisfaction (dukkha)."

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/bahiyasutta.htm

 

Ireland, John D., Translation, "The Udana: Inspired utterances by the Buddha

& The Itivuttaka: The Buddha's sayings." Buddhist Publication Society,

1998.

http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=404214

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu¹s original translation is available at this URL:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10.html

 

Masefield, P, ³Udana (English), Pali Text Society

http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=133117

 

Steinthal, ³Verses of Uplift² Udana (Pali), Pali Text Society

http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=131858

 

This rendering of the Bahiya Sutta 04/04/04 and its distribution is a free

service for the benefit of all beings and is available at this URL:

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/bahiyasutta.htm

 

Dhammapada Verse 372

"There is no ecstasy without wisdom,

There is no wisdom without ecstasy.

Whoever is close to enlightenment

truly has both wisdom and ecstasy.²

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dhammapada372.htm

I see you like to quote from great western vehicle.

 

I find the founder to be rich in experience of jhanas.

 

However, it is clear he did not realize no self.

 

Maybe a temporary experience where the sense of self goes into abeyance, but not as a realization or insight into no self.

Edited May 14, 2011 by xabir2005

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

What is awareness? it is a word, a description of ???... what IS it?

 

If there is nothing to experience 'Awareness', there is no 'word', no description, no 'Awareness'.. it is the ability to relate to existence, to perceive the experience of that relationship.. which inspires 'That' which experiences to describe the process of perceiving as 'Awareness'..

 

Be well..

[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

[Seth Ananda]

This is the issue, Seth.. because i don't get it the way 'you' get it or Cirian gets it, i am somehow deficient..

 

I come to your understanding of 'no self' through the process of 'stilling the mind'.. no ritual, no rejection of what is plainly obvious, selfs exist.. i achieve the same clarity of 'no-self' through 'empty mind', and balance that with full on engagement with Life..

 

Please stop soothing your wounded desires that people believe what you do, by telling stories about how i haven't tried to understand.. i have tried, and there is no validity in the method or the result.. it's unfortunate that you can't accept that truth, you are becoming desperate..

 

Be well..

Once again a BS reply from you.

1 - I never said you are deficient because you do not 'get it' but because you think you know and plainly do not & Because you claim to be honestly looking but refuse to glance in the direction indicated. Philosophical Cowardice.

 

2 - That is not the same No self experience that we are talking about. This alone demonstrates that you think you know where we are coming from, but you clearly do not.

 

3 - Lol if you read my last post, you will realize that I have ZERO interest in having someone believe something. Zero.

 

All I want is for people who 'claim' to be interested in 'Truth', to be willing to bravely Inquire in any direction, and then come to their own conclusions...

 

"Soothing my wounds"... lol, pitiful.

[Encephalon]

Once again a BS reply from you.

1 - I never said you are deficient because you do not 'get it' but because you think you know and plainly do not & Because you claim to be honestly looking but refuse to glance in the direction indicated. Philosophical Cowardice.

 

2 - That is not the same No self experience that we are talking about. This alone demonstrates that you think you know where we are coming from, but you clearly do not.

 

3 - Lol if you read my last post, you will realize that I have ZERO interest in having someone believe something. Zero.

 

All I want is for people who 'claim' to be interested in 'Truth', to be willing to bravely Inquire in any direction, and then come to their own conclusions...

 

"Soothing my wounds"... lol, pitiful.

 

 

You sound like one of them incorrigible critical thinkin' types, tryin' to stir everyone up with all kind of fancy thinkin' and intellectual honesty, perseverence, humility... yeah, I know what yer up to.

 

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits

 

 

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

 

 

Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

 

 

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

 

 

Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

 

 

Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

 

 

Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

 

 

Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

[Aaron]

LOlz! Otis, YOU ( ) are ridiculous!

 

I mean words are just constructs that we assign to things. These constructs are in fact ungrounded in reality. Just because someone has "transcended" the duality of self/other, subject/object, existence/nonexistence of reality, doesn't mean that they don't still use words such as: "I," "mine," I am," "you," "other(s;)" You're really just not attached to thinking of those concepts that are assigned, as having any true basis.

 

Do you suggest we all refer to ourselves in the 3rd person?

 

"Simple Jack declares this steak delicious!" "Simple Jack has to take a shit!" "Simple Jack is masturbating to internet scat porn!"

 

Hello Simple Jack,

 

I think the problem is that you are debating a theory that can't be proven scientifically, hence the reason so many people have problems accepting it as fact. In my mind the whole thing is similar to the old adage, "what if there is a hell, do you really want to take that chance?" So I should practice buddhism to be rid of suffering, even though I don't see that as happening. Are you saying that enlightened individuals can choose whether they feel pain, get hungry, or suffer from neurosis or deviant behavior? If so can you show me some documented evidence? That's the problem here, there is nothing you can show me that proves what you're saying is true, rather it's here say and speculation.

 

Aaron

 

edit- You are still free to believe whatever you want, but I would recommend you not insult others or make crude comments in an to attempt to misdirect the conversation away from your relatively flimsy explanations.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

This inquiry once completed isn't something that you may uninquire. I personally fallowed thier intructions and can personally say it is crap. It makes you feel dizzy, void, and numb. It took a lot of work for me to work my way back to reality. That teaching is simply a half truth.

 

 

Informer, It sounds to me like you did not realize 'No self' but rather had a bunch of ideas about No self, that freaked out your survival Instinct.

 

Remember in the Emptiness teachings, it's said, "Emptiness of the self does not deny the Self."

Realizing No self, does not leave you without your thoughts, Ideas, emotions, memories or body.

You will still answer to your name. If anything All it does is replace the set of deep seated existential anxiety's with a deep sense of peace, and detachment from thing that used to bug you. And not some Zombie detachment. It does not remove intelligence. You wont cease to care if you are hit by an oncoming truck...

[Aaron]

Once again a BS reply from you.

1 - I never said you are deficient because you do not 'get it' but because you think you know and plainly do not & Because you claim to be honestly looking but refuse to glance in the direction indicated. Philosophical Cowardice.

 

2 - That is not the same No self experience that we are talking about. This alone demonstrates that you think you know where we are coming from, but you clearly do not.

 

3 - Lol if you read my last post, you will realize that I have ZERO interest in having someone believe something. Zero.

 

All I want is for people who 'claim' to be interested in 'Truth', to be willing to bravely Inquire in any direction, and then come to their own conclusions...

 

"Soothing my wounds"... lol, pitiful.

 

 

Hello Seth,

 

My question is this, if I have practiced Zazen (I practiced as a taoist for years) and did not come to the same conclusion as the Buddhists, does that mean I am a coward for not looking further in that direction? Again this is like saying, "What if there is a hell? Do you really want to take the chance?" If you tell me that I can dig a hole to China, and I don't believe it's possible, does that mean I am stubborn because I didn't dig that hole because I believed it to be impossible? Does someone really need to dedicate themselves to digging that hole before they can be taken seriously?

 

With that said, I'm not defending TZL's behavior, but I am defending his right to choose what he wishes to practice.

 

Aaron

Edited May 15, 2011 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

You sound like one of them incorrigible critical thinkin' types, tryin' to stir everyone up with all kind of fancy thinkin' and intellectual honesty, perseverence, humility... yeah, I know what yer up to.

 

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits

 

 

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

 

 

Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

 

 

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

 

 

Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

 

 

Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

 

 

Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

 

 

Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

Thanks Blasto. I need to work on the humility side. Foggy thinking makes me furious.

lol.

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth,

 

My question is this, if I have practiced Zazen (I practiced as a taoist for years) and did not come to the same conclusion as the Buddhists, does that mean I am a coward for not looking further in that direction? Again this is like saying, "What if there is a hell? Do you really want to take the chance?" If you tell me that I can dig a hole to China, and I don't believe it's possible, does that mean I am stubborn because I didn't dig that hole because I believed it to be impossible? Does someone really need to dedicate themselves to digging that hole before they can be taken seriously?

 

With that said, I'm not defending TZL's behavior, but I am defending his right to choose what he wishes to practice.

 

Aaron

Lol, no. I think different conclusions are great. But my friend Zhu went to someone elses site, not to engage their process but to teach/win/beat them with his Ideas, and all it really did was make him look like an Idiot.

Also as far as a conversation goes, you/me/anyone has to be willing to explore the Ideas of the person they are conversing with. And by explore I mean try to understand.

 

So if someone is trying to help you understand their discovery by saying look in this way at... well if you do that [philosophical bravery] you are then in a position to dialogue, or even have an opinion about what they are saying.

This is the crucial point. Then you can come to your own conclusions, about said theory/phenomona which may be something the pointer has not realized them selves. Awesome.

 

And as for digging to china, great analogy. No one has to try this stuff or look or make it their path - Unless they are wanting to debate/philosophize the claims made.

In which case every effort should be made to understand the ins and outs of the perspective.

Otherwise you are a useless cowardly belief monkey, who as a philosopher deserves Zero respect.

 

Seth.

[TzuJanLi]

[Aaron]

Lol, no. I think different conclusions are great. But my friend Zhu went to someone elses site, not to engage their process but to teach/win/beat them with his Ideas, and all it really did was make him look like an Idiot.

Also as far as a conversation goes, you/me/anyone has to be willing to explore the Ideas of the person they are conversing with. And by explore I mean try to understand.

 

So if someone is trying to help you understand their discovery by saying look in this way at... well if you do that [philosophical bravery] you are then in a position to dialogue, or even have an opinion about what they are saying.

This is the crucial point. Then you can come to your own conclusions, about said theory/phenomona which may be something the pointer has not realized them selves. Awesome.

 

And as for digging to china, great analogy. No one has to try this stuff or look or make it their path - Unless they are wanting to debate/philosophize the claims made.

In which case every effort should be made to understand the ins and outs of the perspective.

Otherwise you are a useless cowardly belief monkey, who as a philosopher deserves Zero respect.

 

Seth.

 

Well in my defense, despite what many Buddhists here believe I did "try it" and decided it wasn't for me. I have read a great deal on Zen, many books were given to me by my friend when I became interested in it. I also have a great deal of respect for Zen. In some ways you could call me a Zenist, but not a Buddhist. I truly appreciate the concepts inherent in Zen, but I don't necessarily agree with the four noble truths or the eightfold path. I actually asked about practicing Zen without Buddhism and the general consensus seemed to be that it couldn't be done, so I decided I'd just practice Zazen, since it helps me to find a place of balance and peace.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to show any disrespect. I guess I was surprised by your response, because overall you seem to be a very conscientious and compassionate person, so those comments struck me as odd. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 15, 2011 by Twinner

[TzuJanLi]

Lol, no. I think different conclusions are great. But my friend Zhu went to someone elses site, not to engage their process but to teach/win/beat them with his Ideas, and all it really did was make him look like an Idiot.

Also as far as a conversation goes, you/me/anyone has to be willing to explore the Ideas of the person they are conversing with. And by explore I mean try to understand.

 

So if someone is trying to help you understand their discovery by saying look in this way at... well if you do that [philosophical bravery] you are then in a position to dialogue, or even have an opinion about what they are saying.

This is the crucial point. Then you can come to your own conclusions, about said theory/phenomona which may be something the pointer has not realized them selves. Awesome.

 

And as for digging to china, great analogy. No one has to try this stuff or look or make it their path - Unless they are wanting to debate/philosophize the claims made.

In which case every effort should be made to understand the ins and outs of the perspective.

Otherwise you are a useless cowardly belief monkey, who as a philosopher deserves Zero respect.

 

Seth.

How much more desperately will your ego deny that someone can make a sincere effort and not reach the same conclusions as 'you', the classic evidence of your self-ness..

 

Be well, Seth..

[Otis]

Yeh, the 'no self' thing really does freak people out.

 

So here's a challenge, for anyone who wants to have a go.

 

Write a very clear and concise laymans definition if it, designed bearing in mind the activation of resistance reflex which so often sabotages clear grasp , and attempt to bypass that mechanism.

 

Virtual applause awarded for any good attempts.

I made my attempt on the first page, but no one commented, so here goes again:

 

I don't believe than "non-self" is literally true.

 

I think what is true is that:

 

The phenomenological experience of my self is an illusion. What I experience as "me" is merely a cluster of habituated functions of my brain. There is a lot more to this organism, then the tiny bit that I experience as me. I do not have "my" self or "my" body, because the functions that feel like "I" are just one small part of the brain, which is one part of the body. Other functions of my brain, like thought, imagination and memory, are not "me", because they sometimes surprise me. The body is "real", but it is also unknowable to "me". What "I" experience is not the actual world, but a simulacrum of the world that my senses (including the parts of my brain that translate sense data into perception) and heuristics re-create inside my brain. It is only this simulacrum that the "I" experiences, and which it mis-interprets as the actual world. This is the only reality that "I" can ever know, the one that is inside my head, because "I" have no senses; I have only access to the data stream that my body's senses bring me. This simulacrum includes my concept/experience of myself, as well as my concept/experience of the body.

 

From the posture of the self, "I" appear to be an individual, separate from life, as if I have to endure life, which is something that happens to "me". But, of course, there is no "me" separate from "my" life; the two concepts define identical territory. For all intents and purposes, "my life" and "me" are the exact same things. To forget this is to live in the 3rd person, to try to "see myself" as if from someone else's point of view: i.e. how do I appear, what should I do? But to live in the 1st person is to experience no separation between myself and my life (and hence, also between myself and the world, or between myself and my actions or my senses), and thus, never to feel alienated from the flow that is life.

 

The continuance of the "I" is an addiction to control, because the function that "I" was designed for, was really just paying attention. Once I learn to surrender the worry and the hurry, and just pay attention, without adding any of the separation, judging, and analyzing that "I" have previously relied on, then the experience of "I" folds up, and the body continues being its own Self, without "me". If I allow "myself" to be a conduit for awareness, instead of a "self", then the body is free to live its life, with my assistance, but not my interference.

 

"No self" points at the above, but I think it shouldn't be mistaken for "what's real". It is a metaphor, just as self is a metaphor. "I" (i.e. the cluster of functions) do still exist (or I wouldn't be aware), just not as a "self", as we normally think of it. I am just part of something bigger than what the sense of me suggests.

[Otis]

LOlz! Otis, YOU ( ) are ridiculous!

 

I mean words are just constructs that we assign to things. These constructs are in fact ungrounded in reality. Just because someone has "transcended" the duality of self/other, subject/object, existence/nonexistence of reality, doesn't mean that they don't still use words such as: "I," "mine," I am," "you," "other(s;)" You're really just not attached to thinking of those concepts that are assigned, as having any true basis.

 

Do you suggest we all refer to ourselves in the 3rd person?

 

"Simple Jack declares this steak delicious!" "Simple Jack has to take a shit!" "Simple Jack is masturbating to internet scat porn!"

Of course I'm not saying people should not use the word "you".

 

I mean we should not rely on our mental construction of "you".

 

If I were to start telling you who you were, and start saying adjectives about you, that would be my fallacy. All I have of Simple Jack are some words on a screen. I can reflect back to you what I read in what you write, but I will not tell you who you are.

 

Yet it is the mental construct of you that is being yelled at, by many posters on this thread. There's no monopoly on that delusion in this conversation; people telling each other who they are, what their biases or level of realization is, what they have not yet experienced or tried. All these things are fantasies, conclusions someone came to, from comparing the words on the screen with their own internal yardsticks of what's right, and what gives rise to what. He must be X, because he said Y.

 

All of this is delusion. This is people throwing poo at their own shadow puppets of each other. Wise and clear conversation is only possible if we acknowledge the limits of our own possible insight into each other's minds, hearts, and experiences, and act accordingly.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Otis

[Seth Ananda]

Well in my defense, despite what many Buddhists here believe I did "try it" and decided it wasn't for me. I have read a great deal on Zen, many books were given to me by my friend when I became interested in it. I also have a great deal of respect for Zen. In some ways you could call me a Zenist, but not a Buddhist. I truly appreciate the concepts inherent in Zen, but I don't necessarily agree with the four noble truths or the eightfold path. I actually asked about practicing Zen without Buddhism and the general consensus seemed to be that it couldn't be done, so I decided I'd just practice Zazen, since it helps me to find a place of balance and peace.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to show any disrespect. I guess I was surprised by your response, because overall you seem to be a very conscientious and compassionate person, so those comments struck me as odd. Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Hey my post was in no way an attack against you. Feel free to not be Buddhist. I am not one either, but I am a fan of a few of their central philosophical tenants. Mainly No self and E&DO, but as far as being part of a tradition goes I prefer others.

I am very fond of Taoism and still greatly love Kashmir Shaivism.

I actually started out nearly hating Buddhism, because it did not fit easily in with the other traditions, and I found it very hard to rectify key sayings with my understanding. But over time [years] I began to properly understand what its general philosophy is saying, and when I looked to see if they could be true, over and over I found I could not argue with its specific realizations. I struggled mightily to find alternative ways of describing the realizations/observations, and I may have found a few, but they need thorough examination on my part before i would share them.

 

For me It almost felt like a forced conversion, where 'I' lol, tried desperately to keep from being sucked down a Buddhist hole.

Funnily enough, eventually I couldn't argue any more and gave up.

But being 'Buddhist' just doesn't suit me, and creates too many new questions.

 

I have to follow these questions, as more than anything I want the Truth. I will never sit in front of someone and say the Truth is... and speel a bunch of beliefs. I will say, what I can see is... And if the person is smart they will be able to look at what I say, understand my position, then offer their own observations....

 

If I break up my components I am:

 

Philosophically - Buddhist/Taoist/Kashmir Shavite

meditation path - Taoist/Kashmir shavite

Health pursuits - Taoist. low stance Taiji is awesome