Ruthless Truth

[Seth Ananda]

Hello Seth,

 

1.So my final question, are you saying the mind has nothing to do with no-self? I guess my inherent problem with the idea is that science seems to disprove the notion. Scientists quantify thought as an energy and that energy is created within the brain. If the brain does not work, then any concept, self or no-self, doesn't exist.

 

2.Now if you're saying there is no concrete concept of self, that our idea of being a self is hard to define because we cannot pinpoint it's origins and endings, then I can understand what you're saying. I'm still not sold on the no-self idea or how that leads one to greater compassion, in fact it seems like it would lead one to indifference.

 

Aaron

Excuse me adding numbers to your quote.

1. The Idea is that Mind exists regardless of realization of of No self.

So yes No self is not mind, but rather mind seeing clearly, realizes No self.

 

2. Of course there is a concrete concept of self, until you look closely at it

And If you suddenly see yourself and all other beings, struggling under the plight of believing that they have a self, experiencing endless suffering [not the kinds of suffering that can be avoided by proper distribution of resources and basic human rights] but by their own ignorance of their own true nature, then would not you feel great compassion?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Informer]

[C T]

Yeah, I meant the same thing as "one taste," "one flavor;" just chose to use "substance" in that post.

 

I get what you're saying. Though I can't say completely, yet. Like I said in another thread: I haven't been able to stabilize the insight into the "one taste" of samsara/nirvana. I've only had two glimpses into the "one taste" of the characteristics of "mind." Though when it did happen, after I would be thinking about/analyzing it, the thinking would then end, while simultaneously from the soles of my feet to the top of my head, every cell in my body vibrating, a rush of energy going through my body and up the central channel or as VJ would put it: "Having a bliss attack."

 

These glimpses would last for a number of hours, seeing the internal/external characteristics as being of "one flavor," even after having to resume my thoughts to finish a task.

 

Though this is definitely still in the realm of conceptualization, and has not been stabilized as a 24/7 being.

 

Edit: of course I know that there are inferior, middling, and superior levels to each insight into the four yogas.

I sincerely hope you will not 'get' what i am saying... i think you know what i mean.

 

I often made the mistake of thinking that i get something, and rejoiced as if such was a treasure found, and began hoarding these in places which are empty, not realizing that whatever is put into these empty places immediately becomes part of that emptiness. I then compound the mistake by thinking that my life can be enhanced somehow, enriched by these discoveries, which is simply not possible, because at the end of the day, whatever we hoard, be it gold plates of wisdom, or cardboards of doubt, will only become fetters all the same, if we, thru this process, create a bigger place for clinging and aversion to multiply in. In this, i understand now that 'one substance' could never be sustained as long as i mentally ding dong between what is perceived to be good teachings and BS teachings, good teachers and BS teachers. I know now that when causes and conditions come together, the arising of phenomena cannot be prevented - and then, when such causes and conditions dissipate, so does the formation of aggregates that give rise to such phenomena decline.

 

Arisings and declines are natural - in this no suffering is found. Suffering takes shape when i, in seeing things arise, wishes for such to be otherwise, and when i see things decline, wishes that such also be otherwise. This is caused by lack of insight, which in turn is caused by the desire for things to remain manipulable, just so to give me a sense of being able to control and shape what is beyond reach. Makes me feel important, and this sort of self-cherishing is exactly that which is advised against on the bodhisattvas' path.

 

The good news is that after 20 or so years of trying, i am starting to feel a bit tired, and lucky enough in the interim to have generated a bit of merit so that i can begin to stop clinging to this ball of fire which i am clinging to so tightly...

[Seth Ananda]

Seth ananda. Seems like you have really seen it, congrats. What triggered your realization and when?

Unfortunately xabir I have not got it at all. I understand it Intellectually but not as deep realization. I am Inquiring daily into it to see where it can take me - if anywhere.

 

I do get annoyed at people arguing against it, without even understanding its details properly or in some cases even barely.

 

I am really not interested in believing it. If the sages are right about the experience of No self, I want to experience that myself, then come to my own conclusions about it. This is the only way I can feel that I am being philosophically Honest with the subject.

 

As pure theory It makes a lot of sense to me that realizing No self, 'if possible' would massively liberate the Psyche which is why I am investing so much time into the subject.

 

Can it be really 'Gotten' on a profoundly deep level? I am yet to find out.

 

By the way, it is good to see you in here xabir, hows mandatory service treating you?

Be well.

[C T]

Hey Seth,

 

Nice thoughts, and thanks for your time here. Most of what you point out is spot on!

 

(how are things in Oz btw? Ever thought of expanding your horizons a little? Are you a qualified Wing Chun teacher? If so, send me a PM if you wish - i may have something that could be of interest to you.) _{apologies for the side-tracking here.}

[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

[Marblehead]

So you didn't like my response very well. Too bad. Hehehe.

 

I will try again.

 

Marble head, I think you avoided most of my questions, particularly about whether It could be possible to be in this state 'free of belief'?

 

I am told that it is possible. Lao Tzu suggests it and Chuang Tzu states it outright. The true Sage has no opinion (belief) of their own.

 

It seem's to me too easy to just say "All anyone experiences is just their belief systems" and there fore my belief system is just as good as yours.

 

The individual true and honest believer of any belief system must naturally feel that their's is the correct belief system. Otherwise why would they hold to that belief system? But, it is only correct in their own mind. Any person who holds a different belief system would suggest that their belief system is incorrect because their's is the correct belief system.

 

These are simply beliefs. They may be based on scientific fact but likely they are not. A believe need not be based on scientific fact. You have made a conscious decision to accept this set of concepts. No proof needed.

 

That the moon rotates around Earth is a fact. There need be no beliefs involved when considering this fact.

 

1. are all belief systems equal and Valid?

 

Yes. Without question. However, questions like: Does this belif system bring me peace and contentment? Is my belief system useful to me while allowing me to help others when I can? should be asked. And no, the belief system need not be logical. Logic doesn't matter with belief systems.

 

2. are you really sure that everyone is existing in a belief system?

 

Surely everyone believes something concerning what life is all about. Even if they think it is nothing but a pain in the butt. An agnostic has a belief system: I don't know if there is a God.

 

3. Is no self [always in every case] just another belief?

 

I don't believe in universals therefore I must conclude that the experience of (no self) may have accually occurred. But I would then ask: Who was it who experienced this no self?

 

4. Or could No self really be [even if just in very rare cases] the {belief free} result of just looking at the Idea of self and deconstructing it...

 

Yes. It is possible to imagine many things in the mind that cannot ever happen in the universe as it exists at this point in time. I can imagine being a butterfly. But who is it who is imagining being a butterfly. Well, it is none other that the hard-headed Marblehead. So I am still Marblehead while I am the butterfly. Which is reality? Chuang Tzu asked that question but gave us no answer.

 

Personally, I can't imagine being a no self. I like me too much.

 

If 4 has even the slightest chance of being possible, Including the remarkable and radical shift in perception/experience that it brings about, are you not interested in the least to see what they say they have learnt?

 

Well, sure I am interested in listening and reading. Why else would I be reading all the posts in this thread? But is there any rule that says that I must accept everything that everyone says? No, there are no rules. I have learned some useful things from some Buddhists. I am not against Buddhism. It has helped many people. But I am a Philosophical Taoist and a materialist. My belief has served me well and perhaps, as a result of the many words I present on this board, my words may be helpful.

 

And, of course, when something is presented that contradicts, even if it is unknowingly done and/or accidental, the Philosophical Taoist belief system (Is it really a belief system?) I feel obliged to speak to it. But I rarely state that such and such is BS. Note that I said rarely?

 

If you want to Be a Taoist {awesome anyway} and specifically never broach a more Buddhist perspective [although it doesn't have to be Buddhist] like No self, I am kind of wondering why you are here in this thread. I do not at all want you to leave, as you are greatly capable of Intelligent discussion, [when you read the thread properly ] but, what are you getting here? [lol i do appreciate the desire to flex ones philosophical muscles of course...]

 

Anyway, Have fun.

 

Okay. First, I AM a Taoist. This board is called Tao Bums. Seems that I have the right to be in any thread that appears on this board except for the moderators private access.

 

And because there are many here who wish to learn something about Taoism I feel I have the right and responsibility to make comment to any concept presented that is in contradiction to the Taoist belief system.

 

Taoism and Taoists do not hold to the concept of 'no self'.

 

What am I getting here? Much less than I am giving. But that doesn't matter.

 

My first post in this thread was a comment something like, "I shouldn't be posting in this thread but I need to make comment to (whatever it was).

 

Therefore I am here and I will be a general pain in the butt regarding certain Buddhist or Christian or any other religion's concepts when they are in direct contradiction of Taoism.

 

Anyhow, yes, I am having fun. I always have fun because I don't take any of the comments against me personally. (I don't get mad, I get even. Hehehe.)

[Seth Ananda]

[Seth Ananda]

Hey Seth,

 

Nice thoughts, and thanks for your time here. Most of what you point out is spot on!

 

(how are things in Oz btw? Ever thought of expanding your horizons a little? Are you a qualified Wing Chun teacher? If so, send me a PM if you wish - i may have something that could be of interest to you.) _{apologies for the side-tracking here.}

Thanks too, I always enjoy your posts And if it is a Wooden dummy I want it! lol, no I am not a Wing Chun teacher, though I do love the art.

[Seth Ananda]

Damn it Marble, How do I do that multi quote thing? there is a lot I want to say that will be easier with that skill

[Marblehead]

Actually Taoism talks of the same things as Buddhism; From the Hua Hu Ching:

 

 

What a great collection of quotes. Thanks for sharing them.

[Marblehead]

The question is: Can I "let go," of even the "letting go?"

 

Once you get there you will be living your true nature. Best wishes!

[Marblehead]

Damn it Marble, How do I do that multi quote thing? there is a lot I want to say that will be easier with that skill

 

Work it out my Dear Friend. You wanted a discussion - I offered one. Hehehe.

 

You could check with one of the mods, whoever is on line at the moment.

 

I would try but there may be a better way than what I use.

[Birch]

 

So why should we value strong emotional importance for a belief? Why not just believe, without being defensive about it? Why not surrender the delusional realm of "knowledge" and just admit that our beliefs can never be more than the best model thus far available. It is not "truth", nor can we ever say what "truth" actually is. It's just "what has worked thus far".

 

 

 

Because "knowledge is power" ?

 

[Informer]

Thats a very good article that I've read on and off over the last few years. Its in part asking whether we have a soul or not and thats not a subject i am debating.

Also, It does not really counter anything I have said.

As I have said, after realizing No self, you still will answer to your name being called, and your mind and memories are all still intact, but...

What is the real effect of realizing Anatta/No self? All Buddhists strive to realize Anatta, as Buddha taught them to. [despite him refusing to answer whether it was really there]

 

Anatta is simply to show you the line between everything and nothing. Neither in totality.

 

Before this point one may percieve only everything, without any pre-ponderance of nothingness. Therefore the perception of everything in totality is not truly percieved. As everything by definition would include this nothingness.

 

If you really want to do this Seth, I just ask that you don't let it go as far as totaly consuming. The black wave is not meant to be permenant, imo.

 

Create a tie to reality that you may implore nothing, and still return.

[Informer]

Consider "You doesn't exist" instead of "You don't exist" there is a very subtle difference and understanding this would be very valuable, imo.

[Informer]

It is the sucking force of yin that must be held at bay, as the power of yang is beckoned in.

[Informer]

If you lose all yang, more cannot be created. Because yang cannot exist within yin, only beside each other.

 

Then the only perspective achieved is one with nothing, as totality.

 

So how do you get a non-dual perspective from the true totality?

 

Simple, nothing is included into the perspective of everything.

 

Aspects of each can be utilized or disgarded at will.

 

Then you can see the true nature and meaning of the yin yang symbol.

 

I see the white spirit with a black dot as life, as the black spirit with a white dot is death.

 

I see a pure black spirit as totally nothing as it is

 

As a pure white spirit is everything from the perspective of everything as a duality.(not including nothing)

Edited May 18, 2011 by Informer

[Aaron]

I was reading this thread and thinking of how I was going to reply to everything that's been said when this song came up on my brother's i-pod. He has around 1200 songs and I had it on random, so the notion that this song, which I had heard before, but never really placed the meaning, would be chosen as I was reading this post, seemed kind of more than coincidence. I wanted to share it with you so I'm adding the link to it below... It really applies, I believe to what everyone has said so far.

 

 

If nothing else, there's a pretty girl singing... so give it a go. With that said, it might be best to close your eyes so you're not distracted from the lyrics.

 

Aaron

Edited May 18, 2011 by Twinner

[Informer]

Cool song.

[xabir2005]

When you refer to "no self," are you referring to not identifying with the five skandhas, but also the notion of a "higher self," like the Atman of Hinduism? Just wondering where you draw the line between Buddhism and Shaivism. I'm sure you remember all the arguing with VJ saying how the beliefs of "Hinduism," lead to rebirth in one of the Formless realms...

No you means no you, period.

 

There is no higher self... higher self is still another way of saying you.

 

There is no you.

[xabir2005]

You know that I am going to disagree with you, don't you?

 

Okay. Think fish. The next thought is the fish pond pump I had to buy today because the one on line went bad.

 

What causes thought is the brain. The chemicals in the brain are active and oftentimes these chemicals cause randon connections and thought occurs. Other time a thought is intentional as in "My fish pond pump is broken. What do I do now?" If I could not control my thoughts I would never have made the decision to go to Lowes as opposed to Home Depot for a new pump. All thoughts on the subject of fish pond pump was controlled thought until I had the new pump on line and operating. This enables the fish to continue to live.

Pondering... pondering.... decision made.

 

A self, thinker, chooser apart from thought? No.

 

There MUST be a thinker in order for thoughts to happen. To the best of my knowledge thoughts do not occur in outer space void of all living creatures.

No... a brain, attention, intention, various mental factors are necessary.

 

A thinker is not.

There MUST be a feeler in order for feelings to be had. The feeling of cold, for example, may be a result of "me" putting my finger on an ice cube while "I" am looking in "my" freezer.

No. Intention to put finger on ice cube arise based on a previous thought or circumstance or need, whatever condition is. Action of putting finger on ice cube occurs. Looking at the freezer occurs. It is not yours. There is no you, no yours.

You cannot feel this cold because "you" did not touch the ice cube.

The finger did not touch the ice cube. No 'you'.

This feeling of cold is recognized in the brain and then this feeling invokes the thought, "That's cold". A person with their hand in hot water would not experience this feeling of cold.

Yes! No you. Just bodily actions and feelings and thoughts.

I have chosen to have only positive emotional feelings.

No. The circumstances at the moment allowed you to only have positive emotional feelings. It might not be the case, for example, when you are dying of thirst in Sahara desert.

I have the process fairly well perfected.

Means the positive emotional feelings thought process is well trained. This well trained thought has formed latent imprints so that the habits of the mind at producing negative emotional feelings has been replaced by the habit and imprints of giving rise to positive emotional feelings. This is possible, sure, training takes place but no trainer is there.

 

Just like thought thinking thought... as I explained prior.

 

And by the way, latent imprints, conditioning your mind to think positively... already shows that thoughts arise due to conditions. But the conditions can be changed so it is not fixed.