Ruthless Truth

[xabir2005]

Sure, a memory from the past will sometimes sneak in but not often. And no matter how frequently I have positive thoughts and emotional feelings it is only "I" who is experiencing them unless I care to share them with others and then they too may have the experience simply by hearing of mine.

No. Thought is arising as this particular mind, distinct from the other people's thoughts or experience.

We have free will and we can choose to be positive or negative; an optimist or a pessimist.

There is intention, action, decisions... no chooser.

 

We can choose to suffer or we can choose to not suffer.

You can lessen (but not really overcome) suffering if:

 

- your mental conditioning is changed (as explained above: changing negative thoughts to the habit of positive thoughts)

 

But you can only remove suffering if:

 

- all traces of clinging, to this mind, this body, to a self, resulting in craving, anger, fear, and all manners of passionate emotions... have been fully eradicated.

 

Otherwise suffering will certainly surface.

Many Jews learned how to not suffer while in the hands of the Nazis. I have heard of their personal experiences and how they were able to overcome suffering. And I am sure you know that Jews are among the most identy conscious people on this planet.

They probably learned the art of letting go to a certain degree, which helped. However it is not completely possible to let go when we still have the ideas of a self, a real body, a real mind, something that is real.. separate... and under threat from 'others'.

 

But then, we can choose to try it the Buddhist way. Ah!, the thought of even trying. Intentional thought by an individual.

Your sentence is ok. But the word 'body-mind' should be added after 'individual'.

 

Intentional thought by an individual body-mind... not individual self. A self never is. Individual body-minds, are.

[goldisheavy]

No you means no you, period.

 

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

 

There is no you.

 

How do you know there is no you? When you're looking for yourself, what are you looking for? Maybe you're not looking for the right thing? So for example, if I think the stars are donuts and I search for the stars and don't find any, whose fault is that? So when you search for yourself, what are you looking for?

[C T]

 

There is no you.

Too close, and it cannot be recognized.

 

Too profound, and it cannot be appreciated.

 

 

 

Too good, and it cannot be believed.

 

 

 

 

Too simple, and it cannot be accepted.

[xabir2005]

"[although it doesn't have to be Buddhist] like No self,"

 

To claim this is the totality is heresy.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

 

"Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside."

 

Please read this.

No.

 

What the Buddha did not teach is:

 

1) I do not exist

2) I exist.

 

 

What he teach is:

 

There is no 'I' that can be pinned down as a reality in the first place, that could exist or not exist.

 

Existence and non-existence are based on a false predicate that there is a findable "I" as a real entity (which could exist, not exist, both, or neither).

 

As Buddha himself said in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

 

 

Look, there is no you that can be pinned down in or outside of the five skandhas to begin with... so how can you say that you exist or become non-existent?

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Too close, and it cannot be recognized.

 

Too profound, and it cannot be appreciated.

 

 

 

Too good, and it cannot be believed.

 

 

 

 

Too simple, and it cannot be accepted.

Indeed...

 

Only those courageous, open, and wise can see this.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

How do you know there is no you? When you're looking for yourself, what are you looking for? Maybe you're not looking for the right thing? So for example, if I think the stars are donuts and I search for the stars and don't find any, whose fault is that? So when you search for yourself, what are you looking for?

It is not 'I know' but there is only knowing... there is only seeing... there is only hearing...

 

If in hearing there is only sound, in seeing only seen, any notions of a self, seer, is an illusion.

 

It is like the word 'weather' is a mere label collating all kinds of phenomena (rain, snow, wind, etc) but you cannot pin down an object called 'weather'.

 

As a convenient label, fine, it has its purpose.

 

But as an actual thing? No!

 

There is just... rain, snow, wind, lightning..

 

Just as there are just various flickering sensations... bodily, mental, visual, etc etc.. the five aggregates

 

Whatever sensations, experience there is... that you think is you, is actually more flickering sensations and experiences. NOT an experiencer...

 

Even that sense of an observer, is upon investigation just more sensations, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, mental construct.

 

Whatever you find in the looking... is an arising. Whatever you look for... is more experience. Even that looking... is itself more activities, no looker.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[C T]

 

If I were a Sage time wouldn't matter very much at all and I would go through life just living, making no judgements on anything. If this were true then I would have to almost agree with Xabir that self is insignificant and could probably just be done away with.

 

 

Ultimate truths? Are there any? Only conditional truths, I think.

Hi Marblehead,

 

From the Buddhist perspective, conditional truths exist as seed potential, and a Buddhist cultivator is more like a gardener than a sage... in that there is a harnessed effort to plant the right seeds, and do whatever else is necessary to develop and nurture growth that leads to a good harvest. Wouldn't it be rather silly to assume that after doing all the work that the gardener would then do away with his 'insignificant' self? Who is left to enjoy the bountiful fruits? More than that, i believe that Buddhists learn very much to enjoy not only the fruits of cultivation, but also the whole process ranging from the planning stages right thru to the harvesting.

 

I'm thinking that you are thinking that Buddhists are a loopy bunch of people. I could be off the mark, but i think your handle on this is rather slippery. After all that has been exchanged, it appears you still do not get that Buddhism does not advocate doing away with the self. Only people on chronic guilt trips (and there are 1 or 2 always posting on this board) attaches to this sort of mind set. I can vouch that Xabir is definitely not one of them.

 

Working with Buddhist way of mindful attention allows the contemplator to befriend whatever is present without asserting or negating anything. This makes room for an unconditional relationship with self and others to occur - self and others are clearly seen in this room when the right conditions are present, but its in the aspect of the unconditional that self and others are able to be equalized, not annihilated. After all, impartiality does not exclusively reside in the domain of Daoism. Without training in the attitude of equality and impartiality, Buddhists understand that it is not possible to know that a rock's virtue is hardness, and water's virtue is softness. The essence of Buddhism... things just as they are, empty of ultimate essence, but full of colorful phenomena. We enjoy these displays as much as our Taoist brothers and sisters.

Edited May 18, 2011 by CowTao

[xabir2005]

Self implies:

 

permanent, intimate (no separation - no distance - not apart), controller, perceiver, etc

 

 

If you can find such a thing, then it is Self.

 

 

Whatever you find, is actually more sensations and perceptions... intimate, yes, but not a real entity or self.

 

 

Actually many people do think they found the true Self... those self-realized persons, which includes me during one period... where it appears I have found my true identity to be pure formless Consciousness. It is a non-dual, intimate experience of consciousness... being falsely reified into an ultimate identity.

 

Well, that is a true experience, but what I didn't know then is that every sensation, thought, feeling, perception, are equally intimate, without separation.

 

Does that mean that I am everything? No... there is nothing permanent and identifiable that I could call 'me'. Identity means there is something graspable, permanent, that I can call me... if there is only the transiency of experiences, there is no me.

 

This thought is not the same as that thought. This sound is not the same as another moment of sound. No two moments are anything the same... only activities, processes... no 'I' or anything that links them! Each moment, gone.

 

Nothing is permanent even formless consciousness. Formless consciousness is simply mind in its quiescent non-conceptual mode.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

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

 

Hi Informer,

 

I challenge this statement. There is always a way back to Tao, which is a perfect harmony of Yin and Yang. I do agree that more cannot be created, but as there already is a harmony of the two (not necessarily balance) we can always move toward the opposite. But this movement requires action. (And action itself is Yang.)

[Marblehead]

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

 

Yep. She is pretty. I love the end where she looked back. I always looked for that when I was young and moving around. If they look back it means you have a chance. Go for it!

 

On, yeah, the song. I had to look up the lyrics. True, only you can ...

[Marblehead]

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

 

Hi Xabir,

 

Pretty good responses. We both know that we are never going to come to complete agreement on this. The words we use have different meaning to the two of us.

 

Really, the only reason I get involved in these sort of discussions is so that the reader does not thing that some form of nihilism is being presented. I know you do not mean to suggest nihilism but for a reader who is totally confused it could be an assumed and this could cause their condition to worsen.

 

We Taoists emphasize the importance of the Manifest and the importance of the individual and their need to follow their own true nature. This would not be possible if we do not manifest the concept of "I".

 

Pondering... pondering.... decision made.... action taken.... satisfaction gained. By whom? By the doer, of course. Hehehe. No more suffering.

[xabir2005]

 

Pondering... pondering.... decision made.... action taken.... satisfaction gained. By whom? By the doer, of course. Hehehe. No more suffering.

No... by the thought. Thought by what? Another thought. Thought after thought. No controller... just conditions giving rise to _____

 

YOU are just an idea pasted on the process.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

 

Intentional thought by an individual body-mind... not individual self. A self never is. Individual body-minds, are.

 

Once again, very nice responses.

 

Actually, I do fully accept this last statement (and I have indicated this before).

 

What we call "I" and "Self" is truely a collection of many things, it is not an item in and of itself. But it is so much easier to say "I" than it is to define each and every contributor to the collection.

 

Yes, this "body-mind" is more appropriate a definition but I normally don't go around saying "This body-mind would like to order a soda." It is so much easier to say "(I want) one soda please."

[Marblehead]

Too close, and it cannot be recognized.

 

Too profound, and it cannot be appreciated.

 

 

 

Too good, and it cannot be believed.

 

 

 

 

Too simple, and it cannot be accepted.

 

Too unrealistic, must be rejected. (Sorry. Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead,

 

From the Buddhist perspective, ...

 

Excellent post CowTao! Very well spoken and explained.

 

The essence of Buddhism... things just as they are, empty of ultimate essence, but full of colorful phenomena. We enjoy these displays as much as our Taoist brothers and sisters.

 

And here is the bottom-line difference between the two belief systems.

 

For a Taoist, fullness is the ultimate essence. Not only fullness of the Manifest but of the Mystery and Chi. As I have said before, everything that is, is, always had been and always will be. However, these 'things' take different form over time.

 

And yes, I do understand that y'all are normal people and lovers of life. Hehehe. Y'all just talk funny sometimes.

[Marblehead]

Self implies:

 

permanent, intimate (no separation - no distance - not apart), controller, perceiver, etc

 

If you can find such a thing, then it is Self.

 

True. If viewed from that perspective then I agree, there is no (permanent) Self.

 

But we all know (or at least should know) that nothing lasts forever. Everything changes. There was a time (I am assuming here) when nothing existed. That was the point of singularity. Don't know how long singularity lasted because there wasn't even space/time when there was singularity.

 

I know that this is counter to Buddhist understandings but it is "my" understanding.

[Marblehead]

No... by the thought. Thought by what? Another thought. Thought after thought. No controller... just conditions giving rise to _____

 

YOU are just an idea pasted on the process.

 

Wait a cotton-pickin' minute. Hehehe.

 

We just agreed on the concept of body-mind. There is a body that contains a mind that is having all these thoughts. The physical locality of the body is limited; thoughts are not.

[xabir2005]

Once again, very nice responses.

 

Actually, I do fully accept this last statement (and I have indicated this before).

 

What we call "I" and "Self" is truely a collection of many things, it is not an item in and of itself. But it is so much easier to say "I" than it is to define each and every contributor to the collection.

 

Yes, this "body-mind" is more appropriate a definition but I normally don't go around saying "This body-mind would like to order a soda." It is so much easier to say "(I want) one soda please."

There is no problem putting a label to collate the various parts as long as you see that it is not findable as a thing, controller, doer...

 

For example car is merely a label collating the various parts - engine, window, wheels, etc etc

 

The engine doesn't actually 'control' the driving... the wheels doesn't... the steering wheel doesn't, either

 

Cos it is only via the coming together of these parts that the function 'driving' happens.

 

There is no central controller, no central 'car'

 

Similarly there is no central 'self' controller and perceiving things

 

Just the five aggregates coming together, giving rise to various functions, including doing, knowing...

 

For convenience I say 'I', I put names, but I know there isn't really any Thingness there... like the word 'weather' is really mere label for everchanging clouds, wind, etc

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

True. If viewed from that perspective then I agree, there is no (permanent) Self.

 

But we all know (or at least should know) that nothing lasts forever. Everything changes. There was a time (I am assuming here) when nothing existed. That was the point of singularity. Don't know how long singularity lasted because there wasn't even space/time when there was singularity.

 

I know that this is counter to Buddhist understandings but it is "my" understanding.

There is a koan...

 

Richard Herman:

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I was feeling good reading this post until I got to this:

 

For convenience I say 'I', I put names, but I know there isn't really any Thingness there... like the word 'weather' is really mere label for everchanging clouds, wind, etc

 

"... there isn't really any Thingness there..."

 

This is another difference between the two belief systems.

 

Chuang Tzu spoke often to the "Thusness of things".

 

But I see what you are pointing at and acknowledge what is being pointed at.

 

Yep, weather is a generalized term to include all events/conditions of the weather (can't use a different word) of the planet at a given point in time. And yes, the weather changes too. Nothing is static.

[xabir2005]

Hehehe. I was feeling good reading this post until I got to this:

 

 

 

"... there isn't really any Thingness there..."

 

This is another difference between the two belief systems.

 

Chuang Tzu spoke often to the "Thusness of things".

 

But I see what you are pointing at and acknowledge what is being pointed at.

 

Yep, weather is a generalized term to include all events/conditions of the weather (can't use a different word) of the planet at a given point in time. And yes, the weather changes too. Nothing is static.

Thusness of things does not necessarily imply there is truly some thing-ness there.

 

Thusness does not imply a self.

 

The process IS.

 

Another name for Buddha, the Tathagata means 'Thus come one'. Thus come, thus gone.

 

In the first ever thread created by Thusness in my Buddhist forum, he said:

 

"Thusness is just so.

 

http://www.buddhaboard.com/

"

 

Which I think is very in accord with Taoism which talks a lot about 'tracelessness'

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

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.

I see...

 

So far so good.. The vocation I got into after BMT was not as tough as I expected.

 

If you're interesting in this direct form of investigation, you might want to engage those people in RuthlessTruth.

 

p.s. I thought I replied your post but when I searched I couldn't find it. Strange.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

There is a koan...

 

Richard Herman:

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

 

That hurt my brain. Hehehe.

 

All thing are what they are regardless of whether or not there is an observer. A tree falls in the forest. Is there any 'sound'? Not if there were no 'hearers'. But there were still the vibrations that would have applied sound to a brain through the hearing faculty if there were a hearer present.

 

I don't buy the "One Mind" concept. That's too close to theistic thought for me.

 

Yes, everything is exactly what it is. Doesn't matter who is perceiving it.

 

Hehehe. "The red floor is red." That too is an arguement that has never been resolved for everyone.

[xabir2005]

That hurt my brain. Hehehe.

 

All thing are what they are regardless of whether or not there is an observer. A tree falls in the forest. Is there any 'sound'? Not if there were no 'hearers'. But there were still the vibrations that would have applied sound to a brain through the hearing faculty if there were a hearer present.

 

I don't buy the "One Mind" concept. That's too close to theistic thought for me.

 

Yes, everything is exactly what it is. Doesn't matter who is perceiving it.

 

Hehehe. "The red floor is red." That too is an arguement that has never been resolved for everyone.

If you cannot overcome the idea of an observer...

 

Then you might look into how sound never was separate from consciousness. Consciousness arises as sound.

 

At this point, the observer and the observed are seen to be inseparable and subject-object dichotomy collapes into one Naked Awareness.

 

This is the realization of One Mind.

 

After even that Awareness is forgotten and there is just scenery, sound, sight, that is No Mind (abbot slaps... etc)

 

But No Mind experience is not the same as insight into Anatta.

 

The insight that hearing occurs, no hearer.

Edited May 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Thusness of things does not necessarily imply there is truly some thing-ness there.

 

Thusness does not imply a self.

 

The process IS.

 

Another name for Buddha, the Tathagata means 'Thus come one'. Thus come, thus gone.

 

Ah!, the processes. Can't deny them. That's TzuJan, BTW.

 

I would disagree though in that I believe that "thusness" does imply "thingness".

 

I acknowledge and accept the reality of the Manifest aspect of Tao (the totality).

 

Ah!, the one. And the other one. Oh, the many! Is that the "ten thousand things"?