How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

to form a view about things is to land in the extremes of affirmation and negation... As you need to affirm something about something, it does not go beyond the extremes of 'there is' and 'is not'. Everything is a magical display, utterly unestablished and dream-like, from samsara to nirvana, apples, dependent origination, emptiness. While empty it vividly appears. This is not a contradiction but simply the way things are.

 

To cling to wisdom and right view means you have established that there is wisdom, there is right view. Heart sutra says, no attainment, no suffering and end of suffering, no ignorance and no wisdom.

 

Not even an emptiness.

 

Just a magical display... Where is and is not do not apply.

So what about anatta? Do those views have no validity either?

 

Sure, that magical display is dependent arising and infinite potentiality. Like I said to lucky, you can go too far. You don't need to negate dependent arising. Dependent arising is the basis for freedom from extremes. Without it, that falls apart. Dependent arising is the middle way -- not something and not nothing.

 

I think, like lucky, you are wrongly conflating absolute and relative here. At the relative level, there is right and wrong view. Generally speaking, all views are at the relative level. And some are more correct than others. But at the ultimate level, no view can capture it. There, the views are simply arising, ungraspable manifestations like everything else.

 

Yesterday, I made a chart of all the realizations starting from emptiness of subject to emptiness of object. Slowly they begin to expand outward. And yes, they start with view and come to a sort of "complete view" -- a complete map, and then, at the last stage, the map is dropped.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

This may be a pleasant approach, but as a view it's a wrong view. Seeing is not "just the seen". What is seen only has meaning in terms of what else could be seen but isn't seen now, as well as in terms of relations between various positively present manifestations and the seen thing under analysis. In other words, all meanings are deeply and endlessly contextualized. This contextualization extends not only to the manifestly neighboring meanings, but even to the unmanifest potential meanings.

 

Also important, due to the principle of uncertainty, all the vividly manifest meanings are ever-so-slightly unmanifest, because no appearance-meaning reaches the extreme of 100% certainty during the manifestation phase. Similarly, all things that are currently unmanifest, all the infinite potentials, are ever-so-slightly manifest, because due to the principle of uncertainty the unmanifest appearance-meanings do not reach the extreme of 100% certainty of absence. This is the non-extreme nature of all phenomena.

 

Thanks to the non-extreme nature of all phenomena and endless contextualization, each meaning includes within it limitless all possible meanings. Dogen realized this too.

 

Seeing a blade of grass not only do you see the whole of the present universe, you also see all possible universes.

 

So seeing is not "just seen." That's a wrong view. Read "kuge: flowers of space" if you want to read the same thing I wrote here but in dramatically harder to understand language.

 

This is exactly the reason why it's wrong (painful) to get bound up in the objects you see. Because objects you see are not the true extent or the true nature of seeing.

you are talking about dependent origination. I am talking about anatta. This is not a contradiction if you understand it from context.

 

When I said seeing is seen, I don't mean the seen exists independently. I mean there is no seer seeing the seen. There is no agency behind seeing. This is anatta.

 

The experience of dependent origination, of the universe manifesting this moment, action and experience, does not deny the previous insight of anatta. In fact it requires it. For how can you experience dependent origination if you think that an agent, perceiver or controller is behind things instead of simply a process of d.o.? So d.o. Does not contradict anatta but requires it.

[goldisheavy]

you are talking about dependent origination. I am talking about anatta. This is not a contradiction if you understand it from context.

 

When I said seeing is seen, I don't mean the seen exists independently. I mean there is no seer seeing the seen. There is no agency behind seeing. This is anatta.

 

There is a seer though. The seer is not an object. So when you think the seer is an object, you look for it, you fail to find it, you declare there is no seer.

 

If the seer does not exist, explain why do you see things differently from me? What gives you your uniqueness?

 

In truth no-self is the extremist twin to the view of self. Both no-self and self are wrong views. The view of self exaggerates the apparent pattern. The view of no-self exaggerates the apparent instability and shiftiness of the pattern. Both views are exaggerations.

 

Check this out: http://meaningness.com/nebulosity

 

I'll mention in advance, I don't agree with everything you may find on meaningness.com, but it has a lot of helpful stuff on it. In particular all the writings about nebulosity and the eternalism and nihilism as two strategies of trying to simplify nebulosity are relevant to what you're trying to say. No-self belongs to a family of nihilistic simplifications. It exaggerates instability of meaning and it exaggerates the rate of change.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

I think I'm starting to see just how difficult it is to try and argue for the truth of the dharma. It requires a complete uprooting of deeply, deeply rooted assumptions. Many of which lie in the nature of language and thought itself.

[xabir2005]

There is a seer though. The seer is not an object. So when you think the seer is an object, you look for it, you fail to find it, you declare there is no seer.

 

If the seer does not exist, explain why do you see things differently from me? What gives you your uniqueness?

 

In truth no-self is the extremist twin to the view of self. Both no-self and self are wrong views. The view of self exaggerates the apparent pattern. The view of no-self exaggerates the apparent instability and shiftiness of the pattern. Both views are exaggerations.

 

Check this out: http://meaningness.com/nebulosity

 

I'll mention in advance, I don't agree with everything you may find on meaningness.com, but it has a lot of helpful stuff on it. In particular all the writings about nebulosity and the eternalism and nihilism as two strategies of trying to simplify nebulosity are relevant to what you're trying to say. No-self belongs to a family of nihilistic simplifications. It exaggerates instability of meaning and it exaggerates the rate of change.

by saying there is a seer, you have fallen into the extreme of self view and eternalism plus you have asserted the dichotomy between subject and object. Seeing is simply a process, not an entity or perceiver. You assert a 'there is' while I do not assert a 'there is' or 'is not'. Just for sake of argument what do you think is the seer?

 

P.s. Read this especially padmasambhava quote:

 

Rigpa and Aggregates

Posted by: An Eternal Now

(Also see: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination)

 

From Dharma Overground, Dharma Dan (Daniel M. Ingram):

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for your descriptions and analysis. They are interesting and relevant.

 

I think of it this way, from a very high but still vipassana point of view, as you are framing this question in a vipassana context:

 

First, the breath is nice, but at that level of manifesting sensations, some other points of view are helpful:

 

Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

 

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

 

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

 

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality.

 

As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:

 

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

 

This is not the case, so were the second true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

 

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.

The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge.

 

Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains.

[goldisheavy]

by saying there is a seer, you have fallen into the extreme of self view and eternalism plus you have asserted the dichotomy between subject and object.

 

That's not true. Both asserting and denying a seer are extreme views. When I said that there is a seer, I was challenging you. I then backed up my challenge with a reason. You ignored the content of my post and spammed me with a huge cut-n-paste which I didn't bother reading (not to mention I can guess what it says... I've probably read more Buddhist books than you).

 

I knew as soon as I mentioned that there is a seer you were going to switch out. You're predictable.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Of course I was going to get to that. Mindstreams are diverse, but minds are empty of self, or seers. It would be more accurate to say there are different streams of seeing, different minds (note: mind does not imply self or seer, minds are empty of selves and are simply a process of thinking, seeing, etc). But ultimately there are not even 'minds' as 'minds' too are utterly unestablished unlocatable. In other words there are diversity of appearances but no independent essence found anywhere.

[xabir2005]

Different causes and conditions give rise to different mental experiences. That is why we differ relatively speaking. We are not some cosmic soul.

[xabir2005]

So what about anatta? Do those views have no validity either?

 

Sure, that magical display is dependent arising and infinite potentiality. Like I said to lucky, you can go too far. You don't need to negate dependent arising. Dependent arising is the basis for freedom from extremes. Without it, that falls apart. Dependent arising is the middle way -- not something and not nothing.

 

I think, like lucky, you are wrongly conflating absolute and relative here. At the relative level, there is right and wrong view. Generally speaking, all views are at the relative level. And some are more correct than others. But at the ultimate level, no view can capture it. There, the views are simply arising, ungraspable manifestations like everything else.

 

Yesterday, I made a chart of all the realizations starting from emptiness of subject to emptiness of object. Slowly they begin to expand outward. And yes, they start with view and come to a sort of "complete view" -- a complete map, and then, at the last stage, the map is dropped.

The emptiness of self is not a view as it does not assert or negate something about something. When realized there is a freedom from views relating to self. Simply put the non inherency of a self or agent lets us see 'there is' or 'is not' do not apply to subject, self, body, awareness etc. It is not a view to be clung to. It is simply the way things are - the way seeing is - without inherent seer. It should lead to comfort resting as the ungraspable stream of transient experiencing without clinging to an experiencer.

 

Everything dependently originates relatively and thus are ultimately empty, including causes and conditions, therefore cause and effect are also like an illusion and utterly unestablished. I think vajrahridaya posted something about dzogchen teaching how cause and effect is illusory. Therefore shurangama sutra refutes the establishment of causes and conditions and causeless independent spontaneity.

 

As lankavatara sutra says: "the unreality of their psychosomatic aggregates and the interacting conditions of the three planes of cosmic existence as originating from their deluded mind"

 

In short whatever arises relatively does so via dependent origination, and are ultimately empty, non-arising, non-ceasing, non-abiding, unlocatable, ungraspable, including apparent causes and conditions.

 

Simple jack said here http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html?m=1 :

 

I would usually sum up what's being said in this entry like this: Each moment is interdependently originated and inherently empty. Awareness and it's "knowing" aspect is also interdependently originated and inherently empty.

 

At this phase there is no longer any association with an absolute arising, abiding, or cessation of "self" and phenomena. So each moment that arises according to causes and conditions, is self-perfected. The extremes of subject/object, self/other, existence/non-existence, etc. at this phase give way spontaneously to the "middle way;" because there is no longer an association with an absolute arising, abiding, or cessation of "self" and phenomena at this phase.

 

Due to having insight into the unborn dharma: "By perceiving the unreality of phenomena, they brought about the cessation of the outflowing sensory consciousness. Because they cognized the unreality of their psychosomatic aggregates and the interacting conditions of the three planes of cosmic existence as originating from their deluded mind, they saw external and internal phenomena as devoid of any inherent nature and as transcending all concepts."

 

What's your experience with the last paragraph?

 

-SJ

 

 

I replied: Hi,

 

Everything is ungraspable, unlocatable, un-pinnable as a solid entity...

 

Like weather, you can't say 'weather is located there' - weather is really not findable as an entity.

 

Since there is no 'the weather' as such, you cannot say the entity 'the weather' is existing somewhere, or that 'the weather' is non-existent, since both claims predicate an existent entity.

 

So 'it is', 'it is not', the four extremes, concepts about a substantial entity, as well as concepts about its birth, abiding, cessation, simply do not apply to all external and internal phenomena, which are simply an empty cognizance vividly shining yet located nowhere... transcending all concepts... just a magical, shimmering, luminous and empty mirage. i.e. The mirage of an island off shore on a sunny day looks there, but there is no core that can be found or located - similarly all experiences are apparent yet coreless, beyond concepts like 'it is there' and 'it is not there', it is unfathomable (since you cannot fathom a true existent entity 'there').

 

Since everything is an empty cognizance, there is nothing out there, or in here, or anywhere in between, therefore the cessation of the 'outflowing sensory consciousness' (I take it to mean projecting a solid world out of empty perceptions).

 

The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions.

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it?

 

.....

 

Haha... just saw that you wrote about your previous paragraphs. (I read backwards)

 

Not very different from what I said.

Edited July 12, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

The emptiness of self is not a view as it does not assert or negate something about something. When realized there is a freedom from views relating to self. Simply put the non inherency of a self or agent lets us see 'there is' or 'is not' do not apply to subject, self, body, awareness etc. It is not a view to be clung to. It is simply the way things are - the way seeing is - without inherent seer. It should lead to comfort resting as the ungraspable stream of transient experiencing without clinging to an experiencer.

Yes. Or to put the path this way:

 

Seer=seeing=seen

and this dependent manifestation is not existent or non existent

 

It really helps in organizing to put emptiness of subject first and have it naturally expand from there to emptiness of object. One gradually sees deeper and deeper into dependent arising at each stage, and the division gets smaller and smaller, until its full implications are known at stage six.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Of course I was going to get to that. Mindstreams are diverse, but minds are empty of self, or seers. It would be more accurate to say there are different streams of seeing, different minds (note: mind does not imply self or seer, minds are empty of selves and are simply a process of thinking, seeing, etc). But ultimately there are not even 'minds' as 'minds' too are utterly unestablished unlocatable. In other words there are diversity of appearances but no independent essence found anywhere.

 

That's better. A seer is just a way to refer to a person. It's not some metaphysical particle that anchors seeing. Of course there are people, hence there are seers. A seer is a subjective point of view. Of course people have points of view.

 

From this people fall into two kinds of exaggerations.

 

One way to exaggerate the situation is to pretend there is more stability and endurance to a point of view than there really is. From this arises the false idea that at the bottom of each seer there is a kind of metaphysical anchor or particle, a kind of eternal object that persists through all time. This errs on the side of eternalism.

 

Another way to exaggerate the situation is to pretend there is a lot less stability to a point of view than there really is. From this arises the false idea that there is no seer at all. This approach leads to a total denial of the seer, and of all the objects of perception as such. This errs on the side of nihilism.

 

The real situation is in some sense inconvenient because it cannot be captured by simplifications. Saying there is a seer in a kind of absolute and definite sense is a simplification (or an exaggeration). Saying there is not, again, is a simplification. Depending on what the person is more attached to you use different antidotes. If the person is attached to nihilistic attitudes, then you correct it by asserting a self. If the person is attached to eternalistic attitudes, then you correct it by asserting the absence of self. But each antidote is a kind of poison and a lie in its own right. All medicine is poison. If you give a bunch of antidote to a healthy person you will kill that person.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

That's better. A seer is just a way to refer to a person. It's not some metaphysical particle that anchors seeing. Of course there are people, hence there are seers. A seer is a subjective point of view. Of course people have points of view.

 

From this people fall into two kinds of exaggerations.

 

One way to exaggerate the situation is to pretend there is more stability and endurance to a point of view than there really is. From this arises the false idea that at the bottom of each seer there is a kind of metaphysical anchor or particle, a kind of eternal object that persists through all time. This errs on the side of eternalism.

 

Another way to exaggerate the situation is to pretend there is a lot less stability to a point of view than there really is. From this arises the false idea that there is no seer at all. This approach leads to a total denial of the seer, and of all the objects of perception as such. This errs on the side of nihilism.

 

The real situation is in some sense inconvenient because it cannot be captured by simplifications. Saying there is a seer in a kind of absolute and definite sense is a simplification (or an exaggeration). Saying there is not, again, is a simplification. Depending on what the person is more attached to you use different antidotes. If the person is attached to nihilistic attitudes, then you correct it by asserting a self. If the person is attached to eternalistic attitudes, then you correct it by asserting the absence of self. But each antidote is a kind of poison and a lie in its own right. All medicine is poison. If you give a bunch of antidote to a healthy person you will kill that person.

A self that can be stable or unstable, can it be found anywhere?

 

Relative labels like 'I am xabir' is fine. But like the word 'weather' does not refer to a findable entity but a process, same applies to 'self' which is simply an empty label for an ungraspable process.

 

You may argue there are certain traits that define a person. But this is not an argument as there are certain traits that define cars, but no car essence can be found inside or outside its constituents.

 

You can apply antidotes but when realization of anatta arises, one naturally is free from all extremes and will not err to any side. Otherwise it is an endless process of neti neti without end to the loop.

[goldisheavy]

A self that can be stable or unstable, can it be found anywhere?

 

It depends on what you look for. When you try to find yourself, what are you looking for?

 

Relative labels like 'I am xabir' is fine. But like the word 'weather' does not refer to a findable entity but a process, same applies to 'self' which is simply an empty label for an ungraspable process.

 

It's graspable if you don't grasp too tightly. Don't you see, that's the whole trick? People grasp identities because the grasp in a medium strength grip. At the same time, people make too many simplifications and their imaginations are impoverished. The sage sees this and the suffering it causes. How can we help? Well, there are tricks. Basically there are some lies we can tell people to free them. One lie is this: if you think you can grasp something, just grasp it as hard as you can! What happens? Well, when the person tries to grasp things way too hard, he or she gets exhausted and the fist naturally becomes limp after some time. So it's a way to get the person to leg go by lying and tricking the person. Of course if the person was not tricked into grasping way too hard, if the person continued a medium-strength grasp, the grasp would continue indefinitely.

 

As soon as you trick the person into loosening the hand, another disease starts. This new disease means the person now thinks nothing whatsoever can ever be held. So now you have to teach the person how to pick up objects and hold them. So you have to basically re-teach the same thing you tricked the person out of in the first place.

 

So what is the point of all this? The point is to eventually show the person that the hand is capable of this entire range of ability. Range is the key word. Grasping and non-grasping both fall within the range of ability. Neither ability is absolute. Grasping is not absolute. Non-grasping is also not absolute. Non-grasping only makes sense in contrast with grasping. The reason we can talk about non-grasping is because grasping is as real as non-grasping.

 

You may argue there are certain traits that define a person. But this is not an argument as there are certain traits that define cars, but no car essence can be found inside or outside its constituents.

 

You can apply antidotes but when realization of anatta arises, one naturally is free from all extremes and will not err to any side. Otherwise it is an endless process of neti neti without end to the loop.

 

When I type this post, are you typing my post? No, you are not. When you type your post, am I typing it? No I am not. There is an obvious distinction between you and me. You need to face the truth of this. Don't run from it.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

It depends on what you look for. When you try to find yourself, what are you looking for?

 

 

 

It's graspable if you don't grasp too tightly. Don't you see, that's the whole trick? People grasp identities because the grasp in a medium strength grip. At the same time, people make too many simplifications and their imaginations are impoverished. The sage sees this and the suffering it causes. How can we help? Well, there are tricks. Basically there are some lies we can tell people to free them. One lie is this: if you think you can grasp something, just grasp it as hard as you can! What happens? Well, when the person tries to grasp things way too hard, he or she gets exhausted and the fist naturally becomes limp after some time. So it's a way to get the person to leg go by lying and tricking the person. Of course if the person was not tricked into grasping way too hard, if the person continued a medium-strength grasp, the grasp would continue indefinitely.

 

As soon as you trick the person into loosening the hand, another disease starts. This new disease means the person now thinks nothing whatsoever can ever be held. So now you have to teach the person how to pick up objects and hold them. So you have to basically re-teach the same thing you tricked the person out of in the first place.

 

So what is the point of all this? The point is to eventually show the person that the hand is capable of this entire range of ability. Range is the key word. Grasping and non-grasping both fall within the range of ability. Neither ability is absolute. Grasping is not absolute. Non-grasping is also not absolute. Non-grasping only makes sense in contrast with grasping. The reason we can talk about non-grasping is because grasping is as real as non-grasping.

 

 

 

When I type this post, are you typing my post? No, you are not. When you type your post, am I typing it? No I am not. There is an obvious distinction between you and me. You need to face the truth of this. Don't run from it.

At the relative level, pre-analysis, there is obviously a distinction. Yes. But post-analysis, there is neither him nor you nor no him nor no you.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

At the relative level, pre-analysis, there is obviously a distinction. Yes. But post-analysis, there is neither him nor you nor no him nor no you.

 

You didn't finish your analysis yet.

[thuscomeone]

You didn't finish your analysis yet.

Not both, not neither..

What did I forget? Myself?

 

Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well.

 

There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Not both, not neither..

What did I forget? Myself?

 

Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well.

 

There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

 

Where is this lack you speak of?

[thuscomeone]

Where is this lack you speak of?

The lack of understanding? Uh, in the discussion we're having?

 

Or do you want me to say the mind? In that case, it's located in a conventionally existent mind.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[C T]

The nature of the enlightened mind, the embodiment of all is: (by Longchen Rabjam)

 

Not clarity, as it transcends all the phenomena of clarity,

Not emptiness, as it transcends all the phenomena of emptiness,

Not existence, as there are no inherent things and characteristics,

Not non-existence, as it pervades all of Samsara and Nirvana,

primordial ultimate sphere, spontaneous equalness;

Not partiality, bias, foundation, root, or things,

And no discontinuity. So it is, the expanse of enlightened

Intrinsic Awareness.

[goldisheavy]

The lack of understanding? Uh, in the discussion we're having?

 

Or do you want me to say the mind? In that case, it's located in a conventionally existent mind.

 

What would a discussion that didn't lack understanding be like?

[goldisheavy]

The nature of the enlightened mind, the embodiment of all is: (by Longchen Rabjam)

 

Not clarity, as it transcends all the phenomena of clarity,

Not emptiness, as it transcends all the phenomena of emptiness,

Not existence, as there are no inherent things and characteristics,

Not non-existence, as it pervades all of Samsara and Nirvana,

primordial ultimate sphere, spontaneous equalness;

Not partiality, bias, foundation, root, or things,

And no discontinuity. So it is, the expanse of enlightened

Intrinsic Awareness.

 

I like it.

[C T]

I like it.

mee tooo.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not both, not neither..

What did I forget? Myself?

 

Oh that's empty but conventionally existent as well.

 

There is a huge lack of understanding of the two truths and their differences here. The understanding of which is absolutely critical at this level.

Give all this some time...

[Vajrahridaya]

A self that can be stable or unstable, can it be found anywhere?

 

Supposedly you find a stable self at Buddhahood, when your insight into the nature of impermanence is stable. So, it's still dependently arisen, but it's based on Dharmakaya realization.

[goldisheavy]

Everyone who likes to stress the idea of selflessness or "no self" as the truth, check out this chart:

 

http://meaningness.com/self-schematic-overview

 

I think it's a very useful chart and I think it makes at least some observations worth paying attention to. The column for "no self" is the one in the middle.

 

What I like about the above chart is that it shows a balanced and in my opinion surprisingly honest view that notes both negative and positive aspects of eternalistic true self and nihilistic no self, and shows how both of these views deviate from how life really is when you examine what happens in life honestly.

 

Buddhists tend to focus on only the negative aspects of the "true self" idea, and only on the positive aspects of the "no self" idea. The chart shows that "true self" idea has some surprising merit, and that "no self" idea has some surprising demerit. It's surprising to most dogmatic Buddhists anyway. It may not be surprising to everyone.

 

Both the eternalistic "true self" and the nihilistic "no self" ideas are simplifications, caricatures of reality, but as caricatures, they both have some merits and they both have some demerits. This is the kind of honesty we need to make progress toward wisdom.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy