'No self' my experience so far...

[xabir2005]

Lets stick to the main point xabir. Don't get sidetracked.

 

You do not find any self xabir, So what does that mean.

 

You are looking but you are not seeing.

 

So then your line of rationale concludes that it must not exist?

 

ARE THERE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE REASONS ??????????????????

 

How could you have possibly looked at something that is impossible to see, as that is the very eye you are looking with?

 

Seriously, the best you can hope for is a reflection.

knowing is always with an object... Even if that object is formless mental luminosity. In realizing anatta it is seen that seeing is always just the seen, knowing is always just the known.

 

I have told lucky not long ago:

 

"sorry I know you are probably too tired for discussion but I still have to clarify something.

 

The realization of anatta arises from direct experiential insight and not an inference. It is not an inferred conclusion due to not being able to locate the whereabouts of an agent or perceiver. Similarly the emptiness of objects is not just about being unable to locate where phenomena is, it is the direct realization of dependent origination and the corelessness of all phenomena. Anatta realization is also not inferred conclusion from peak experiences of no-mind which you had.

 

It is the irrefutable seeing that "seeing is just the seen", that the actuality of what "seeing" is is simply the stream, the process of seeing without seer. It is not "I cannot locate where the seer is, therefore I conclude there is no seer", but rather, there is the direct realization that there is no seer, no core to mind, and waking up to the nature of seeing. It is a waking up, like suddenly you realize what you call "wind" is just the entire blowing activity, so too is the luminosity, presence, awareness simply a term collating the self-luminous stream or process. There is no inference involved, and in fact you clearly see that an unchanging mind is infact totally inferred just like an unchanging windness of blowing is inferred out of the "view of inherency"... it is either you realize this or not. If you realize this you can never unsee it... No inference at all.

 

Luminosity cannot be denied, it is only the view of duality, and the view of inherency that must be seen through. "

[Informer]

Answer the question and stop dodging.

[xabir2005]

Of course the red flower has an independent existence with its characteristics. What it does not have is the mental perception of red. That perception is human. But the flower very much has its own characteristics, which give rise to the perception of red.

 

This is the same mistake you're making throughout your argument, and calling it "liberation".

 

It's not that the actual things in the world do not have inherent existence. It is that the things that we think we see, are not real, because they only exist in the brain. There is no reason to believe that the actual world does not exist, only that it is unknowable.

 

When I see the "red" flower, my brain translates the interaction between my retina, and the photon which bounced off the flower. The signal which is sent to my brain, is translated as "red". Therefore, the flower itself is not "red" in the way that I see it, but it certainly does have enduring characteristics, which give rise to the experience of "red" in the brain.

 

What the Buddha was saying (as I understand it) is not literally that there are no things, but that our experience is not of the thing itself, but of the simulation of the thing that we generate in our head.

 

It is ego (i.e. habit) which puts together the image of the world, including the redness of the flower (although obviously the image is hugely influenced by photons bouncing off the actual world). Suffering rises, not because of belief that the world exists, but because we mistake our inner model of the world, for the world itself.

 

For example, if my inner model of my girlfriend is that she's totally in love with me, then I am flattened, whenever she disagrees, or has a bad mood. If my inner model is that other people are mean and judgmental, then I will spend my life avoiding them. Etc.

 

Liberation, IMO/IME, is about surrendering the importance of the mental models of the world, which of course do not have inherent existence, and which yes, do lead to suffering.

 

But your explanation is IMO taking Buddha's words far too seriously. (Odd that you've included a lecture on the middle way, since you show no willingness to take a nuanced view on existence).

 

So far, the (non-)beliefs that you have explained have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with life or the world, as I've experienced it. They have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and no suggestion as to how to live life. They sound like nihilism, and sound every bit as useless as nihilism.

 

Now, I'm the first to admit, that the world is not what we think it is. Quantum physics is clear on that. But to deny that it has "inherent existence" is to utterly redefine what it means to exist. What special definition are you making (something must be permanent, unchanging, to exist? - what?). You say "thinking" exists, but then you deny the entire world's existence. This seems incredibly backwards to me.

 

At the very least, demonstrate how your (non-)view of the "true nature of reality" serves some purpose, explain why it's useful to think in the way you do. Because you sound like you're full of it.

 

Seriously, look at the history of mankind, and ask who are the biggest a**holes? They're always the guys who think they have some special viewpoint on reality, who think they're clearer and more privileged in their vision. Who think that reality is exactly the way that they define it, rather than the way that everyone else sees it. Who refuse to doubt their interpretation, and refuse to accept anyone else's way of looking at things.

 

This is the group that you're emulating: the a**holes. Are you sure that this is the company you want to keep? Aren't you the least worried that you're going to wake up from this messianic delusion of yours, a few years from now, and realize what an incredible arrogant you-know-what you've been?

 

Is this compassion, to think that you know it all? To ignore the reasonable-ness in someone else's argument? Is this wisdom, to have already decided that you're done, and through with illusion?

 

It's a good thing that you're "liberated", so that my words won't seem cruel to you. And if you're not liberated, then I think I'm doing you a favor, by calling you on this.

 

You are exactly what's wrong with Ruthless Truth. People who take on one (half-)truth, and become convinced, thereby, that they are enlightened, and that they now see things that others do not see. You sound exactly like a member of a messianic cult, who has been convinced that he has now grown into messiah-hood himself.

 

Seth Ananda, if you're tuning into this, please take heed! Do you really want to be like xabir, some guy who refuses to listen to reasonable alternatives, someone who repeats the same "hearing, no hearer" drivel over and over again, and mistakes it for wisdom? Someone who has already decided that they've arrived, and therefore leaves no room to grow, no room to learn? Is that what you want with the "no self" pabulum they're feeding you at RT?

 

Self-doubt is liberation. Self-certainty is entrapment. The more sure you are, the less able you are to grow, to see, to experience. Thinking you are always and already "right" is just a recipe for conflict with the world.

Dependent origination does not deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena and therefore are empty of any intrinsic characteristics or core. This is the realization of corelessness via the realization of dependent origination.

 

Self-doubt is not liberation. The liberation from all doubts, beliefs and views through experiential realization of the twofold emptiness is what liberation is.

 

And yes, I am not the same as others in one way: I am no longer deluded about inherent existence. And I have no problems with being different - if all my friends take drugs that doesn't mean I should, I don't want to be part of a group just because that condition is pervasive. If you think being deluded into inherent existence and therefore suffer is being normal and "part of the group" and those who are free of it by realizing the twofold emptinesses are "assholes", I'd rather be an asshole by being the free minority. (Oh and I don't see why we are assholes since we actually deeply care about liberating others from delusion and suffering - it is not like we are some elite uncaring group)

 

I do not wish to be the majority of the world who are still suffering and in delusion. And this is what Buddha sets out to teach from the beginning - suffering and end of suffering.

 

P.s. The appearance of thinking isn't denied, but since thinking dependently originates they are ultimately empty. This is the inseperability of the two truths, relative and ultimate. Therefore there is no contradictions whatsoever in my statements.

 

.................

 

 

The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra

 

 

 

When Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara was practicing the profound Prajna Paramita, he illuminated the Five Skandhas and saw that they are all empty, and he crossed beyond all suffering and difficulty.

 

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness.

 

Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure; and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or Dharmas; no field of the eyes up to and including no field of mind consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, and no Way, and no understanding and no attaining.

 

Because nothing is attained, the Bodhisattva through reliance on Prajna Paramita is unimpeded in his mind. Because there is no impediment, he is not afraid, and he leaves distorted dream-thinking far behind. Ultimately Nirvana! All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through reliance on Prajna Paramita. Therefore know that Prajna Paramita is a Great Spiritual Mantra, a Great Bright Mantra, a Supreme Mantra, an Unequalled Mantra. It can remove all suffering; it is genuine and not false. That is why the Mantra of Prajna Paramita was spoken. Recite it like this:

 

Gaté Gaté Paragaté Parasamgaté

 

Bodhi Svaha!

 

End of The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra

[xabir2005]

Answer the question and stop dodging.

I have already answered you.

 

The link you gave me, http://www.hinduwebs...hism/anatta.asp

 

Pretty much says it.

 

Self is a mere convention predicated on the everchanging five aggregates, but there is no real agent or soul. (Just like weather, wind, etc is a convention for a conglomerate of everchanging dependently originated activities but no real weather essence is there.)

 

Yet I always still use the word I, why? Because I am using conventions now even though I am aware of the nature of reality.

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

Obviously, I can't know whether you have "beliefs" or not. But you sure imply that you do.

 

Why do I say that? Because you have repeated yourself, over and over again. You have used some variation of "hearing, no hearer", probably a couple dozen times in responses to me, despite the fact that I have been clear that this "argument" is utterly unconvincing to me. This is a sign of a habit-bound person, utter inability to phrase your explanation in any other form.

 

Someone who is "liberated", who sees the "true nature of reality", should be able to describe the world in multiple dimensions, in stunning clarity, because that is supposedly how you see it. You should be able to hear my skepticism, and adjust how you explain yourself, so that there's something in your words that builds a bridge of understanding for me. You should be able to use everyday words, instead of always falling back on Buddhist and RT jargon. You should be able to be utterly clear, and lead me towards an epiphany of my own, rather than just declaring over and over, these small handful of self-contradictory concepts.

 

And more than anything, you should be aware of the danger of certainty! This is an epiphany that you do not seem to have yet had.

 

Obviously, by your response to Marblehead, above, you've had some epiphany, and you've thus had some "luminous" experiences, thereby.

 

But does this constitute "liberation"? Does this mean that you now see "the true nature of reality"? Only you have decided that it means that. Only you have convinced yourself, that your experience is anything more than just an experience, a step along the way.

 

Isn't it entirely possible that you've had an important insight, and felt a lot of great experience, thereby, and thus have come to a premature conclusion of your own enlightenment? Isn't it possible that others on this board have already experienced what you've experienced, gone through it, and realized that there is more? Isn't it possible that you are only on the tip of the iceberg?

 

Are you going to leave no room for these possibilities? Are you going to just stop listening to other people's interpretations, because you're convinced you're already in the right place? Are you sure this is sensible behavior? Are you sure the Buddha would approve? Are you sure you're not going to feel like a total idiot, in a few months or years, when you look back and realize how limited your view really was?

 

Your path is your own, of course, xabir, and I don't really expect to make any headway in convincing you to look deeper. But I don't mind ridiculing your certainty, because you're asking for it. And I don't mind using you as an example of how not to do it, because who am I harming, if there is no "you" there?

 

Best of luck.

all experiences are secondary to true realization. You can have experiences without insight. But insight is what liberates, not mere experiences.

 

Insight (into the twofold emptiness) liberates you from false views (view of inherency) that leads to grasping and suffering

 

When true realization arises, it can never be unseen again. Realization is permanent. And the fetter of self view, sakkaya ditthi, is permanently dissolved upon realization as taught by buddha.

[TzuJanLi]

Dependent origination does not deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there's no reality outside the mind, but simply that no 'reality in itself' exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena and therefore are empty of any intrinsic characteristics or core. This is the realization of corelessness via the realization of dependent origination.

What is the fascination with D.O.? Everything exists in comparison with something that it is not. Your choosing to hold such inflexible beliefs, that without "intrinsic characteristics or core" no reality exists "in itself", is fundamentally false.. as you are not equipped, by reason of experience or apparatus of sufficient sensory range, to claim any certainty regarding existence or reality.. your claim of D.O. and realization is sufficient to impeach your beliefs, as it is a 'self-assured' belief, leaving no room for revision.

 

Self-doubt is not liberation. The liberation from all doubts, beliefs and views through experiential realization of the twofold emptiness is what liberation is.

Liberation is freedom from expectations.. you demonstrate no understanding of liberation, you expect a path to lead you where only your feet can find their way..

 

And yes, I am not the same as others in one way: I am no longer deluded about inherent existence. And I have no problems with being different - if all my friends take drugs that doesn't mean I should, I don't want to be part of a group just because that condition is pervasive. If you think being deluded into inherent existence and therefore suffer is being normal and "part of the group" and those who are free of it by realizing the twofold emptinesses are "assholes", I'd rather be an asshole by being the free minority. (Oh and I don't see why we are assholes since we actually deeply care about liberating others from delusion and suffering - it is not like we are some elite uncaring group)

You do not understand suffering, and your delusion blinds you.. i have no understanding regarding your claim of being an "asshole", that is another of your 'expectations'.. existence is existence, until it isn't.. you, and some Buddhists and some RT fundamentalist evangelicals are attached to beliefs, you have selected your beliefs excluding other possibilities, your mind is no longer open. Your beliefs exist only conceptually, no actuality supports your beliefs, D.O. is an observable fact that is the fundamental basis of existence.. without it, nothing exists, no thought, no you, no anything and no nothing.. absolute absence.

 

I do not wish to be the majority of the world who are still suffering and in delusion. And this is what Buddha sets out to teach from the beginning - suffering and end of suffering.

Buddha set out to avenge his misappropriated youth, he so feared suffering and pain, and aging that he contrived an elaborate pretense.. and, as you can see, people's weakness for escaping truth attracts them to such a provocative pretense..

 

P.s. The appearance of thinking isn't denied, but since thinking dependently originates they are ultimately empty. This is the inseperability of the two truths, relative and ultimate. Therefore there is no contradictions whatsoever in my statements.

Thinking happens, and we are that.. it is temporary, like the person through which the thoughts manifest, but the energy that animates the processes will change form, shape, and shift its mass to accommodate the evolution of the cosmos.. there is indeed a self, but you and Buddhists, and others so inclined have not yet understood that which you deny.. and, your denial is proof, you return for additional reinforcement that the interaction you encounter with others might validate the 'self' you claim is not so.. you claim there is no self, yet want to save us from it.. you create resistance where there was none.

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

What is the fascination with D.O.? Everything exists in comparison with something that it is not. Your choosing to hold such inflexible beliefs, that without "intrinsic characteristics or core" no reality exists "in itself", is fundamentally false.. as you are not equipped, by reason of experience or apparatus of sufficient sensory range, to claim any certainty regarding existence or reality.. your claim of D.O. and realization is sufficient to impeach your beliefs, as it is a 'self-assured' belief, leaving no room for revision.

 

 

Liberation is freedom from expectations.. you demonstrate no understanding of liberation, you expect a path to lead you where only your feet can find their way..

 

 

You do not understand suffering, and your delusion blinds you.. i have no understanding regarding your claim of being an "asshole", that is another of your 'expectations'.. existence is existence, until it isn't.. you, and some Buddhists and some RT fundamentalist evangelicals are attached to beliefs, you have selected your beliefs excluding other possibilities, your mind is no longer open. Your beliefs exist only conceptually, no actuality supports your beliefs, D.O. is an observable fact that is the fundamental basis of existence.. without it, nothing exists, no thought, no you, no anything and no nothing.. absolute absence.

 

 

Buddha set out to avenge his misappropriated youth, he so feared suffering and pain, and aging that he contrived an elaborate pretense.. and, as you can see, people's weakness for escaping truth attracts them to such a provocative pretense..

 

 

Thinking happens, and we are that.. it is temporary, like the person through which the thoughts manifest, but the energy that animates the processes will change form, shape, and shift its mass to accommodate the evolution of the cosmos.. there is indeed a self, but you and Buddhists, and others so inclined have not yet understood that which you deny.. and, your denial is proof, you return for additional reinforcement that the interaction you encounter with others might validate the 'self' you claim is not so.. you claim there is no self, yet want to save us from it.. you create resistance where there was none.

 

Be well..

So much clinging...

 

So much projectioning.

[Informer]

I have already answered you.

 

The link you gave me, http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/anatta.asp

 

Pretty much says it.

 

Self is a mere convention predicated on the everchanging five aggregates, but there is no real agent or soul. (Just like weather, wind, etc is a convention for a conglomerate of everchanging dependently originated activities but no real weather essence is there.)

 

Yet I always still use the word I, why? Because I am using conventions now even though I am aware of the nature of reality.

 

Yes Xabir, this is in regards to self, it doesn't say anything about you don't exist.

[TzuJanLi]

So much clinging...

 

So much projectioning.

So much clarity, not distorted by attachment to beliefs.. just a sincere willingness to see what is so, and the honesty to accept what is seen/experienced..

 

Be well..

[Informer]

Xabir,

 

The very first sentence on that page says "There are three different views of the ego or self"

[Vajrahridaya]

So much clarity, not distorted by attachment to beliefs.. just a sincere willingness to see what is so, and the honesty to accept what is seen/experienced..

 

Be well..

 

Trapped in the senses and the peace of the lower jhanas of mental stillness. You deny insight into the causes and conditions of your arising and you cling to existence as absolute. It doesn't seem that you have explored your unconscious.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

This topic went way too pedantic etc for me to take seriously, sorry to say so, but I'm wondering.. maybe someone will dish me the coles notes of it.. how is all this not falling to the nihilistic gutter on the side of Buddhas middle path exactly? A la nihilism vs. eternalism.. It seems the "shout downs" are opposed to the nihilism, but the nihilism shouldn't be there, sewwwwww..

[Vajrahridaya]

This topic went way too pedantic etc for me to take seriously, sorry to say so, but I'm wondering.. maybe someone will dish me the coles notes of it.. how is all this not falling to the nihilistic gutter on the side of Buddhas middle path exactly? A la nihilism vs. eternalism.. It seems the "shout downs" are opposed to the nihilism, but the nihilism shouldn't be there, sewwwwww..

 

Nihilism in Buddhism is in reference to those that think they don't exist after the death of the body. Eternalism is the ideation in reference to a conceptual model or an experiential one of an absolute existence.

 

Nihilism and Eternalism as they appear in Buddhism have to be contextualized by it. It's not the same as Western philosophical definitions.

[xabir2005]

Yes Xabir, this is in regards to self, it doesn't say anything about you don't exist.

conventions of self are not denied. What is denied is an independent agent or self-entity or essence.

[Otis]

(Oh and I don't see why we are assholes since we actually deeply care about liberating others from delusion and suffering - it is not like we are some elite uncaring group)

I think RT is very elite, xabir, since you refer to the in-crowd as "liberated". You are a bunch of people who think that they're enlightened.

 

But it was not RT I was referring to as a**holes, but the larger group of those with utter certainty that their view is the correct one. I'm talking about people who believe that they see the "true nature of reality". People like members of the Westboro Baptist Church, racists, nationalists, fundamentalists of all stripes. These are all people who choose to ignore phenomena, when it does not agree with their predetermined self-enlightenment. These are people who refuse to consider that they might be misinterpreting, or that some other model has validity. The darkest villains of history all fit into this category. And most of them saw themselves as "fighting the good fight".

 

I'm offering these examples, as a mirror to what certainty usually accompanies. Of course, I expect you to (non-)believe that you are exempt from that group, despite your self-appointed privileged (non-)view.

 

I know I cannot change your mind, but I will leave you with two small challenges, should you choose to accept them.

 

1. Really explore the questions of "what can I really know?" and "is it really possible for a human being to experience the actual world?" and "how can I really justify my claims of being right?" Explore without immediately bridging the gap in explanation with the standard "this is not a belief/view, but direct insight". Don't give yourself any easy out, and don't take any short-cuts, because if you are truly liberated, you should be able to withstand the most intense scrutiny.

 

2. Explore the nature of certainty, and what its relationship is to delusion and ego. Explore what the opposite of certainty is (what I'm calling "emptiness"), and why it might be very worthwhile spiritual discovery, to practice in that state. Ask yourself: is it possible that I have mistaken "more free than I have yet experienced" for "liberated"? Is it possible that I mistook "no inherent existence in my mental model of reality" for "no inherent existence in the actual world"? Is it possible that I mistook "enhanced clarity" for "the true nature of reality"?

[Otis]

all experiences are secondary to true realization. You can have experiences without insight. But insight is what liberates, not mere experiences.

 

Insight (into the twofold emptiness) liberates you from false views (view of inherency) that leads to grasping and suffering

 

When true realization arises, it can never be unseen again. Realization is permanent. And the fetter of self view, sakkaya ditthi, is permanently dissolved upon realization as taught by buddha.

All of this is just more jargon, dude.

 

If you can connect your "realization" with the world of living, the sphere of the mundane (where we mortals live), then maybe you would sound rational. But you just sound like a fundamentalist, speaking your jargony (non-)beliefs as if they were self-evident "truths".

 

p.s. I don't even see how you can say that "_____ is permanent", because you haven't been around that long. How in the world could you possibly make such a claim? Wouldn't it take a very very long time, to make sure you had that one right?

[Informer]

conventions of self are not denied. What is denied is an independent agent or self-entity or essence.

 

Then how do you get off claiming you don't exist. That has nothing to do with self . .

 

You have claimed that "you do not exist" have you not?

 

Have you not claimed this an absolute truth?

 

Because what you are saying now is very similar to the Cartesian Theatre . . .

 

Are you saying the self doesn't exist within you as a single point that you can point to?

[Informer]

[Informer]

Here is another milder example.

 

http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1297

[Informer]

This one was by the former admin . .

 

http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1081

 

I've been putting this off for a while. I'm not sure why. I have formed friendships with some of the members here, namely Kakistos and Kevin. I don't want to lose my friendship with them-and I hope this doesn't end it. But I've put this off long enough.

 

I've been quite inactive on this board. My last topic was created in early April, and before that I had been inactive for some time, with a handful of posts in February and March. I've logged on from time to time to look around, check for any Mod messages of things that need taken care of.

 

But here is how things are: I've not been following the mindset of the majority of RT for a long time. I don't feel the urgency to spread this like gospel. To be very honest, I find the philosophy lacking-incomplete. It's impotent without being paired with more--namely, for me, the power has been in seeing the unity between us all: the lack of separation. But it is hard to describe this insight--it is more intuitive, sensed. The philosophy-no self-can actually be quite damaging.

 

It's snake oil to market it as it is. I know there's this whole emphasis on "harpoon" and approaches and whatnot. It's bullshit. People don't want to be told that you have a magical spiritual panacea--or rather, if you do tell them such a thing, then you had better have a goddamned panacea. Seeing that there is no self does not end human suffering any more than looking into a mirror cleans a dirty person's face. It allows for things to be seen, and to be seen more clearly. I am glad for this understanding, but I don't cling to it any longer as so many here do. I don't feel compelled to "save the world" with it.

 

When this whole "tournament" thing started, I voiced my concerns then. So did others. But I did join in. But I was less than honest. What most, if not all, members were doing was going forth with what you saw as some weighty gift: the end to human suffering. My approach quickly changed. First it was Bentinho. I looked around and saw some bullshit, but I found many gems as well. I collected those little gems for my own use. I realized that RT was unearthing some wonderful resources, and after RT had finished with pillaging, I hung around. I wanted to learn what I could for my own further spiritual search. Instead of seeing my own insight as some gift, I realized that others had much more to offer me than I did to them. So I stopped thinking I knew so much and opened myself up to other possibilities.

 

I learned a lot from Bentinho. I am sorry that no one else seemed to. I found other people and sites who offered up spiritual insight after spiritual insight. Scott Kiloby is amazing. But you despise Kiloby, don't you? Bentinho, too. And why? Because you believe you have reached the penacle of spiritual enlightenment-and these two men had the nerve to call RT a cult! Well, I am sorry to admit it, but the thought has crossed my mind more than once. It is lacking control of members' finances--that would have been the final nail in the coffin. But a lot of it seems to fit the bill. The egomaniac leaders, the berating of anyone whose viewpoint differs, the emphasis on this-the spreading of this message-being the meaning of life.

 

I found SpiritualTeachers to be enlightening. Some of the members are just posing and wanting to be gratified for their spiritual prowess. But there are some who really have something, and it flows from them like honey mead. It is intoxicating and wonderful. I was glad for the exposure. I still check in from time to time.

 

In the beginning, I was exploring my world the only way I knew how: by burning everything down. Destruction. But then I saw what I was doing-and regretted it. It is not that I have been too busy that I have been inactive on this forum; it is that I have not agreed with much any longer. I began to follow RT as a collector will walk the beach after a storm. Picking up beautiful things, meeting wonderful people. The places you would find would be a veritable goldmine of mind-provoking ideas but also-and I was not expecting this-truly wonderful people.

 

I know, I know: I'm full of shit; I'm a big cunt; a bleating coward; a traitor to humanity; etc. These words didn't affect me when I first joined, and now that I am stronger, I can assure you they won't affect me now. I should have said this publicly a long time ago. Namaste, and I do love you guys. Even though I believe many are misguided and lost.

[Marblehead]

This topic went way too pedantic etc for me to take seriously, sorry to say so, but I'm wondering.. maybe someone will dish me the coles notes of it.. how is all this not falling to the nihilistic gutter on the side of Buddhas middle path exactly? A la nihilism vs. eternalism.. It seems the "shout downs" are opposed to the nihilism, but the nihilism shouldn't be there, sewwwwww..

 

That is the main reason I watch these types of threads and sometimes get involved in them.

 

I have had this discussion before and I will continue to argue against any trends toward nihilism.

 

Now, I know that suggesting nihilism is not the intention of Xabir or VJ. I have had enough discussions with them to know that this is not their intention.

 

What gains my attention is when there are suggestions of such where a reader of the posts could associate the concept with Taoism. If I think this might be happening I will join the discussion and argue against the concept of nihilism.

 

I try to not argue directly against Buddhism. The belief system has helped many people make it through their life. And this is what I will always argue for - finding a way to live one's life in the most meaningful way.

 

Buddhism is a good path to follow for those who can find no other path that 'works for them'.

 

We all are living in this manifest reality at the moment. Let us try our best to find the beauty that lies within. But we should not ignore the ugly either. It does exist, mostly created by humankind. But then, our defining beautiful and ugly are only constructs of our mind and they do not truely exist on their own. What is, is. That is all.

 

If we don't like something we may have the capacity and capability of changing it. This is polar to nihilistic thinking. Taoists do what needs to be done.

[Marblehead]

conventions of self are not denied. What is denied is an independent agent ...

 

And once again I will agree with this ...

 

... or self-entity or essence.

 

... but disagree with this.

[Jetsun]

You can develop all the wisdom in the world around no self etc but unless it is combined with equal development of compassion it is unbalanced and pretty much worthless, the basic message of the Buddha is one of wisdom and compassion, they support each other but one does not obviously follow another and if you only develop wisdom with inquiry into no self without training in compassion then you just develop lopsided. There have been Nazis and serial killers in the past who had wisdom so on it's own it can just lead you to hell.

[Marblehead]

You can develop all the wisdom in the world around no self etc but unless it is combined with equal development of compassion it is unbalanced and pretty much worthless, the basic message of the Buddha is one of wisdom and compassion, they support each other but one does not obviously follow another and if you only develop wisdom with inquiry into no self without training in compassion then you just develop lopsided. There have been Nazis and serial killers in the past who had wisdom so on it's own it can just lead you to hell.

 

Hard words but I agree with what you have said.

[JustARandomPanda]

Yes, there is no formless substance hiding anywhere. That is precisely my point. There is just that experience of sight, sound, etc. That is what I call 'seeing, hearing'. There is no formless seer or hearer behind experience. Therefore in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard!

 

Fascinating. I once used this same line explaining how I have intellectually come to understand some Buddhist teachings but GiH corrected me saying this line of thinking is wrong. In order for thinking to exist, he said it must reflect off Mind. Without Mind there would be no seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, etc. In order for these things to arise they must reflect off Mind like one's image reflects off a mirror. Or at least I think that's what he said.

 

I confess I still do not know how to reconcile what he said with Buddhist teachings. Of course I later found out that GiH no longer agrees with many Buddhist teachings so it may be this is one of those things where he thinks Buddhism (or at least some Buddhists) gets it wrong? In this line of thinking at least it sounded to me like GiH inclined a bit more toward agreeing with some Hindu-ish explanations.