'No self' my experience so far...

[Lucky7Strikes]

As in relative to all empty phenomena.

Are you saying there is a line between phenomena and this so called "me" for them to establish a relativity? If so where is this line?

[xabir2005]

Well said. The allure of standing out as "No Self" is as great as the allure of standing out as "A Self".

"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."

 

- namdrol

[Vajrahridaya]

Are you saying there is a line between phenomena and this so called "me" for them to establish a relativity? If so where is this line?

 

Yes, there are infinite lines, all equally interdependent, not one, but empty.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Just because you don't say you have a position doesn't mean that. No one goes around reiterating their points of views on life. No one goes around saying "I am conceit." Your doing just what everyone does from time to time, which is to just realign yourself to a new set of views..but in this case you don't think you have one, which is a cop out and lack of insight into views themselves.

I agree totally. That's why I told thuscomeone views are subtle and aren't just gross conceptualizations. They are positions and beliefs deeply held in their psyche, affecting how we view things in everyday lives, and these views fundamentally come down to 'is' and 'is not' and is the source of all grasping, cravings and sufferings. The implications of view in life is an esssential insight in itself... And you also see that views can only be dissolved via the realization of twofold emptinesses.

[xabir2005]

This, this is your view:

 

No I, just processes rolling on there own. Like a bag of clay, without will, freedom, or what not. Just thrown into existence, "rolling on their own" according to conditions. This view is not any different than modern scientific view of the human existence. That you are a pile of proteins rolling along. When there is bell, hitter, stick, the sound of "tooongg" right?

 

Universe eats, sleeps, shits.

You forgot to include mental factors. This includes will, intentions and actions. It includes subjective participation even though there is ultimately no subject or object.

 

There are things that are beyond the immediate influence of will or intention. (E.g. You can't stop global warming just by your own individual will even though your efforts may count too) but there are far many things which can... From immediate things like standing up, to a longer goal like getting a degree or whatever you wish to accomplish in life and for others, for example.

 

I never said there is no will and intention. What I deny however is a self, an agent, doer, controller. Also - intentions do not arise without conditions, like imprints, influences, a previous moment of thought etc - but they are not predetermined by some internal or external forces. Nothing is fixed or fated when everything is action and reaction, therefore right active participation is necessary.

 

And no, bodhisattva and arhat does not differ in terms of anatta. Both bodhisattva and arhat realizes anatta or the emptiness of self/subject and no longer harbour any self-views. The only difference lies in Bodhisattvas realizing the secondfold emptiness which is the emptiness of objects due to dependent origination.

 

In Diamond sutra, you see over and over again the Buddha giving examples of how bodhisattvas, even though having given rise to the intention to save countless beings, yet if they hold on to self-view, on to the notion of giver, given and gift, on to the notion that there is someone saving someone else, etc etc... Such holders of self-views are not true bodhisattvas.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, there are infinite lines, all equally interdependent, not one, but empty.

What does infinite lines look like between "me" and phenomena? If boundaries are infinite, that is against the very purpose of using the term "boundary."

 

Lines are also interdependent? On what? Each other? So the universe is just a play of arbitrary lines playing off each other?

 

I wish you could be a little more specific when you make these claims.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You forgot to include mental factors. This includes will, intentions and actions. It includes subjective participation even though there is ultimately no subject or object.

 

There are things that are beyond the immediate influence of will or intention. (E.g. You can't stop global warming just by your own individual will even though your efforts may count too) but there are far many things which can... From immediate things like standing up, to a longer goal like getting a degree or whatever you wish to accomplish in life and for others, for example.

 

I never said there is no will and intention. What I deny however is a self, an agent, doer, controller. Also - intentions do not arise without conditions, like imprints, influences, a previous moment of thought etc - but they are not predetermined by some internal or external forces. Nothing is fixed or fated when everything is action and reaction, therefore right active participation is necessary.

Can you illustrate an example of this? Like an everyday example.

 

It seems like you are saying there is a subject that does an action, and an object that does a reaction. So there is an interplay of a subject and an object? Now you are seeing things in terms of polarities again.

 

But there is also ultimately no subject or object...so how do you reconcile the contradictions in your absolute truth and relative truth? Is relative truth just the way we are conditioned and see things? Then wouldn't it be the practitioner's efforts to abide by the absolute? So when the relative dissolves into the absolute you have no will, no subject/object. Right? At the end of the day what I wrote above is what you believe to be the nature of reality: things just "rolling on."

 

Furthermore, a will or intention without a self. Then you can say a machine has will. A machine is exactly as you describe, it is an action produced from its programmed conditions. The error in your view is seeing the polarity of "action" and "reaction" while there is merely direction.

 

 

And no, bodhisattva and arhat does not differ in terms of anatta. Both bodhisattva and arhat realizes anatta or the emptiness of self/subject and no longer harbour any self-views. The only difference lies in Bodhisattvas realizing the secondfold emptiness which is the emptiness of objects due to dependent origination.

 

In Diamond sutra, you see over and over again the Buddha giving examples of how bodhisattvas, even though having given rise to the intention to save countless beings, yet if they hold on to self-view, on to the notion of giver, given and gift, on to the notion that there is someone saving someone else, etc etc... Such holders of self-views are not true bodhisattvas.

The Diamond sutra says everything is just mere names. That can interpreted very differently.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

What does infinite lines look like between "me" and phenomena? If boundaries are infinite, that is against the very purpose of using the term "boundary."

 

Right... there isn't, and there is. At this point, talking isn't going to cut it, one has to use imagery that's not really just imagination, but it references formless states of jhana. You've got to enter your storehouse consciousness. There are various signs which arise for those that have done this. Which is generally not talked about except through veiled metaphor, because Masters don't want their students conjuring up this stuff from their imagination. It has to be self realized... then of course liberated.

 

Lines are also interdependent? On what? Each other? So the universe is just a play of arbitrary lines playing off each other?

 

It was an abstract metaphor. But no, not arbitrary... every point of reference arises dependently and not independently. Like Chaos theory, the deeper you look at it, a pattern emerges and one realizes it's not really chaotic at all, it's just a deeply complex order that defies current scientific means for complete, delineated explanation. Also, the only way that this can be explained through language is when there is a mutual understanding of what the symbols are pointing to through mutually shared paradigms of experience (or understanding, like in math). Which is why Buddhism has levels of comprehension.. as there are levels of realization, until there aren't.

 

This is why lineages take students through a school of training, first in view, 1st of the 8 fold path... ect. etc. until there is right concentration or number 8 in the path... and then realization of the inner meaning of dependent origination where one is never outside of meditative equipoise, no matter the outer show. Different traditions handle this in different ways though.

 

I wish you could be a little more specific when you make these claims.

 

Ok... sorry.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Right... there isn't, and there is. At this point, talking isn't going to cut it, one has to use imagery that's not really just imagination, but it references formless states of jhana. You've got to enter your storehouse consciousness. There are various signs which arise for those that have done this. Which is generally not talked about except through veiled metaphor, because Masters don't want their students conjuring up this stuff from their imagination. It has to be self realized... then of course liberated.

Ok...so basically more meditative experience reveals this.

 

It was an abstract metaphor. But no, not arbitrary... every point of reference arises dependently and not independently. Like Chaos theory, the deeper you look at it, a pattern emerges and one realizes it's not really chaotic at all, it's just a deeply complex order that defies current scientific means for complete, delineated explanation.

It would be arbitrary if those lines/points are unfixed. A pattern can emerge, but that would just be an outcome of probability. Hence it would be random and by chance.

 

If we apply this to what you said earlier about lines between "phenomena" and "me" it would mean it is just a random pattern established and dissolved. It makes existence random and arbitrary, or even, patterned. That makes the arising of consciousness an event of chance from some unknown or at least speculative causes and conditions, or bound to a pattern outside itself.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok...so basically more meditative experience reveals this.

 

For plenty it's just contemplation which leads to the very same insights.

 

It would be arbitrary if those lines/points are unfixed. A pattern can emerge, but that would just be an outcome of probability. Hence it would be random and by chance.

 

From some internet dictionary;

 

Arbitrary:

 

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

 

 

From Wiki;

 

Chaos Theory:

 

Is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

 

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather. Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

If we apply this to what you said earlier about lines between "phenomena" and "me" it would mean it is just a random pattern established and dissolved. It makes existence random and arbitrary, or even, patterned. That makes the arising of consciousness an event of chance from some unknown or at least speculative causes and conditions, or bound to a pattern outside itself.

 

Which can be seen directly through deep formless contemplation or meditation as you transcend the localized aspects of selfhood. Then apply emptiness directly to these wounds, thus self liberating ones entire history for selfish being.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

But there is also ultimately no subject or object...so how do you reconcile the contradictions in your absolute truth and relative truth? Is relative truth just the way we are conditioned and see things? Then wouldn't it be the practitioner's efforts to abide by the absolute? So when the relative dissolves into the absolute you have no will, no subject/object. Right? At the end of the day what I wrote above is what you believe to be the nature of reality: things just "rolling on."

 

Furthermore, a will or intention without a self. Then you can say a machine has will. A machine is exactly as you describe, it is an action produced from its programmed conditions. The error in your view is seeing the polarity of "action" and "reaction" while there is merely direction.

 

 

Since I agreed with Xabirs post that this responded to, I'd like to take a shot at this.

 

I would say that the Bodhisatva's self basically explodes when Annata is realized, and then he goes and puts his personality back together so that he can function in the relative world. This is why there is an actor, because the Bodhisatva knows that his personality is just an illusion, but it is required for him to be a part of the relative world and help other beings. So the personality and actor doesn't exist in absolute reality, but is reformed in order to take part in relative reality. The self still does not exist inherently, but it does exist in the samsara illusion that we are all taking part in.

 

Nobody else might agree with this, but feel free to explode it

[Vajrahridaya]

Since I agreed with Xabirs post that this responded to, I'd like to take a shot at this.

 

I would say that the Bodhisatva's self basically explodes when Annata is realized, and then he goes and puts his personality back together so that he can function in the relative world. This is why there is an actor, because the Bodhisatva knows that his personality is just an illusion, but it is required for him to be a part of the relative world and help other beings. So the personality and actor doesn't exist in absolute reality, but is reformed in order to take part in relative reality. The self still does not exist inherently, but it does exist in the samsara illusion that we are all taking part in.

 

Nobody else might agree with this, but feel free to explode it

 

Dharmakaya = emptiness

 

Sambhogakaya = the energy of this compassion of realization of dependent origination/emptiness

 

nirmanakaya = the personal expression of this energy.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Dharmakaya = emptiness

 

Sambhogakaya = the energy of this compassion of realization of dependent origination/emptiness

 

nirmanakaya = the personal expression of this energy.

 

Hmmm, that's good.

 

Everything is Emptiness and Absolute Reality = Everything is sacred

 

Realizing this = spontaneous appreciation and respect (compassion if you like) for everything

 

So Nirmanakaya can be said to be spontaneously arising from Absolute Truth?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Vajrahridaya]

So Nirmanakaya is a spontaneous arising

 

No, it's a dependent arising.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

No, it's a dependent arising.

 

Dependent, but spontaneous in terms of Xabir's "no actor, things happen of themselves"

 

this was the 666th reply to this topic, right after I made a post in the "serve in heaven or rule in hell" topic.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[tragblack]

All that groks is God?

[Vajrahridaya]

Dependent, but spontaneous in terms of Xabir's "no actor, things happen of themselves"

 

 

Sure, I understand, it's not a selfish willed extravaganza. In that sense it's a spontaneously free from inner conflict arising... sure.

 

this was the 666th reply to this topic, right after I made a post in the "serve in heaven or rule in hell" topic.

 

Well hopefully that's more coincidence than serendipity? I guess it's up to you to subject the occurrence to your own objective?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

All that groks is God?

 

I don't see much of what God would have to do with it? There's no supreme singular creator entity in this understanding. Unless one wants to use the term God as a metaphor for the impersonal creative matrix that is the all?

[tragblack]

Unless one wants to use the term God as a metaphor for the impersonal creative matrix that is the all?

 

I think that may be what "God" is in Stranger in a Strange Land, but Heinlein isn't specific about it in that novel... in the version I've read.

 

Completely off-topic, now.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Since I agreed with Xabirs post that this responded to, I'd like to take a shot at this.

 

I would say that the Bodhisatva's self basically explodes when Annata is realized, and then he goes and puts his personality back together so that he can function in the relative world. This is why there is an actor, because the Bodhisatva knows that his personality is just an illusion, but it is required for him to be a part of the relative world and help other beings. So the personality and actor doesn't exist in absolute reality, but is reformed in order to take part in relative reality. The self still does not exist inherently, but it does exist in the samsara illusion that we are all taking part in.

 

Nobody else might agree with this, but feel free to explode it

What is this ultimate reality?

[Lucky7Strikes]

For plenty it's just contemplation which leads to the very same insights.

 

 

 

From some internet dictionary;

 

Arbitrary:

 

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

 

 

From Wiki;

 

Chaos Theory:

 

Is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

So..what exactly are you saying?

 

That dependent origination is deterministic, but just unpredictable?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

So..what exactly are you saying?

 

That dependent origination is deterministic, but just unpredictable?

 

Yes, because every point, every nuance has infinite causes to it's effect, kind of like infinite infinities.

 

It's so complicated that both concepts of "deterministic" and "spontaneous" do not do reality justice. One has to step out of oneself and see it from a space without subjective influence, even if just as a glimpse, this glimpse can become reference for deeper evaluation and contemplation.

 

It's what mathematicians and scientists try to do with their formulas. Except they don't directly experience the outcome... well, I think the really brilliant ones probably do on some level. I don't know? They are definitely mystics of a certain type. Plenty of ancient yogi's came up with their brilliant mathematical formulas through meditative insight.

[Informer]

Hehe, that is what I have been saying to you in all our posts.

 

You ask me point blank 'do you exist, yes or no?' and I say, 'Relatively yes, Ultimately no!'

Means the same thing.

 

I know that's what you said Seth, but that is not what Ruthless Truth says.

 

Hence the difference between You don't exist and You doesn't exist.

 

Is you alive?

 

or

 

are you alive?

 

 

It's so easy to see the difference It's hard for me to understand how people can get trapped here, even with all the squirming and dodging, it is this main point that is in question, nothing else.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Informer

[xabir2005]

Can you illustrate an example of this? Like an everyday example.

If I sit here waiting for fate to feed me and my family, I and my family will starve to death.

 

There needs intention, will, zeal, effort, hard work, etc etc... which consists of various mental and physical constituents/arisings/thoughts/actions. Even though these too are ultimately empty - conventionally, subjective participation is necessary... our lives (and more) are in our hands.

 

Buddha gave another example: if you think everything is determined by past actions, then the actions of the killer was also determined by past karmas and therefore cannot be changed. But this is not the case, therefore right practice and action is necessary to change our lives.*

 

The Buddha further rejected the views that actions are caused by a God - if that were the case, murder, rape, etc would be caused by God, and he also rejected the view that actions are causeless - if that were the case, murder, rape, etc would have no causes and conditions.

 

Therefore one can see that every action has causes and conditions, but it is not the case that it is fated or determined from the past since that would negate the possibility of change through effort at right practice. i.e. Right practice in the present can result in wholesome and liberating action.

The Buddha transl. Thanissaro wrote:Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

From: Tittha Sutta: Sectarians translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

 

There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out of one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements.

 

--The Buddha2

But there is also ultimately no subject or object...so how do you reconcile the contradictions in your absolute truth and relative truth?

Relative and ultimate isn't two... what appears relatively is just like an illusion - also it is not the case that the appearance of intention has a real agent - it is just a dependently originated appearance without agent and without core, empty.

 

“From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu

Furthermore, a will or intention without a self. Then you can say a machine has will. A machine is exactly as you describe, it is an action produced from its programmed conditions. The error in your view is seeing the polarity of "action" and "reaction" while there is merely direction.

A machine cannot have conscious decisions or thoughts because a machine does not have consciousness, therefore it is purely mechanical interaction.

 

Consciousness isn't mechanical... it is a different class of phenomenon altogether. It is not determined by the physical, however the physical stuff are part of the conditions for consciousness - i.e. our sense organs, our DNA, etc, affect our states of consciousness. However it is not the case that DNAs cause a killer to kill or a person to become an Arhant. That would be too naive - there is the whole mental side, mental influences, imprints, cultivation, etc etc... so many factore.

 

For example, by training yourself in loving kindness... anger can be transformed. Therefore anger is not an inherent characteristic of a person, it is not determined from the past, it is not fated or fixed, and therefore they can be purified, transformed, or liberated. Hence we cannot say that anger is determined by some external influences or determined by past action. They are 'learnt' in one's consciousness and can therefore can be 'dropped'. Certainly there is this tendency due to one's conditioning to get angry when certain things happen - yet this tendency is not 'fated to play out' because there is always the potential to be purified, transformed, or liberated, by counter-acting forces, by the practice of purification or transformation, or in more advanced level (like dzogchen, mahamudra) these poisons are spontaneously self-liberated.

 

If one thinks there is no way these can be purified, transformed, or liberated, then it is like what Buddha warned - "When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.'"

 

Whereas if we accept that even though there are past influences, imprints, and conditionings, that continue to pop up in one's mind, these thoughts may not be followed, they can be discerned through awareness, and appropriately acted upon or rejected (via purification, or transformation, or self-liberation) then in this case, there is development, there is transcendence, there is the possibility to overcome one's conditions.

 

Therefore it is not so much of past actions, but what is acted upon in the present that is more essential.

 

Having said so much, it is not the case that there is an agent that is controlling actions... intentions, actions, and so on are also dependent on various factors - sometimes positive, sometimes negative, nevertheless:

 

“From recollection there is interest; from interest consideration; from consideration willful effort; from willful effort vital energy; and from that, action. So what does the self do here?” ~ Vasubandhu

 

As you can see 'action' depends on 'vital energy' which depends on 'willful effort' depends on 'interest consideration' which depends on 'recollection', and a host of mental factors. So it is a process that plays out... but you cannot discount the subjective participation (conventionally called so) part of action and intention-making, as Vasubandhu described. In other words, you cannot say karma or past influences makes you fated to be a killer because... it can be changed, through present right discernment, consideration, effort, action, etc.

 

In short, there is no free will if free will is defined as an independently existing controller controlling things: but there can be free action in the sense that action which arises out of immediate wisdom and awareness free from the chains of one's latent tendencies, therefore we are not fated by our past actions to commit crimes, etc. There can be freedom from unwholesome latent tendencies through wisdom, and yet even wisdom and awareness isn't established.

 

Ultimately, free will in the sense of ultimate agency is not established but neither is it determinism. Free will and determinism don't really apply - actions aren't determined by past actions, nor are actions determined by an independent agent. Actions manifest dependent upon a host of different factors, but are not determined from a past action.

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

*Hindu teacher Ramana Maharshi: 1 . Who am I ?

 

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense-organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not.

 

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

 

After negating all of the above-mentioned as 'not this', 'not this', that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

 

3. What is the nature of Awareness?

 

The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss

 

I think if you understand this, you must know that saying "You don't exist" is complete bullshit and don't even believe it. Only wish to convince others of it for whatever reason.