Beliefs and Intent

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

Nice discussion going on here. I did not joined in earlier as I do not hold to the concept of karma as it is being spoken of here. I also do not believe in the concept of fate. I hold to the concept of free will just as the Zoroastrians do. A man chooses to be good or he can choose to be evil. (The original Zoroastrians had no Devil to blame their wrong-doings on - the Devil was created later.)

 

In the earlier reference to the girl being kidnapped, raped and buried alive, the man used his free wil to conduct that evil crime. He had the choice of doing it or not doing it. He chose to do it. No karma, no fate, only free will. Premeditated!

 

It was his intent to do it. He believed he could do it and get away with it. He performed the action.

 

Now, I will grant the fact that our free will is limited by our environment, etc. But within those limits free will exists. Many Jews held to their free will while they were prisoners of the Nazis even though their free will was very, very limited.

 

Be well!

[JustARandomPanda]

Hypothetical:

 

lets say I am in the same room as someone with bad thoughts, ill will, intentions that if acted upon are not compassionate or with loving-kindness. Let's say it builds up bad karma for them. Can their bad karma rub off on me? Maybe by osmosis or by simply being in the same room with them and no other interaction or involvement going on?

 

********

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Michealz (and probably Buddhism since it sounds from his post history Michaelz is a Buddhist or at least holds many Buddhist beliefs). It still sounds to me like the Buddha denied the possibility of true randomness ever being. We just think it exists because we aren't awakened to Dependent Origination with no Self-Substance.

 

Also how does this correspond with intent preceding beliefs?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Hypothetical:

 

lets say I am in the same room as someone with bad thoughts, ill will, intentions that if acted upon are not compassionate or with loving-kindness. Let's say it builds up bad karma for them. Can their bad karma rub off on me? Maybe by osmosis or by simply being in the same room with them and no other interaction or involvement going on?

 

********

 

Not that I know of.

 

I mean, didn't people like Jesus hang around with the reject of society? I know that in subsequent Bible portrayals and paintings everyone is bright and shiny, but when you really think about it, poor and destitute usually are the precedents for things like crime and violence. You'd think Jesus would have come across a lot of these people, but he turned out okay

 

Anyway...

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Michealz (and probably Buddhism since it sounds from his post history Michaelz is a Buddhist or at least holds many Buddhist beliefs). It still sounds to me like the Buddha denied the possibility of true randomness ever being. We just think it exists because we aren't awakened to Dependent Origination with no Self-Substance.

 

 

Not wanting to put words in mikaelz mouth, I'll just say what I know from my understanding:

 

In comparison to what you brought up with Wyrd, with karma, there are no ocean winds. So with Wyrd, the universe is going in one certain direction, so, let's say you are meant to go to a party next week. Using your own wits and planning you can sail across the wind and arrive in a limo, be the life at the party, and be in the newspaper social section the following week. Or you can just go with whatever happens, you arrive unshaven, without having showered, in dirty clothes, and everyone rejects you.

 

Now, with the karmic view, you do something, and as a result of you doing that, you can go to that party as a success, you can go to the party as a failure, you can not go to the party at all, you can go somewhere else, someone else can come to you, etc etc etc. It's based on YOU, within YOU, there is no external party to begin with, you MAKE the party via your actions.

 

(so with that you can figure your way around the children being victims of crime/disease, but those are heavy subjects and I'd rather talk about parties.... yes I know I'm running away from the problem )

 

I'm not saying that I believe either one completely. I've entertained the notions of both of them seriously for a long time. As for right now, I accept both as true, but knowing both can be false, sort of shrug because I don't know right now, and I move along with my life.

 

 

Also how does this correspond with intent preceding beliefs?

 

In all honesty I have no idea

 

I vaguely recall hearing that before, but it was at the start of a long and complicated post that I didn't feel like reading. Maybe Wyrd has blown me to this thread ill equipped. Maybe I have made this thread out of my negligence.

 

Either way I'm here and you have an unanswered question Sorry.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Have you ever been around someone who is grumpy all the time and you finally get tired of it, get teed off, then become grumpy yourself?

 

I account for this with the concept of Chi as well as our normal brain functions.

 

That concept of "intent preceding belief" is a tricky one. I would like to see someone address it directly.

 

Be well!

[JustARandomPanda]

This part sounds a LOT like Karma

 

The concept of Wyrd (pronounced 'weird') is a subtle and complex concept of personal and communal destiny. The ancient Norse were not fatalists, but they did believe in a pattern of events that could not be avoided, but might be changed to one's advantage.

Now my question is -

 

Can one's karma be avoided? Because from what I've been reading it sounds like Buddhism strongly asserts one can't. Eventually - what goes around, comes around.

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Sloppy Zhang]

This part sounds a LOT like Karma

 

 

But (in my understanding), the difference between that and karma is that with karma there IS NO set pattern of events.

 

It's not, "you are going to move forward, you can move slowly, quickly, or at an angle, but you are moving forward." It's like, "you will move in a direction based on where you decide to go." Which I guess gives rise to the whole "nothing exists", because it doesn't exist until you MAKE it exist. You move forward, and as a result backwards, left, right, angles, fast, slow, etc are created (actually the more I think about it the more complex a world becomes just by moving..... maybe they're on to something )

 

Can one's karma be avoided? Because from what I've been reading it sounds like Buddhism strongly asserts one can't. Eventually - what goes around, comes around.

 

From my understanding no- but it's because you made it.

 

If you stab yourself, you WILL bleed.

 

Does that mean bleeding is fate?

 

No, it means DON'T STAB YOURSELF.

 

But see with Wyrd, you bleeding is inevitable. Now are you going to run around screaming, make the wound worse and bleed faster, then bleed to death, or are you going to know to put pressure on the wound, find bandages, maybe make a tourniquet, and survive?

 

It's a very subtle thing and I hope I'm being clear

 

If not sorry

Edited July 27, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[JustARandomPanda]

But (in my understanding), the difference between that and karma is that with karma there IS NO set pattern of events.

 

It's not, "you are going to move forward, you can move slowly, quickly, or at an angle, but you are moving forward." It's like, "you will move in a direction based on where you decide to go." Which I guess gives rise to the whole "nothing exists", because it doesn't exist until you MAKE it exist. You move forward, and as a result backwards, left, right, angles, fast, slow, etc are created (actually the more I think about it the more complex a world becomes just by moving..... maybe they're on to something )

From my understanding no- but it's because you made it.

 

 

If you stab yourself, you WILL bleed.

 

Does that mean bleeding is fate?

 

No, it means DON'T STAB YOURSELF.

Now my question is...how does the above explanation apply to that little 6 year old girl? Did she MAKE her rape/murder crime come into existence? Michaelz said without her karma it wouldn't have happened. Without her karma (and I gather Buddhism asserts one is solely responsible for one's karma - both good and bad) there would not be anything to ignite the murderer's act - one of the primary conditions would remain unfulfilled.

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Sloppy Zhang]

Now my question is...how does the above explanation apply to that little 6 year old girl? Did she MAKE her rape/murder crime come into existence? Michaelz said without her karma it wouldn't have happened. Without her karma (and I gather Buddhism asserts one is solely responsible for one's karma - both good and bad) there would not be anything to ignite the murderer's act - one of the primary conditions would remain unfulfilled.

 

From the karma perspective as I understand it, then I guess, yeah, she did something, maybe in this life or a past life, and as part of that she is now a victim.

 

Now, a lot of people use that as an excuse to turn a blind eye, or to accept (and that goes for other bad parts of society, class systems, slavery, etc). Which is NOT cool. That's not the fault of karma though, it's a fault of those people.

 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel compassion for them, just because we think they brought it on themselves. When a small kid touches a hot stove, do we say "serves you right stupid!" or do we go "aww, there there"?

 

This also doesn't mean that she can't use the Wyrd philosophy either. There are rape victims that grow up hating men. But there are rape victims that go and help other abused women deal with their problems, help with subsequent medical expenses, etc etc. In which case they'd still be affected by what happened, but they can choose what direction they go (though for the murder part of the example..... well they can't do that if they were murdered, others can, but that's a nasty example anyway )

 

Anyway, this is one of those cases in which the thought of karma doesn't sit well with me, which is why I don't explicitly subscribe to the idea of karma. But that's just how I understand it.

[Vajrahridaya]

No, she absolutely didn't in any way.

 

 

Michaelz is actually quite a smart kid. Ok... look, she did and she didn't. She did create the karmas (which means action) to be in that situation by following certain prompts. Like maybe she decided to walk out early in class because her friend called her about a problem and she was so attached to him/her that she didn't follow the dharma of just staying in class. Dharma means righteous use of action, as in proper more wholistic use of karma. Now in that moment that person who did the deed, could have thwarted his own karma by being more aware of conditioning, (karma) and understood the interconnectivity of both person's actions (karmas) and been compassionate and aware that his desire (karma) would only compound (karma) both her bad karmas (who's causes are complex and manifold dimensionally, through unconscious, subconscious and conscious personal realities) and his own. Because he wasn't awake about his own craving's (karmas), he compounded (karmad) his own and her own bad karmas through more karma, or action as it may be. Now, if she understood the doctrine of karma and saw directly that the person who did the deed was acting (karmaing) out of suffering (karmaing), and she had compassion (dharma) on him, she would forgive him and move on from the event in a way that would disable any future neurosis (karma) due to that event. This of course is extremely hard to do (dharma) and would require incredible insight (dhyan/meditation) into the nature (karma) of seeming chaos and it's secret order (pratitsamutpada or interdependent origination). Only very rare beings in this point of time in the Kali Yuga or age of seeming darkness (not that that's inherent but the Kali Yuga is an age when most people are ignorant of the true nature of being and are caught up in externals.) Though anyone can transcend that at anytime and see now as complete and perfect even as it seems to be chaotic and imperfect through deep realization. Which is another discussion. Anyway, yes it's all due to karma. But who creates karma? You do! So the blame game is a lame train.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

let's see if you feel the same on your deathbed.

 

True that! How many times have I been close to my death bed? Too many to remember right now to write down. I was torn out my mothers womb in a Cesarean section and died because the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck and choked me. So I was rushed to the emergency and was revived. I then because my Mom was too busy contemplating her own life, got my parents attention through self poisonings at the ripe early age of 2/3 to 5. Was rushed to the hospital on many occasions to get my stomach pumped and a coin taken out of my throat. I then was left with my father who left me at home to eat candy and watch TV, and he neglected to bathe me, so I walked out on the street with nappy blonde dread locks and my toes popping out my shoes to beg for quarters so that I could play video games at nearby arcades in San Francisco. This was all before my Mom finally saw the horrors of this and picked me up to take me to New Mexico at the age of 5 to live in areas where poor Mexicans would role down the road and shoot their guns at random anywhere and drugs and murder were prevalent all around. Anyway, that's just the beginning. Let's see what level of contemplation occurs when these people see death face to face and see brains falling out of a skull?? With a sense of wisdom for me though, as my only savior is probably the fact that my mom had a deep spiritual current.

 

Anyway... circumstances well realized brings deeper understanding about the nature of circumstance in all it's incredibly complex order only seemingly chaotic glory!

 

Get that through ya matrix!

[JustARandomPanda]

Ok... look, she did and she didn't. She did create the karmas (which means action) to be in that situation by following certain prompts. Like maybe she decided to walk out early in class because her friend called her about a problem and she was so attached to him/her that she didn't follow the dharma of just staying in class.

 

Ok...maybe it was her karma to end up that way. Who knows what non-righteous use of action she'd done in her 6 years that had a rape-murder waiting to ripen. *shrug* I wasn't there so I don't know. It just was what it was. I'm not trying to lay blame, lay guilt trips or what-have-you. I'm trying to wrap my head around the doctrine of karma.

 

Which means I also wonder about crack cocaine newborns. Or AIDS newborns. Or Down's Syndrome newborns. Or any newborn with multiple congenital birth defects.

 

Dharma means righteous use of action, as in proper more wholistic use of karma.

 

 

Did these just-born newborns

 

 

create the karmas (which means action) to be in that situation by following certain prompts.

.... ?

 

 

who creates karma? You do!

 

 

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Hi SereneBlue,

 

Have you ever been around someone who is grumpy all the time and you finally get tired of it, get teed off, then become grumpy yourself?

 

Indeed I have. I've never been one for angry outbursts though if get mad. My usual SOP is to just get stone-cold silent and stay that way for quite some time - but not in a good way if you know what I mean. I am trying something new though. Whenever that happens now I stop and just do a sort of mini-meditation. Instead of getting grumpy I decide to just focus on my breath. It seems to help. So I'm continuing with it.

 

That concept of "intent preceding belief" is a tricky one. I would like to see someone address it directly.

I would too! I had some difficulty understanding what that poster in the Kunlun poll meant but it did sound intriguing.

Be well!

 

Cheers to you too!

 

p.s. I still wish I knew what the heck Panpsychist Brahmanism was.

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Let me add one ingredient, to make the whole discussion a bit more spicy:

 

The problem with the statement: " there is no such thing as an external reality, is not if it is true but if it can be true."

 

I cite it by memory. I might check it out later, and edit back.

Don't discount this very deep statement from a modern philosopher.

 

Whoa.

 

How did I miss this gem?!

 

I'm curious to know which philosopher said this.

 

I must go think on what they said.

 

What a monkey wrench to throw into the thread.

 

edit:

 

although come to think of it. This question is the most fundamental of all in this entire thread. It supersedes even that of karma and really gets to my original post's (albeit poorly worded) intent.

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Sunya]

Edited July 27, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

Hypothetical:

lets say I am in the same room as someone with bad thoughts, ill will, intentions that if acted upon are not compassionate or with loving-kindness. Let's say it builds up bad karma for them. Can their bad karma rub off on me? Maybe by osmosis or by simply being in the same room with them and no other interaction or involvement going on?

 

since karma are mental patterns, yes it can rub off on you but not as a physical substance rubbing off on you haha.. more like, if someone is next to you and they have really negative energy. you can intuitively pick up on that and that can awaken some latent negative imprints in your psyche. but if you've purified those negativities already then no, the patterns are already gone. you will only feel compassion for that being because you will recognize his suffering

 

Not that I know of.

 

I mean, didn't people like Jesus hang around with the reject of society? I know that in subsequent Bible portrayals and paintings everyone is bright and shiny, but when you really think about it, poor and destitute usually are the precedents for things like crime and violence. You'd think Jesus would have come across a lot of these people, but he turned out okay

 

lol yes. great example. but Jesus was pure. people like us... we have a long ways to go, and hanging out with the rejects will no doubt bring out some latent tendencies.

 

 

In comparison to what you brought up with Wyrd, with karma, there are no ocean winds. So with Wyrd, the universe is going in one certain direction, so, let's say you are meant to go to a party next week. Using your own wits and planning you can sail across the wind and arrive in a limo, be the life at the party, and be in the newspaper social section the following week. Or you can just go with whatever happens, you arrive unshaven, without having showered, in dirty clothes, and everyone rejects you.

 

Now, with the karmic view, you do something, and as a result of you doing that, you can go to that party as a success, you can go to the party as a failure, you can not go to the party at all, you can go somewhere else, someone else can come to you, etc etc etc. It's based on YOU, within YOU, there is no external party to begin with, you MAKE the party via your actions.

 

 

Either way I'm here and you have an unanswered question Sorry.

 

this is an open discussion, anyone is free to participate

you make a good point that karma is not separate from the individual. but... you can take this further, as I said above, if you can see that the individual is basically made up of karmic patterns, thats what the self is that we cling to so strongly.

Edited July 27, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Hypothetical:

 

lets say I am in the same room as someone with bad thoughts, ill will, intentions that if acted upon are not compassionate or with loving-kindness. Let's say it builds up bad karma for them. Can their bad karma rub off on me? Maybe by osmosis or by simply being in the same room with them and no other interaction or involvement going on?

 

********

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Michealz (and probably Buddhism since it sounds from his post history Michaelz is a Buddhist or at least holds many Buddhist beliefs). It still sounds to me like the Buddha denied the possibility of true randomness ever being. We just think it exists because we aren't awakened to Dependent Origination with no Self-Substance.

 

Also how does this correspond with intent preceding beliefs?

Chance, determinism, are two extremes that Buddha had refuted.

 

Chance means, things happen without conditions, by chance.

 

Determinism means, a single cause determines a fixed outcome.

 

Karma however, is not the latter, because karma is only one of the conditions that results in a particular experience. It is not the sole agent for our experiences. It is not the 'controller' of our life anymore than the weather is the 'controller' of our life. It is just part of the conditionings of our experiences at any moment.

 

So basically, things do not happen by chance or randomly or determined, but due to conditions. There is no control (either by an internal agent/self/actor which cannot be found, or an external agent called 'The God' or 'The Fate/Destiny'), but there is influence by intentions and imprints. Just conditionings. However dependent origination is not the same thing as having an origination/originator, or an agent (be it self, or god, or fate) that is controlling our experience. As David Loy explained,

*...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself,

because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...

 

Regarding the question of free will and determinism, actually both are extremes.

 

Free will usually posits a separate self or controller that is free to do what it wants, but such an entity cannot be found. Determinism is again another extreme.

 

One must first experience no-self and understand how subject/object view affect us then when one looks at the question of free will, then one will be able to understand better. Because when our mind and experience are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

Serene, I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. i'm still unsure of all this as well. i'm just trying to give you another perspective. if you're truly curious about the Buddhist position and want to speak to someone who actually knows a thing or two, i'm sure there are qualified Buddhist masters in your area.

 

about the girl...well, it happened and now she has to move on. she suffered immensely and thats really tragic. believing in karma does not mean that you think she deserved it. although some people do feel this way. and this is wrong view. none of us deserve to suffer, ignorance is just the state that we are in. no God put us here in this state. we are all, except for a few, completely ignorant. and we will continue to be until we realize the true nature of things. we will all, and we have since beginningless time, experienced the ups and downs of samsara. the ups are wonderful, and the downs are terrible.

 

was it her karmic effect to suffer in that way? this is important to contemplate.. but I think whats more important is to contemplate that since beginningless time we have all experienced what she experienced, and much worse too. you are no different, you will suffer immensely in the future. it might be better to think about how this all relates to you. If you have suffered, do you think its possible that you caused it? how does the idea of 'past lives' sit with you? and if your situation is good right now... you have to wonder what you did in the past to cause this situation. you have an interest in all this, and a pretty sincere one it seems, do you think this interest came out of nowhere? spontaneously?

 

I don't have meditative insight into my past lives, but I'm only 23 and have had a big interest in spirituality for a while, and ever since I was a kid I would always be very inquisitive and want answers. I could never settle for what most people believed in and I even questioned the existence of others as a child. Being a natural solipsist when you are 5 years old is a strange way to grow up. i'm not interested in what most people are interested in, and i've had a pretty normal upbringing and grew up next to friends who ended up getting jobs in finance and law while i'm heading towards a PhD in Buddhism (maybe). so how can I explain this interest? how can I explain my mannerisms and the choices I made? Is it just genes? I think its more complex than that and I can't definitively explain it. I won't until i gain true insight which is beyond concepts.

 

Chance, determinism, are two extremes that Buddha had refuted.

 

Chance means, things happen without conditions, by chance.

 

Determinism means, a single cause determines a fixed outcome.

 

Karma however, is not the latter, because karma is only one of the conditions that results in a particular experience. It is not the sole agent for our experiences. It is not the 'controller' of our life anymore than the weather is the 'controller' of our life. It is just part of the conditionings of our experiences at any moment.

 

So basically, things do not happen by chance or randomly or determined, but due to conditions. There is no control (either by an internal agent/self/actor which cannot be found, or an external agent called 'The God' or 'The Fate/Destiny'), but there is influence by intentions and imprints. Just conditionings.

 

so in the example of the girl who was tortured. her karma was to suffer because of a previous act where that mind-stream (in a past life, no doubt) caused suffering to another. but the conditions of her specific torture such as where it happened, how it happened, when it happened, etc were caused by different conditions than karma?

and what about the person who tortured this girl? did they have a karmic connection?

[JustARandomPanda]

Chance, determinism, are two extremes that Buddha had refuted.

 

Chance means, things happen without conditions, by chance.

 

Determinism means, a single cause determines a fixed outcome.

This may well be true but again I ask how exactly is it that one knows this?

 

I am struggling to find a way to put it. I am not smart enough to state coherently what I'm thinking. They aren't even really thoughts...more like...pre-thoughts? I don't know how to put it. It may be inherently ineffable what I'm thinking - like a Zen Koan.

 

I don't know how to put it any other way than to say that even for a Buddha an act purely by chance will look identical to a karmic one.

 

The solution is no solution. It's just a further regress. Except this time the regress is to Dependent Origination with no Self-Substance instead of some great Ultimate, Supreme Being (or Tao).

Edited July 27, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Pietro]

Whoa.

 

How did I miss this gem?!

 

I'm curious to know which philosopher said this.

 

I must go think on what they said.

 

What a monkey wrench to throw into the thread.

 

edit:

 

although come to think of it. This question is the most fundamental of all in this entire thread. It supersedes even that of karma and really gets to my original post's (albeit poorly worded) intent.

 

Hello Serene,

I agree with you,

 

this arrow reaches the center.

 

It was shot by

Harry G. Frankfurt, a professor in philosophy, in a couple of tiny books.

 

The first called "on bullshit", and the second "on truth".

 

In the first he claims that bullshit is something qualitatively different from lies and truth. And that the bullshitter is not someone who lies, but someone who disregards the truth of his statement completely. As such the bullshitter is seen as more dangerous than a lier.

 

In the second book he then analyses why is truth important. And he does this in a very pragmatic ways stating that a person or society who disregards the truth (either by lieing or bullshitting) is bound to survive very little. Just by poisoning itself, or running against a cliff or doing any of the other thousands of things that will terminate its life there and then.

 

And it is here that, en passant, he throws this stone.

 

By the way, I tried to repropose the question here:

Hello Xabir.

 

You just made a claim:

"There is no truly existing external reality, nor is there a truly existing internal reality"

 

How can you claim that claim to be true if there is no external reality?

 

but unfortunately Xabir did not answer, so far.

[Sunya]

can a dream character not realize his utterly illusory-like state of being?

[xabir2005]

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Chicken...egg...chicken...egg... HAHA I SEE A PATTERN!! ...2 more cents...

 

Fate has no meaning for those participating through the oceans of fate. Believing it or not believing it has absolutely no consequences if it is held to be true. Moreover, no outside agent (a non-existence/controller) can be observed independently from the phenomena of...fate...

 

Why then, worry about the mind's useless musings?

 

Absolute chaos and chance also have no inherent value because phenomena itself arises from the grasping of an identity (ignorance). That identification cannot observe chaos because it has automatically assumed an order by simply existing as a "point of view," a reference point. If absolute chance were to be truly understood, your experiences will be completely groundless. But this would no longer be chaos or chance, would it? How can anyone imagine this state?

 

This is very tricky to understand in the context of our everyday lives structured by a concrete sense of "being." That you and I "are" when the reality is (IMO of course ) like that of lightening, dream, or an imagined dot on a straight line. It is like a probability, a "what if" that is entertained and from it arises everything else that is observed.

 

This imagined existence creates, divides, suffers, destroys, unifies, purifies, on and on in cycles.... .

 

Wow, went off track there. As for the girl, let that compassion lead you into a further investigation. Whenever you feel lazy cultivating, keep that suffering in mind. All this shouldn't be taken as simple entertainments for the intellect. It is urgent and personal!!

 

As with this quote,

 

You just made a claim:

"There is no truly existing external reality, nor is there a truly existing internal reality"

 

How can you claim that claim to be true if there is no external reality?

 

The problem here is with trying to structure a state of understanding that is beyond claim. For the point of relativity to be in asserted, a ground must be taken. And that itself goes against the very idea of relativity in the first place. I say chicken and you say egg. If it was that easily intellectualized, all the philosophers would probably be Buddhas or Immortals by now.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited July 27, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

*...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself,

because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself...

 

I might have misunderstood this quote as it is out of context,

 

But this state seems to be an attachment to the state of no-self experience. Where in consciousness no longer identifies itself with the body or the self, but with creation. This is like someone creating a doll figure of himself and confuses himself as that doll and thinks that it is the reality, an unconditioned end...

 

There is no such thing as a non-dual event for it is conditioned by consciousness and a grasping for existence. This breaks down to create cycles of more and more duality and back to this whatever "oneness."

 

I see no outside universe outside of the "I." And I see no "I" either. So what is this, but a question mark itself?

[xabir2005]

I might have misunderstood this quote as it is out of context,

 

But this state seems to be an attachment to the state of no-self experience. Where in consciousness no longer identifies itself with the body or the self, but with creation. This is like someone creating a doll figure of himself and confuses himself as that doll and thinks that it is the reality, an unconditioned end...

I am not sure what do you mean here you may want to clarify especially the last sentence.

 

A no-self experience is not identifying himself with anything, and that means no longer an experiencer standing back from pure perception, the sound, the vision, the action, the thought. Everything is just self-luminous manifestation.

 

Also actually, it is not an 'experience', because it is not a temporary altered state, but it is what is realised to be already always the case. Always So. It is the nature of reality, there never was separation in the first place. It is not a state to be attained and never was there a separation to bridge.

 

People can get into altered states of consciousness where the sense of self dissolves into a non-dual experience, but this is not the same as arising the insight that reality has always been non-dual. An experience is temporary, an insight is permanent.

There is no such thing as a non-dual event for it is conditioned by consciousness and a grasping for existence. This breaks down to create cycles of more and more duality and back to this whatever "oneness."

I don't get your logic. A non-dual event has nothing to do with a grasping for existence, and grasping for a separate existence prevents non-dual experience. However as I mentioned, even when all sense of self dissolves into a 'non dual event'/'non dual experience', this is not the same as realisation/insight.

I see no outside universe outside of the "I." And I see no "I" either. So what is this, but a question mark itself?

The universe knows.