In defense of the "I"

[goldisheavy]

Yes. There is that question. I doubt that there is an all-inclusive answer. (I don't accept the concept of 'absolutes' anyhow.)

 

The only reason I can suggest that we should wake up to the world of the 'real', that is, the physical, the Manifest, is that, in my understanding, the only reason we are given a Manifest existence is so that we may experience the Manifest.

 

To run off and hibernate in a cave once we have achieved 'awareness' is to deny manifest creation. I think that this is a 'wrong view'. I think it is a 'right view' to totally immerse oneself in the Manifest once one has achieved 'awareness' and, as the Buddhists would say, help others to become liberated from suffering. And I suggest that in doing this one will experience the fullness of the Manifest while livinging the emptiness.

 

The "I" then becomes the "We" and "We" becomes "Oneness".

 

Peace & Love!

 

I must say you are thoroughly deluded. First of all, people do not go to caves after achieving "awareness". They go to the cave because they want to achieve it in the cave, during practicing and living in the cave.

 

Second, the perception of physicality is not ultimately real. Physicality has a temporary reality given certain conditions in the mind. These conditions can stay for a long time, but they aren't permanent. Of course it is common knowledge that if you don't question something, anything, that something appears to be true. This something can be anything: it can be physicalism, religion, scientific beliefs of the time, whatever. Dogma comes in all shapes. Not all dogma is spelled out explicitly. Some dogma is implicit, silent. Dogma is that which we do not question; there is no requirement that dogma be written down somewhere. It's a doctrine. But a doctrine doesn't have to be written down. Actions represent beliefs. So your actions talk about your dogmas to anyone who would hear (hopefully yourself).

 

Third, there is no such thing as "the manifest" that you can immerse yourself into. That's utter and total bullshit.

 

When we say something is manifest we mean it currently appears. It's not THE MANIFEST, like some golden God on a pedestal. It's not like that. Manifestations are clear appearances. They are not golden or wonderful or to be immersed into. The entire reason why people are caught in samsara is because they immerse themselves uncritically in appearances.

 

Appearances are not inherently bad, but if you uncritically immerse yourself in them, you get bad and disappointing results in short order. Why? Because appearances are not self-consistent and they are not stable. It's like building a house on a swamp. If you are 1 in a million human who enjoys instability, what I am saying here doesn't apply to you -- enjoy your house on a swamp.

 

Cognizance works with both manifest and unmanifest at the same time. For example, when you feel light, you know what it means to feel light because you also know what it means to feel heavy. So even though heaviness doesn't manifest, you can perceive lightness manifest because you KNOW what heaviness is. In other words, unmanifest contextualizes the manifest. The manifest has no meaning solely on its own. Unmanifest constantly informs the manifest. And unmanifest is not some blank void, it is potential for what could be manifest, but is currently not. It's not blank nothingness.

 

A wise person understand and gives proper importance to both manifest and unmanifest. To both what currently appears and to what else can appear. You need this to be creative and to enjoy life.

[C T]

Greetings..

The thing is... you seem to believe that everyone else is concerned with the Buddhist teachings, it is not so.. what Buddhists fail to realize is that it is Buddha that is the source of their suffering.. Please notice that this is a Taoist forum, and those claiming to be Taoists are here, not in a Buddhist Forum telling the Buddhists what is not right about their beliefs.. that seems a bit 'evangelistic', eh?

 

Be well..

TJL - this comment is naaaasty! Pardon my directness. You have just lost all your brownie points!! Why nasty? Read V's reply - its pretty clear.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Is it really 'nasty'? It's my opinion.. just like 'nasty' is your opinion, and.. at least V was able to detach emotion and respond appropriately, a quality i greatly admire..

 

Now, suppose Buddha never happened.. Consider the the numerous references in different belief systems to the 'child-like' qualities necessary for 'realization'.. the child doesn't create fantastical mind-scapes and Dharma Wheels or Yins and Yangs.. the child sees what 'is' and interacts according to its nature.

 

Buddha comes along, has some amazing 'insight', and.. convinces people they are suffering.. even if they aren't, they just don't know it.. so, the Buddha will teach them how to understand they are suffereing, then.. he will teach them to understand how to end suffering.. Marketing 101.

 

It bears noting, i am not a 'Taoist'.. i tend to avoid labels, they are a bit too confining.. i find deep resonance in the core philosophical concepts of Taoist understandings.. but, that doesn't 'define me'.. i have tested the core philosophy, found it to be without verifiable contradiction, and.. i continue to test it, i am eager to experience 'truth'.. so far, no contradictions to the understanding i have experienced from Taoist Philosophy are sufficiently compelling to inspire revisions.. but, show me the error in my understandings and i will revise without hesitation

 

Suffering, is the condition where unfulfilled desire is believed to diminish the idea you believe is 'You'.. i want it, if i don't get it i will not be the 'me' i want to be.. pain fits nicely into this concept, i suffer physically and people pay attention to me, if the pain goes away people will no longer pay attention to 'me', so.. i will 'suffer', the pain will serve me and my desires.. as pointed out previously, "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional"..

 

Be well..

[C T]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Is it really 'nasty'? It's my opinion.. just like 'nasty' is your opinion, and.. at least V was able to detach emotion and respond appropriately, a quality i greatly admire..

 

Now, suppose Buddha never happened.. Consider the the numerous references in different belief systems to the 'child-like' qualities necessary for 'realization'.. the child doesn't create fantastical mind-scapes and Dharma Wheels or Yins and Yangs.. the child sees what 'is' and interacts according to its nature.

 

Buddha comes along, has some amazing 'insight', and.. convinces people they are suffering.. even if they aren't, they just don't know it.. so, the Buddha will teach them how to understand they are suffereing, then.. he will teach them to understand how to end suffering.. Marketing 101.

 

It bears noting, i am not a 'Taoist'.. i tend to avoid labels, they are a bit too confining.. i find deep resonance in the core philosophical concepts of Taoist understandings.. but, that doesn't 'define me'.. i have tested the core philosophy, found it to be without verifiable contradiction, and.. i continue to test it, i am eager to experience 'truth'.. so far, no contradictions to the understanding i have experienced from Taoist Philosophy are sufficiently compelling to inspire revisions.. but, show me the error in my understandings and i will revise without hesitation

 

Suffering, is the condition where unfulfilled desire is believed to diminish the idea you believe is 'You'.. i want it, if i don't get it i will not be the 'me' i want to be.. pain fits nicely into this concept, i suffer physically and people pay attention to me, if the pain goes away people will no longer pay attention to 'me', so.. i will 'suffer', the pain will serve me and my desires.. as pointed out previously, "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional"..

 

Be well..

Hello TJL,

 

Thank you for the response. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's here. This is an open forum.

 

'Nasty' was used in reference to your misguided attempt to disqualify V's post by inferring that this is an exclusive forum for those who profess Taoism, which i am sure you are well aware by now that it was a misperception. It was not an emotional statement - it is a statement, nonetheless - if you feel undermined in the slightest by it, and make this known, i will apologize. If not, then an apology would not be necessary.

 

Its good to know you are beyond labels, something which you have made clear from the beginning. My curiosity is if you were truly such, why the jabs at Buddhism? I am not defending Buddhism as such, as i am not worthy to be its crusader. I am struggling with this understanding mainly because i have seen much sense in most of your other posts, and have acknowledged that to you more than once, i believe.

 

Your portrayal above of the Buddha and his probable motive for having presented the Dharma is an example of a 'jab'. I can understand where you are coming from, but i am sure there could be wiser means to forward your message. This frequent allusion to the possible basic flaw of Buddha/Buddhism/Buddhists i believe, may be a result of some preconceived notions you may have about its philosophy (which may be justified given your personal experiences), and if so, i am sure there are a few learned individuals here on TB who would be only too happy to address your sincere questions, should you have any. If this is a mistaken assumption, then it may be that you do not wish to harmonize with Buddhists, which of course, is your personal right too, and naturally these rights are not to be denied, but bear in mind others too, have this privilege. However, if its just a question of resonance, then that makes everyone here a happy camper, yes? Each resonates to a different tune, and together, there is music!! Why not?

 

There is absolutely no necessity to equate Buddha as a Bill Gates of Buddhism. This is not helpful at all. And if some guy makes similar remarks at the great Taoist sages, i will say the same to them. Not that it matters what i say, but to keep quiet is to deny common courtesy, which i am sure could be practically applied here.

 

Regards sir.

Edited November 2, 2009 by CowTao

[Marblehead]

I must say you are thoroughly deluded.

 

Perhaps.

 

A wise person understand and gives proper importance to both manifest and unmanifest. To both what currently appears and to what else can appear. You need this to be creative and to enjoy life.

 

And this is exactly what I said with different words.

 

So. Shall we compare our delusions? I think mine is bigger than yous is.

 

Unmanifest constantly informs the manifest. And unmanifest is not some blank void, it is potential for what could be manifest, but is currently not.

 

In Taoism this is called Mystery. Yes, with a cap "M". And when an aspcet of Mystery becomes manifested it is called the Manifest. Yes, with a cap "M". They are both considered to be proper nouns, as in Buddha, with a cap "B", and Tao, with a cap "T".

 

Third, there is no such thing as "the manifest" that you can immerse yourself into. That's utter and total bullshit.

 

And I suggest that this statement is made out of ignorance of Taoist philosophy. "Yo" is translated as Manifest, the physical aspect of Tao. Yes, one can be totally immersed in the physical world - these people are called the lost souls.

 

Second, the perception of physicality is not ultimately real.

 

And there you go telling the whole world that you do not ultimately exist. This is so lame it is close to being pathetic. Everything that has ever been manifested is now, or was at one point in time absolutely real. Maybe you are not real but "I" damn sure am real at this point in time. Will "I" live forever? Hell no. But I am real while I am real - I cannot be otherwise. The earth rotates around the sun - it cannot do otherwise. This is the reality of the moment.

 

First of all, people do not go to caves after achieving "awareness".

 

Oh! Gee! I din't know that you are aware of what every person on this planet does. Please excuse me for not being aware of your omniscience earlier.

 

Cognizance works with both manifest and unmanifest at the same time.

 

And just three paragraphs above you said: Third, there is no such thing as "the manifest" that you can immerse yourself into.

 

So is there, in your opinion manifest or is there not manifest? You really need to decide for sure before you compare something you suggest does not exist with something that does yet not exist.

 

Now, while it is true that you may think that everything I said is bullshit, what you think has absolutely nothing to do with my reality or anything in my reality, whether it is a scientific fact or just a figment of my imagination.

 

So you go ahead and misunderstand everything I have said because your misunderstanding does not change the validity of my thoughts nor will it change the mind of those who have understood what I have said and their agreement with what I have said.

 

Happy Trails! Yippee Ki Yo!

 

Peace & Love!

Edited November 2, 2009 by Marblehead

[nac]

If we analyze at it scientifically, we can see that the relative "I" is not a clearly self-existent thing, but a combination of it's various components and related phenomena. Just as cars don't need an additional quality of car-ness to function as long as it's parts are in place, beings don't need an additional soul or relative self to be people. The question of ultimate self is, of course, different in every tradition.

[Marblehead]

If we analyze at it scientifically, we can see that the relative "I" is not a clearly self-existent thing, but a combination of it's various components and related phenomena.

 

Okay. I agree with this but I also disagree with it. How do you like that?

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Thanks for the thoughtful reply.. it is my turn to apologize, and i do.. the 'jabs' you refer to are intended to incite a different perspective, not unlike the whack of the Zen stick.. Buddha, as a marketing genius, is simply an alternative perspective, one that should be included with any serious evaluation of the practical application of the teachings.. When appropriate, i will scrutinize Tao in the same 'nasty' manner.. i.e.: religious Taoism is a contradiction unto itself.. As for the forum, i appreciate deeply the contributions of those with curious intentions, regardless of their belief systems, but.. proselytizing in a forum like this is contrary to spirit of the forum.. and, a little embarassing to observe..

 

So, i apologize for being insensitive.. i very much appreciate my Buddhist brothers and sisters, i only caution them that 'programming' is a subtle process, be vigilant lest the Kool-Ade taste funny..

 

Be well..

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Greetings..

The thing is... you seem to believe that everyone else is concerned with the Buddhist teachings, it is not so.. what Buddhists fail to realize is that it is Buddha that is the source of their suffering.. Please notice that this is a Taoist forum, and those claiming to be Taoists are here, not in a Buddhist Forum telling the Buddhists what is not right about their beliefs.. that seems a bit 'evangelistic', eh?

 

Be well..

 

 

Well, I hate to weigh in here, but I think part of the issue here may be that V does come across as very evangelical, and many discussions devolve into the finest points of advanced Buddhist doctrine or dahrma, or whatever. It seems like an Buddhist Blitzkrieg because V posts about Buddhism an astounding amount... over 500 posts in October alone, and his pace is increasing. That to me seems pretty extreme, and amounts to someone establishing a platform to dish out his way, frequently putting down all other ways as less than Vajrayana Buddhism. Apparently there's a few people that enjoy his take on things, but it's beyond me why he doesn't start his own personal practice section, write some articles for this site or spread his knowledge among several other sites.

 

CowTao, I do not find TJL's comment "naaasty" in the least. V joined the end of May and has posted nearly 2,000 times in 5 months, almost all the posts touting the superiority of his way and guru over all others. If you go back and look at some of the threads from this summer, and the more recent posts, V claims to enjoy "discussion" and to be totally "detached" and above it all, yet regularly gets into arguments with many people and has some pretty pissy retorts. (Including one nasty reply to me that first soured me on the guy and his Buddhist campaign).Then he retreats and whines about how everyone is picking on him, trashing his gurus (like he didn't just trash Krishnamurti?) and claims that people are "following" him to give him a hard time. Well, if he's omnipresent on this site and pushes his agenda constantly, he should expect some opposition.

 

Sure, it's his right to be here and talk about Buddhism, but his derailing nearly every thread he posts on to another Buddhist discussion is obnoxious behavior and we also have the right to call him on his stuff and give him a hard time for preaching on this forum. (To his credit he has toned down his direct put-downs of other spiritual paths, but still insists that his version of Buddhism is the ne plus ultra of all teachings).

Happiest of Trails to All

 

Songs

Edited November 5, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[C T]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: Thanks for the thoughtful reply.. it is my turn to apologize, and i do.. the 'jabs' you refer to are intended to incite a different perspective, not unlike the whack of the Zen stick.. Buddha, as a marketing genius, is simply an alternative perspective, one that should be included with any serious evaluation of the practical application of the teachings.. When appropriate, i will scrutinize Tao in the same 'nasty' manner.. i.e.: religious Taoism is a contradiction unto itself.. As for the forum, i appreciate deeply the contributions of those with curious intentions, regardless of their belief systems, but.. proselytizing in a forum like this is contrary to spirit of the forum.. and, a little embarassing to observe..

 

So, i apologize for being insensitive.. i very much appreciate my Buddhist brothers and sisters, i only caution them that 'programming' is a subtle process, be vigilant lest the Kool-Ade taste funny..

 

Be well..

Me thinks we can be friends TJL! You have humbled me with this appropriately gentle response. Whoever said water is stronger than the hardest rock is spot on! No doubt at all!

 

Thank you sincerely sir.

 

Have a good day..

[C T]

Well, I hate to weigh in here, but I think part of the issue here may be that V does come across as very evangelical, and many discussions devolve into the finest points of advanced Buddhist doctrine or dahrma, or whatever. It seems like an Buddhist Blitzkrieg because V posts about Buddhism an astounding amount... over 500 posts in October alone, and his pace is increasing. That to me seems pretty extreme, and amounts to someone establishing a platform to dish out his way, frequently putting down all other ways as less than Vajrayana Buddhism. Apparently there's a few people that enjoy his take on things, but it's beyond me why he doesn't start his own personal practice section, write some articles for this site or spread his knowledge among several other sites.

 

CowTao, I do not find TJL's comment "naaasty" in the least. V joined the end of May and has posted nearly 2,000 times in 5 months, almost all the posts touting the superiority of his way and guru over all others. If you go back and look at some of the threads from this summer, and the more recent posts, V claims to enjoy "discussion" and to be totally "detached" and above it all, yet regularly gets into arguments with many people and has some pretty pissy retorts. (Including one nasty reply to me that first soured me on the guy and his Buddhist campaign).Then he retreats and whines about how everyone is picking on him, trashing his gurus (like he didn't just trash Krishnamurti?) and claims that people are "following" him to give him a hard time. Well, if he's omnipresent on this site and pushes his agenda constantly, he should expect some opposition.

 

Sure, it's his right to be here and talk about Buddhism, but his derailing nearly every thread he posts on to another Buddhist discussion is obnoxious behavior and we also have the right to call him on his stuff and give him a hard time for preaching on this forum.

 

Happy Trails! ying yang swing swang don't mean a thing thang...

 

Songs

Hey there Songs!

 

The figures you presented does seem pretty weighty and naturally one can feel overwhelmed by V's seemingly dominant presence here, there and everywhere . I have no problems at all seeing his name pop up in all the right/wrong places, and if some of the things he say does not *resonate* with me, i just let it go, with the thought that it may perhaps resonate for someone else, and if it does, then his enthusiastic posts would have served some purpose.

 

Even though i do not know V personally, i believe i know enough to understand why he is such a *defender* of his teacher/teachings. If you have gone through the life/spiritual experiences of what V has gone through, you would probably not be here to tell the tale (trust me - i think i am quite sure of this). So from a wider perspective, i am glad that he is here, and here in a constructive sense, well, almost always anyways. I am sure we all have differing life stories, and looking at it from this angle, its really a blessing on TB because it makes it so much more interesting, do you agree?

 

As for the 2 Ks (UG and J) - i personally think we have much to learn from them, especially J, imo. If there is one book that is close to discoursing the relative human condition, i think *The Awakening of Intelligence* would be IT!

 

Thanks anyway for giving voice to your feelings. It is all good in the end...

 

Regards.

Edited November 2, 2009 by CowTao

[xabir2005]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

The sense or need to 'get rid of the I' comes precisely from the sense of being an 'I' who can 'get rid of I'. Who is it who can get rid of things? Is there an 'I' in the first place to get rid of, and is there an 'I' that can get rid of that? Are they not just another arising thought, arising and subsiding in lightning speed, insubstantial like a bubble? How can there be an 'I' in it? Is not the mind just another thought, unchosen, spontaneously manifesting of its own accord? Choice, thoughts, intentions arise spontaneously on its own, don't they? What is the evidence of an entity behind those choice? And is not even the idea that we are a self, or a thinker, or a controller of a thought, itself simply another thought arising on its own without a controller? It will not be obvious at first, it takes practice, observing, contemplation. This is not about getting rid of anything, but seeing clearly the nature of reality, beyond our mind's false assumptions and conceptual interpretation -- rather, the clear seeing is based on the evidence of our direct experience.

 

Greg Goode explains very well: http://rogeringraham.blip.tv/file/2479869/

 

 

Here's something else to consider...

 

Let's say it will be noticed that the body is out of shape. A thought may arise that the body could do with some exercise. Next a decision to go to the gym could come up. Nowhere in this 'chain of events' is there the need for an entity that takes the decision. If there was such an entity, it first would have to decide to take such a decision to be able to claim 'authorship.' It also would have to decide to decide to decide ad infinitum, thus creating an infinite regress.

 

What I always say is that non-doership does not mean that you are helpless, but that the 'you-agent' is fictitious. We say "I live, I think, I breathe" and so on but living, thinking and breathing is not done by someone; it happens by itself.

 

Let's have a look at thinking: Is there really a 'thinker of thoughts' independent of thought? Does this 'thinker' know what the next thought will be? Or is the thought only known when it comes along? This thought may get claimed in the next thought, which could goes something like "Oh, I just thought about such and such". But is the 'I' claiming to be the thinker of the thought- not itself part of the thought?

 

Do not take this to literally please, as there actually isn't even a 'next thought'; only this thought right now. There is no past, which has led up to this moment. There is only THIS; including memories and other apparent evidence for such a past.

 

Nevertheless, there is the unfolding of this dream in which "the Tao, without doing anything, leaves nothing undone." As such there may be the appearance of doing exercises, making decisions, planning your day, falling asleep, waking up, gazing at the stars, reading these words, or registering the sounds around you. It all happens by itself. As the Zen saying goes:

 

Sitting quietly, doing nothing,

Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself.

 

- Leo Hartong

 

 

 

And in case you're mistaking that realising no-self has anything to do with getting rid of intentions, thoughts, and actions, (or even getting rid of an 'I', which in fact cannot be found in direct experience) I believe the above passage should pretty much clear that up.

 

When you see through the solidity of an 'I', you no longer defend something that never existed in the first place, nor waste effort trying to get rid of something that never existed in the first place, and in place of that fictional 'self' you have the entire universe at disposal -- mind, physical body, space, mountains, the rivers, the sky, are your Body, total freedom from the limitations of an illusory separate self confined to a body-mind.

 

 

#

 

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

 

#

 

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

 

 

-- these are essential for contemplation to give rise to Anatta (no-self) insight, but all these must be understood as 'Always and Already so' -- it is not a state achieved in deep meditation. It is a fact of reality that can only be realised.

Edited November 2, 2009 by xabir2005

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Hey there Songs!

 

The figures you presented does seem pretty weighty and naturally one can feel overwhelmed by V's seemingly dominant presence here, there and everywhere . I have no problems at all seeing his name pop up in all the right/wrong places, and if some of the things he say does not *resonate* with me, i just let it go, with the thought that it may perhaps resonate for someone else, and if it does, then his enthusiastic posts would have served some purpose.

 

Even though i do not know V personally, i believe i know enough to understand why he is such a *defender* of his teacher/teachings. If you have gone through the life/spiritual experiences of what V has gone through, you would probably not be here to tell the tale (trust me - i think i am quite sure of this). So from a wider perspective, i am glad that he is here, and here in a constructive sense, well, almost always anyways. I am sure we all have differing life stories, and looking at it from this angle, its really a blessing on TB because it makes it so much more interesting, do you agree?

 

As for the 2 Ks (UG and J) - i personally think we have much to learn from them, especially J, imo. If there is one book that is close to discoursing the relative human condition, i think *The Awakening of Intelligence* would be IT!

 

Thanks anyway for giving voice to your feelings. It is all good in the end...

 

Regards.

 

Thank you for the gracious reply also, CowTao. I believe the Buddha taught moderation in all things. I wonder if V realizes he would also be much more effective in communicating the dharma if he practiced some moderation in his messages and in the frequency with which he posts. It is all good in the end (but better for the Dzogcheners )

[33865_1494798762]

[Lucky7Strikes]

[33865_1494798762]

.....

There is nothing in manifestation, such as the body or mind that can be said to be the source of "I." Yet there is a tendency, an illusion, to believe so, and reality conforms to your point of reference.

True - the "I" is always new. We can not be what we are and know what we are at the same time.

The knowledge is what carries us away from being, into becomming, because the "I" is a question, so the knowledge brings an end to that question. By this dilemme we are forced to speculate. Another good reason for the creation of gods. Now they can take care of it

Edited November 3, 2009 by Guest

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Now, suppose Buddha never happened.. Consider the the numerous references in different belief systems to the 'child-like' qualities necessary for 'realization'.. the child doesn't create fantastical mind-scapes and Dharma Wheels or Yins and Yangs.. the child sees what 'is' and interacts according to its nature.

 

 

A child is not free from suffering, they just haven't manifested their unconscious yet, so they are in a state of conditional pleasure. The condition being ignorance. If we were born enlightened, we would know it and not loose it. This is what awareness of nature means, which a child, generally speaking, does not have, they are just wide eyed and excited and react to everything as it comes. This is not enlightenment.

 

Buddha comes along, has some amazing 'insight', and.. convinces people they are suffering.. even if they aren't, they just don't know it.. so, the Buddha will teach them how to understand they are suffereing, then.. he will teach them to understand how to end suffering.. Marketing 101.

 

But he's right, because of impermanence and the childs lack of understanding it, he or she losses that condition of purity which was just due to ignorance. If a child truly understands their condition, it would not leave them. If a person is in pleasure, but then suffers after death, that is the type of suffering the Buddha is talking about. The suffering that is bound to happen even while we enjoy the conditions of pleasure. The Buddha is just pointing to a way where one can have the inner condition of continual joy no matter what's going on within the all pervasive realm of impermanence.

 

 

Suffering, is the condition where unfulfilled desire is believed to diminish the idea you believe is 'You'.. i want it, if i don't get it i will not be the 'me' i want to be.. pain fits nicely into this concept, i suffer physically and people pay attention to me, if the pain goes away people will no longer pay attention to 'me', so.. i will 'suffer', the pain will serve me and my desires.. as pointed out previously, "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional"..

 

Be well..

 

Yes of course, the cause of inner suffering is dis-content thus clinging... even to subtle concepts which the Buddha pointed out. The profound far reaching truth of the Buddhas teaching goes far beyond the 3 dimensions, and includes them.

 

But yes... of course! To each their own path of process.

 

 

 

 

And there you go telling the whole world that you do not ultimately exist. This is so lame it is close to being pathetic. Everything that has ever been manifested is now, or was at one point in time absolutely real. Maybe you are not real but "I" damn sure am real at this point in time. Will "I" live forever? Hell no. But I am real while I am real - I cannot be otherwise. The earth rotates around the sun - it cannot do otherwise. This is the reality of the moment.

 

 

 

It's not even scientifically provable that you ultimately exist. Even science says that you exist relative to the conditions of chemicals, atomic structures...

 

Your attachment to your perception through the 5 senses is a tall tail illusion that only seems real due to various causes and conditions of trained identity. Sure it's real, but only relatively. Never ultimately.

[Marblehead]

I see my Buddhist friends are becoming only images again. Oh well.

 

I hope they come back soon because things would be rather boring without them.

 

Meanwhile, here "I" sit, smoking a little filtered cigar, drinking coffee and listening to Black Sabbath.

 

Of course, Ozzie isn't real but that doesn't matter.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

A child is not free from suffering, they just haven't manifested their unconscious yet, so they are in a state of conditional pleasure. The condition being ignorance. If we were born enlightened, we would know it and not loose it. This is what awareness of nature means, which a child, generally speaking, does not have, they are just wide eyed and excited and react to everything as it comes. This is not enlightenment.

 

Hmm, does this mean that enlightened beings are aware of their state, remember their past lives, can enter various depths of samadhi since birth? I imagined that when a Bodhisattva decides to reincarnate in a human form, he is subject to the rules that bound a...baby . He must cultivate as a human form again? no?

[steve]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

To the OP, if you're still there.... Question for you - if the mind is the chooser, who or what is it that is making the choice? Look at that for a while. You don't need to get rid of anything. Just look at it, see it for what it is.

 

I think that some of us feel somehow that we are not seeing the whole picture. We start to search for something. That something leads us to question all that we hold dear, all of our stability and security. If you have enough energy and seriousness, you will inevitably become uncomfortable with what you find.

 

At some point, the recognition occurs that "I" am simply a construct of societal, cultural, parental conditioning and conventions. We start to see through all of the bullshit and lies and hypocrisy. We choose to let all of that go and then realize that there is nothing left. No security. No stability. No rules and conventions. Unchartered territory. Liberation! Some of us will find solace in ritual, dogma, sutras, or scripture. Still conditioning. Let it all go and see for yourself - I think you are doing that.

 

If you are frightened, you are probably seeing things more clearly than most. At some point you may also see that there is something more that allows you to again feel secure and at peace despite a complete lack of any real security or stability. And who you are is always still there, it's just that you get to choose when to play the game and when to be free of it.

 

As has been said, you no longer have the choice to just go back. You can try but you've gotten a glimpse of truth and it will stick with you. It won't always be uncomfortable though, I think that is just a transition.

 

Good luck to you!

 

_/\_

[33865_1494798762]

Edited November 3, 2009 by Guest

[33865_1494798762]

[33865_1494798762]

Edited November 3, 2009 by Guest

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmm, does this mean that enlightened beings are aware of their state, remember their past lives, can enter various depths of samadhi since birth? I imagined that when a Bodhisattva decides to reincarnate in a human form, he is subject to the rules that bound a...baby . He must cultivate as a human form again? no?

 

Yes, it just happens much faster.

 

listening to Black Sabbath.

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

Oh man!! I loooove me some Black Sabbath!! Love that old school hard rock, all the way into Metallica... the old stuff of course and not all songs, but plenty of them. Led Zepplin... Cream! Dude!!

 

Loooovin' it... got me listening to War Pigs right now!!

 

[rebelrebel]

The sense or need to 'get rid of the I' comes precisely from the sense of being an 'I' who can 'get rid of I'. Who is it who can get rid of things? Is there an 'I' in the first place to get rid of, and is there an 'I' that can get rid of that? Are they not just another arising thought, arising and subsiding in lightning speed, insubstantial like a bubble? How can there be an 'I' in it? Is not the mind just another thought, unchosen, spontaneously manifesting of its own accord? Choice, thoughts, intentions arise spontaneously on its own, don't they? What is the evidence of an entity behind those choice? And is not even the idea that we are a self, or a thinker, or a controller of a thought, itself simply another thought arising on its own without a controller? It will not be obvious at first, it takes practice, observing, contemplation. This is not about getting rid of anything, but seeing clearly the nature of reality, beyond our mind's false assumptions and conceptual interpretation -- rather, the clear seeing is based on the evidence of our direct experience.

 

Greg Goode explains very well: http://rogeringraham.blip.tv/file/2479869/

Here's something else to consider...

 

Let's say it will be noticed that the body is out of shape. A thought may arise that the body could do with some exercise. Next a decision to go to the gym could come up. Nowhere in this 'chain of events' is there the need for an entity that takes the decision. If there was such an entity, it first would have to decide to take such a decision to be able to claim 'authorship.' It also would have to decide to decide to decide ad infinitum, thus creating an infinite regress.

 

What I always say is that non-doership does not mean that you are helpless, but that the 'you-agent' is fictitious. We say "I live, I think, I breathe" and so on but living, thinking and breathing is not done by someone; it happens by itself.

 

Let's have a look at thinking: Is there really a 'thinker of thoughts' independent of thought? Does this 'thinker' know what the next thought will be? Or is the thought only known when it comes along? This thought may get claimed in the next thought, which could goes something like "Oh, I just thought about such and such". But is the 'I' claiming to be the thinker of the thought- not itself part of the thought?

 

Do not take this to literally please, as there actually isn't even a 'next thought'; only this thought right now. There is no past, which has led up to this moment. There is only THIS; including memories and other apparent evidence for such a past.

 

Nevertheless, there is the unfolding of this dream in which "the Tao, without doing anything, leaves nothing undone." As such there may be the appearance of doing exercises, making decisions, planning your day, falling asleep, waking up, gazing at the stars, reading these words, or registering the sounds around you. It all happens by itself. As the Zen saying goes:

 

Sitting quietly, doing nothing,

Spring comes, and the grass grows by itself.

 

- Leo Hartong

And in case you're mistaking that realising no-self has anything to do with getting rid of intentions, thoughts, and actions, (or even getting rid of an 'I', which in fact cannot be found in direct experience) I believe the above passage should pretty much clear that up.

 

When you see through the solidity of an 'I', you no longer defend something that never existed in the first place, nor waste effort trying to get rid of something that never existed in the first place, and in place of that fictional 'self' you have the entire universe at disposal -- mind, physical body, space, mountains, the rivers, the sky, are your Body, total freedom from the limitations of an illusory separate self confined to a body-mind.

#

 

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

 

#

 

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

-- these are essential for contemplation to give rise to Anatta (no-self) insight, but all these must be understood as 'Always and Already so' -- it is not a state achieved in deep meditation. It is a fact of reality that can only be realised.

Hmm yes I see what you are saying here. The I in actuality is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. So really, truly, nothing can be said about it in the end. So the "I", the doer, the controller since all these or the notions of these arise dependently on causes and conditions they have never been any of the four extremes. So to say they were originally in any of the four extremes would be wrong. Best not to say anything. That feels more free to me than just simply to say "it is and always has been non existent."