"there is such a self"

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

A return contemplation for your hard work TzuJanLi:

Thank you, CowTao.. as one moves through the understanding of that quote, much is revealed.. some of that 'much' is rather than creating fantastical mind-scapes and presenting stories of 'liberation' from suffering and other such conceptual intrigues, return to your Life among the Living, "Chop wood, Carry water".. do not engage in great debates of "understanding and awareness", it only demonstrates your lack thereof..

 

It was my hope, when i first happened upon this forum, that people who found Taoist Philosophy to resonate most closely with their understandings, they would share stories of Life that also resonated with Taoist 'understandings'.. i didn't expect to see such conflict and contradiction..

 

As an example: The maple tree shed many of its leaves overnight, so much so that the driveway was completely covered.. my neighbor offered to use a blower to remove the leaves, but.. i politely declined, explaining that i really enjoyed the view and that the leaves would turn to fertilizer.. he then politely explained: that his carefully manicured lawn would be covered by the leaves when the winds shifted.. i asked: would you rather control ALL of the leaves, or just the ones in 'your' yard..

 

I hope this makes some sense.. Be well..

[Marblehead]

 

It was my hope, when i first happened upon this forum, that people who found Taoist Philosophy to resonate most closely with their understandings, they would share stories of Life that also resonated with Taoist 'understandings'.. i didn't expect to see such conflict and contradiction..

 

 

Well, I'm still with you, my friend. It is just that I sometimes just get tired of the arguing and sit back and just watch. Wu wei, you know.

 

But we 'doers' will continue doing and the 'non-does' will continue doing so it is understandable that there will continue to be disagreements because the 'non-doers' keep doing what they do and so the 'doers' continue doing what they do and the circle continues to go round and round.

 

If the 'non-doers' weren't doing anything then there would be nothing for the 'doers' to disagree with.

 

So yes, we do what needs to be done and we move on. Are we moving?

 

Peace & Love!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Marblehead

[C T]

The person does not make the coffee. Its the coffee that 'makes' the drinker of the coffee, or makes one desire such a thing as coffee. If this world had no coffee, the desire for coffee would never have arisen. There is really no separation in this sense. This is not useless debate. It is very useful actually, because when the mind is pushed in all absurd directions, it creates this massive confusion of sorts, then when the activity finally ceases, there one can rest in a prolonged gap of "Wow" with nothing else to encroach on that space, and its very liberating like that. In principle its the same as one big massive koan. Very useful.

[Marblehead]

The person does not make the coffee.

 

Wait a cotton-pickin' minute!

 

I make my coffee. There is no one else who makes my coffee.

 

True, the coffee bean's existence created a 'drinker of coffee'. This is cause and effect.

 

Both existed individually. Mutual effect. The drinker of coffee created a use for the bean - the bean created a drinker of coffee. But both still existed independantly before the mutual dependancy.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Marblehead

[Lucky7Strikes]

Choice/decision/intention is necessary, though no separate choos-er/controller/doer apart from the arising intention actually exists.

If there is no controller, doer, that defies the very meaning of choice and decision. If choices are just "made," that is not a choice but just phenomena rolling on. Like clouds going by, like the rain falling, like the earth spinning.

 

'Beyond me' implies that I am helpless. However the fact is, you have the ability to save the person (if you know how to swim). I'm just using 'you' conventionally, to refer to your particular psycho physical combination. You (your psycho physical combination) can actually help out and save the person.

You didn't understand the context of "beyond me." Read my post over please. This has nothing to do with my ability to save the person or my psycho physical combination. It's just all happening, rolling on, ey?

 

What is denied has nothing to do with the psycho-physical combination's ability to act in a particular way. What is denied is not that action can be done or intention can arise. What is denied is a separate controller, thinker, apart from the thought, act, etc.

Denying a controller, and a thinker in the manifestation of phenomena denies the very meaning of choice and free will.

 

No, the thought 'go drown' is definitely worse than saving him, since he suffers/dies as a result of not being saved. Universe rolls on, but there are wholesome and unwholesome deeds/happening, which is part of the rolling on. I don't see how just because everything rolls on = nothing better or worse.

Not lucky, but by karma + many other factors. By karma + many other factors, I was able to meet the dharma and practice.

How do you not understand this? There is no good or bad in your paradigm. Things just happen as they are. You can't blame the rain for being good or bad, you can't blame the volcano from exploding. If unwholesome and wholesome happens they are neither wholesome or unwholesome just as the rain in not unwholesome or wholesome. Since no one is the controller of Karma and all those factors, you are nothing but a happenstance in the universe's continuation.

 

Hitler (using conventions) made the wrong choice/decision to commit mass murder and crimes. There is intentions, decision, bad and good karma, just no doer.

 

Decision implies a doer. That is the very concept of decision. If decision is just "made" that is not a decision. Same with intention. Hitler did not make any choices in your reality. The phenomena called "Hitler" just happened that way.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Wait a cotton-pickin' minute!

 

I make my coffee. There is no one else who makes my coffee.

 

True, the coffee bean's existence created a 'drinker of coffee'. This is cause and effect.

 

Both existed individually. Mutual effect. The drinker of coffee created a use for the bean - the bean created a drinker of coffee. But both still existed independantly before the mutual dependancy.

 

Peace & Love!

Actually you are only partly making the coffee Marbles...

[3bob]

Namaste Bob. Gracious and generous, as always. Very much appreciated.

_/\_

 

Namaste CowTao, and top of the morning to you

 

 

 

Actually you are only partly making the coffee Marbles...

 

What is the taste of one hand making coffee?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The person does not make the coffee. Its the coffee that 'makes' the drinker of the coffee, or makes one desire such a thing as coffee.

Aye, Taoist Philosophy is a bit more pragmatic.. it supposes that this Life is not an 'illusion', that things are what they are.. i get up in the morning and there is no coffee to drink, i have many choices, but i choose to make some coffee.. at that point i move on to other matters, i don't imagine fantastical intercosmological processes, i just do what needs to be done.. i Live in the moment. Some people will conjure amazing 'mind-scapes' of doers and non-doers, but.. it is they, themselves, 'doing' the imagining..

 

Be well..

[dwai]

Actually you are only partly making the coffee Marbles...

 

Or is the Coffee dependently originating because you want to drink it? Think about it. The Coffee Plant exists because there is a dependence on it for stimulation of non-selves who also dependently originate with various other things.

 

I wonder whether it is okay to use he, she, it, who, they, them etc wrt non-selves?

Edited January 17, 2010 by dwai

[xabir2005]

If there is no controller, doer, that defies the very meaning of choice and decision. If choices are just "made," that is not a choice but just phenomena rolling on. Like clouds going by, like the rain falling, like the earth spinning.

A decision is just a concluding thought after a process of analysis and judging. The thought process of 'should I go this way, or that way'. After some analysis, it is decided that the best option is 'I should go that way'. It's just a process, no separate thinker is involved. It is just thoughts in rapid succession.

You didn't understand the context of "beyond me." Read my post over please. This has nothing to do with my ability to save the person or my psycho physical combination. It's just all happening, rolling on, ey?

Denying a controller, and a thinker in the manifestation of phenomena denies the very meaning of choice and free will.

There is no free will in the sense of a separate thinker or controller. However, there are choices and decisions to be made.

How do you not understand this? There is no good or bad in your paradigm. Things just happen as they are. You can't blame the rain for being good or bad, you can't blame the volcano from exploding. If unwholesome and wholesome happens they are neither wholesome or unwholesome just as the rain in not unwholesome or wholesome. Since no one is the controller of Karma and all those factors, you are nothing but a happenstance in the universe's continuation.

I don't talk about 'good' or 'bad', which is quite subjective. I use Buddha's definition which I think is much better, 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome'. For example, actions that cause suffering for oneself and others are 'unwholesome' and unskillful. Actions that brings joy to oneself and others are 'wholesome' and skillful. Wholesome karma leads to rebirth in higher realms, unwholesome karma leads to rebirth in lower realms. Just an example.

Decision implies a doer. That is the very concept of decision. If decision is just "made" that is not a decision. Same with intention. Hitler did not make any choices in your reality. The phenomena called "Hitler" just happened that way.

See above on decision. Edited January 17, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Marblehead]

Actually you are only partly making the coffee Marbles...

 

Yes. That is very true. Much had happened without my involvement before the ground beans came into my possession. After that though, I had the free will to throw the ground beans in the trash or eat them right out of the can or to run boiling water over them and create a wonderful cup of liquid to drink.

 

Same with the tea I am presently drinking.

 

Yeah, you go ahead and keep me on my toes. I shall do the same for you.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Just read this on someone's blog, and found it to be quite relevant here.

 

 

I AM THE ACTION OF THE UNIVERSE

 

The universe is universing and doing all acts.

 

Wherever and whenever it makes something of interest, and wants to then monitor

what is going on, it activates the black-box recording unit - you call this your mind

or your 'self'.

 

As the black-box unit sees and emotes all acts just after they happen and records

them, it thinks it is seeing and emoting in real-time, and associates with the actions,

sensations and the emotions, as if inseparably one with these displays.

 

Like the plane - it turns left, and the black-box has to record the event, and to do

so optimally, it has to simulate the action, as if it too is also turning left. This does not

mean that without the black box, the plane does not exist, or cannot turn left.

 

The black-box in a plane thinks it is flying the plane, just like you think you are acting

out your life. It is actually being acted out in total oneness, you are simply like a

monitoring unit fooling yourself that you are somehow in-charge of your directions.

 

When you come to realize that you are actually the actions of the universe and not

this monitoring unit recording every detail (in case you 'fail' there is a sort of back-up),

you will start to go beyond the scope of the senses. Rather than "I hear the rain, see

the wall", it becomes "I am the rain, the wall, the garden, the sun, the air, the earth,

the human, all acting in unison."

 

In a different thread, the writer says, "The eyes do not look. They simply absorb.

The mind is responsible for the 'looking'; its failure here is the splitting up of one

of the sensory inputs into value judgements - good and bad/evil, long and short,

dark and light and so on. All values are reflections. If you cling to the reflections,

you will miss the main event. These selective values exist due to the mind itself -

here lies the source of all illusions."

 

"Your empty mind is your full life; the impenetrable solid reality is the ungraspable mind!"

(T.T)

[Lucky7Strikes]

A decision is just a concluding thought after a process of analysis and judging. The thought process of 'should I go this way, or that way'. After some analysis, it is decided that the best option is 'I should go that way'. It's just a process, no separate thinker is involved. It is just thoughts in rapid succession.

There is no free will in the sense of a separate thinker or controller. However, there are choices and decisions to be made.

I don't talk about 'good' or 'bad', which is quite subjective. I use Buddha's definition which I think is much better, 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome'. For example, actions that cause suffering for oneself and others are 'unwholesome' and unskillful. Actions that brings joy to oneself and others are 'wholesome' and skillful. Wholesome karma leads to rebirth in higher realms, unwholesome karma leads to rebirth in lower realms. Just an example.

See above on decision.

 

Good. Hitler = the Buddha = Universe all acting out in your world. No decisions by anyone made. Just actions all rolling on. Everything just a process. Admit this. This is what your reality supposes.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it. Deny free will and this is how it is. Those wholesome and unwholesome actions are just like the rain falling, the sun shining. No controller. Just the way it is. If you deny a controller to the decision, you deny the very meaning of decision. An auto-pilot process is not a decision.

 

Just read this on someone's blog, and found it to be quite relevant here.

I AM THE ACTION OF THE UNIVERSE

 

The universe is universing and doing all acts.

 

So in your world too CowTao, I guess a ragning serial killer is on the same place as the saint next door. All just Universe doing acts.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Just read this on someone's blog, and found it to be quite relevant here.

I AM THE ACTION OF THE UNIVERSE

 

I partially agree but on one important aspect I strongly disagree.

 

I use the plane analogy.

 

As written above there is a suggestion that the plane is functioning on its own. This never happens in real life. Planes don't fly themselves.

 

There had to be a person who first wanted to go from point A to point B using the airplane. The pilot is not responding to the plane - the plane is responding to the pilot.

 

Regarding the left turn, the pilot wanted the plane to turn left. He gave the proper commands. The plane responded to the commands and turned left. Then, yes, as the plane was turning left the pilot (black box) recognized that the plane was responding properly and this brouhgt great happiness to the pilot. The plane didn't care less one way or another.

 

In the absence of an observer all events in the universe take place as a simple process of cause and effect. There are no observers so there is no one to care less what happens.

 

But, on this planet Earth, there are observers. Most of us seem to care about what happens. We have created values such as good and evil, right and wrong. It is the observer who gives meaning to what happens. Without the observer, nothing matters. But most of we observers want good instead of evil and we want right instead of wrong. Yes, these are imposed values. Imposed by the observer.

 

And these values matter because things matter to us. It is the rare person who can sit by and watch 'wrong' things happen and not take any action to put the wrong 'right'. Those people might just as well not be alive as they are not contributing anything to the development of the species.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

 

So in your world too CowTao, I guess a ragning serial killer is on the same place as the saint next door. All just Universe doing acts.

Not. First practice to attain the Buddha-mind of absolute equanimity, then exercise your free-will, not the other way round. If you cling to free-will first, and thru that practice attempt to attain Buddha-mind, then you will be faced with a ton of pressure, forever needing to discriminate how best to exercise this free-will. When the mind becomes spacious and free, all acts will spontaneously follow accordingly, in harmony with the understanding that all beings want to be free from sorrow and unhappiness. When this view is fully stabilized, only then can one act without being selective. The compassionate quality becomes pervasive. Without this quality first recognized and stabilized, how is it possible for your will to be free of partiality? Total free-will denotes unbounded freedom. Otherwise all wills and actions will still be tainted with the 3 poisons, arising from the clinging to a self that appears 'free' when in truth, it is not, by virtue that the 'self' is not 'self' as an independent entity, rather is dependent on composite factors to arise. Hence free-will can never be complete in this sense. To have unbounded free-will, there need to be an equal dose of impartial and pervasive equanimity, imo, and to achieve this, one has to first do the practices.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not. First practice to attain the Buddha-mind of absolute equanimity, then exercise your free-will, not the other way round. If you cling to free-will first, and thru that practice attempt to attain Buddha-mind, then you will be faced with a ton of pressure, forever needing to discriminate how best to exercise this free-will. When the mind becomes spacious and free, all acts will spontaneously follow accordingly, in harmony with the understanding that all beings want to be free from sorrow and unhappiness. When this view is fully stabilized, only then can one act without being selective. The compassionate quality becomes pervasive. Without this quality first recognized and stabilized, how is it possible for your will to be free of partiality? Total free-will denotes unbounded freedom. Otherwise all wills and actions will still be tainted with the 3 poisons, arising from the clinging to a self that appears 'free' when in truth, it is not, by virtue that the 'self' is not 'self' as an independent entity, rather is dependent on composite factors to arise. Hence free-will can never be complete in this sense. To have unbounded free-will, there need to be an equal dose of impartial and pervasive equanimity, imo, and to achieve this, one has to first do the practices.

 

This has nothing to do with clinging to free will or not, equaniminity or partiality. Rather it's about whether free will exists. You can't not have free will then suddenly have free will. That makes no sense.

[xabir2005]

Good. Hitler = the Buddha = Universe all acting out in your world. No decisions by anyone made. Just actions all rolling on. Everything just a process. Admit this. This is what your reality supposes.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it. Deny free will and this is how it is. Those wholesome and unwholesome actions are just like the rain falling, the sun shining. No controller. Just the way it is. If you deny a controller to the decision, you deny the very meaning of decision. An auto-pilot process is not a decision.

I don't see why a decision needs a controller. Decision is simply a thought arising.

 

Notice that the dictionary itself states it is a 'process':

 

1. the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment: They must make a decision between these two contestants.

 

Decision arise after a thought process.

 

Unwholesome and wholesome acts are all influenced by intentions, decisions, imprints, and so on. But is no doer apart from the act/acting, the intention/intending, decision/deciding, etc.

 

There is no decider, but there is decisions.

Edited January 19, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't see why a decision needs a controller. Decision is simply a thought arising.

 

Notice that the dictionary itself states it is a 'process':

 

1. the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment: They must make a decision between these two contestants.

 

Decision arise after a thought process.

 

Unwholesome and wholesome acts are all influenced by intentions, decisions, imprints, and so on. But is no doer apart from the act/acting, the intention/intending, decision/deciding, etc.

 

There is no decider, but there is decisions.

 

Let's look at the "process" of deciding. We must look into the very usage of the word that conveys a specific meaning, and not the word itself.

 

Decision implies a choice to be made between alternatives by a conscious agent. Why? Now if there is no one behind the decision to control the outcome, that isn't really a "choice," but rather an outcome of established cause and effect. For example, we can't say that the rain "decided" or was in the "process" of deciding to rain on a certain day. Yes, there were possible alternatives that unit of H2O could have taken, such as remain in its cloud form, or become snow, etc, but we can't really call those alternatives, because the laws of the environment has already governed how the rain was going to fall. So the concept of the rain deciding anything becomes silly. The words "choice and decision" are always used to in this manner with the premise of an agent having viable alternatives, to challenge established causes and effects by his/her own perspective and free will. Denying free will, but validating "choice" by saying, oh but choices are simply made without anyone choosing, defeats the very purpose of that word's usage.

 

In your paradigm we can't blame the sinner as we can't blame the mountain, and we can't praise the Buddha as we can't praise concrete. Everything arising and passing away, rolling on of the universe.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Let's look at the "process" of deciding. We must look into the very usage of the word that conveys a specific meaning, and not the word itself.

 

Decision implies a choice to be made between alternatives by a conscious agent. Why? Now if there is no one behind the decision to control the outcome, that isn't really a "choice," but rather an outcome of established cause and effect. For example, we can't say that the rain "decided" or was in the "process" of deciding to rain on a certain day. Yes, there were possible alternatives that unit of H2O could have taken, such as remain in its cloud form, or become snow, etc, but we can't really call those alternatives, because the laws of the environment has already governed how the rain was going to fall. So the concept of the rain deciding anything becomes silly. The words "choice and decision" are always used to in this manner with the premise of an agent having viable alternatives, to challenge established causes and effects by his/her own perspective and free will. Denying free will, but validating "choice" by saying, oh but choices are simply made without anyone choosing, defeats the very purpose of that word's usage.

 

In your paradigm we can't blame the sinner as we can't blame the mountain, and we can't praise the Buddha as we can't praise concrete. Everything arising and passing away, rolling on of the universe.

There is no decider apart from the whole process of deciding. It's thoughts succeeding thoughts, followed by actions. However the intention, decision, isn't a thinker. But it becomes a condition for an action. Nothing is random, happening by chance, nor determined. Hence there is no control, but actions are influenced by intentions and imprints. As for comparing to rain and cloud: the difference is that rain and cloud are physical phenomena and no volition are necessarily or immediately involved to cause the occurence of rain, snow, etc, though recently the influence of human greed and volition has made a huge impact and caused global warming and will cause countless future natural disasters. This is an example of how volition of human can actually serve to condition and influence even the natural cycles of the environment, and that we are as a whole totally interdependent with everything else of the entire universe. Everything arises according to conditions, but human will and volition can also be part of the factor. This is a case of how even natural processes like weather are actually not 'pre determined' but arises according to condition, subject to influences that can be changed.

 

There is no point in blaming somebody but you can transform them out of compassion which as Bodhisattvas that's what you do. As for praising: that's certainly worthy of doing. Buddha himself sometimes praised his students for their qualities. Even though we aren't praising a fixed autonomous entity, it is not necessary for there to be a fixed self to praise that person. The qualities though are not an inherent 'selfness' of that person, is a trait/characteristic of his mindstream process. The mindstream though impermanent and without self, is still the continuity of the same process/mindstream, and cannot at any time suddenly become another mindstream. I (my psycho physical combination) cannot suddenly switch into you and so on. And it is taught that this process actually continues from lifetime to lifetime according to karma, until you attain enlightenment and become freed from uncontrolled rebirth.

 

As Ajahn Jagaro said:

 

The Buddha's teaching is that there is an individuality in this process. The individuality of the process is there, the continuity of the mind and body in this life, conventionally speaking. You are the mind and the body process and there is a continuity and an individuality of the process. It's your mind and body and not my mind and body which continues from birth to death in this life. But there is the same continuity and individuality into the next life. You don't get cross wires. Your stream of mind and body does not get mixed up with my stream of mind and body. My state of mind and body does not get mixed up in what is in your account and vice versa. It stays in each person's account. There is a continuity in this stream of mind and body and this is the law of kamma. The individuality is there but there is no individual in it. So what you do now will bring about results down the road.

Edited January 19, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Rupert Spira:

 

...And if there is no separate independent Consciousness, how can there be a separate, independent thinker, chooser, doer, enjoyer, experiencer?

 

Our experience is one of the stream of appearances in Consciousness. These events are thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions, one following another... A, B, C, D, E... Each is utterly unique and each disappears absolutely before the next arises.

 

Imagine a series of events as follows:

 

Event A is the hearing of rain. Event B is the thinking, "Let's have some tea." Event C is the tasting of tea. Event D is the feeling of satisfaction. Event E is the perceiving of traffic. Event F is the thought that 'I' didn't cause the rain but heard it, that 'I' choose to have tea and enjoyed it, that 'I' perceived the traffic but did not create it, and finally, that 'I' remained over after all these experiences had vanished.

 

The 'I' in this stream of events is itself simply another appearance just like all the rest. The 'I' is the thought 'I'...

Edited January 19, 2010 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no decider apart from the whole process of deciding. It's thoughts succeeding thoughts, followed by actions. However the intention, decision, isn't a thinker. But it becomes a condition for an action.

Then that's not a decision. It's just a rolling of events and actions.

 

Nothing is random, happening by chance, nor determined. Hence there is no control, but actions are influenced by intentions and imprints.

Your usage of the word "hence" is out of place here. It makes no sense to drive a causal relationship from "nothing is random" to "there is no control" I'm just pointing out how messed up your logic is all the way through. The "but" in the second sentence is a blatant contradiction, if there is no controller, then there is also no one who has intention. The two cannot be used together, it's like saying rabbits are all white, but they are all blue also.

 

As for comparing to rain and cloud: the difference is that rain and cloud are physical phenomena and no volition are necessarily or immediately involved to cause the occurence of rain, snow, etc, though recently the influence of human greed and volition has made a huge impact and caused global warming and will cause countless future natural disasters. This is an example of how volition of human can actually serve to condition and influence even the natural cycles of the environment, and that we are as a whole totally interdependent with everything else of the entire universe. Everything arises according to conditions, but human will and volition can also be part of the factor. This is a case of how even natural processes like weather are actually not 'pre determined' but arises according to condition, subject to influences that can be changed.

You denied volition, also known as free will. You said that we are the universe.

 

First off, you need to look into what "pre determined" means. Pre determined does not mean that there is a greater God making things happen (as your paranoia often seems to center around), it simply means that causes and conditions are established in objectivity so that no one can be exempt from it. For example, if we take the universe to have objective laws and that the human psyche is also limited to a set of chemical conditions, one can theoretically deduce every event and choice by factoring in all the established causes and events from the past. There is also no free will in this paradigm.

 

There is no point in blaming somebody but you can transform them out of compassion which as Bodhisattvas that's what you do. As for praising: that's certainly worthy of doing. Buddha himself sometimes praised his students for their qualities. Even though we aren't praising a fixed autonomous entity, it is not necessary for there to be a fixed self to praise that person. The qualities though are not an inherent 'selfness' of that person, is a trait/characteristic of his mindstream process. The mindstream though impermanent and without self, is still the continuity of the same process/mindstream, and cannot at any time suddenly become another mindstream. I (my psycho physical combination) cannot suddenly switch into you and so on. And it is taught that this process actually continues from lifetime to lifetime according to karma, until you attain enlightenment and become freed from uncontrolled rebirth.

 

No you see, you are being inconsistent with your ideology.

 

By the way, you completely missed the point of that example. I didn't write it for you to consider the purpose of blaming or praising someone, but the disappearance of values with the extinction of a true choice or a self.

 

In the context of your explanation above, an isolated mindstream is a self. Purely by definition, because it is clearly distinguished from another element (other mindstreams), and uncaused by them, it is itself. But again we run into an inconsistency, since you have equated consciousness with phenomena, and phenomena is by nature impermanent, we can't have impermanent factors create a permanent continuation. It also makes no sense to say that there is the individualization of "no self hood." If phenomena has no self and is the arising of disjointed appearances as consciousness, there is no continuation found in the universal manifestation of that very event. It is simply arising and vanishing like the wind blowing by.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The notion that 'You', the indiviual, do not choose is without any pragmatic basis.. it is the domain of incompetence at the art of Living being masked as wisdom or Sagehood.. it is conceptual folly to 'Choose' to believe that you don't 'Choose'.. You are not a meat-puppet of the Universe, you are tasked with Living Well.. freely choosing your way, and in doing so demonstrating the nature of Consciousness to itself.. You ARE Consciousness, in the same way a raindrop is separate from the ocean, and.. both are the same 'Water'.. the Human experience is defined by its freewill, there is no other meaning.. the denial of freewill is no more than the fear of its responsibility..

 

Be well..

[dwai]

Greetings..

 

The notion that 'You', the indiviual, do not choose is without any pragmatic basis.. it is the domain of incompetence at the art of Living being masked as wisdom or Sagehood.. it is conceptual folly to 'Choose' to believe that you don't 'Choose'.. You are not a meat-puppet of the Universe, you are tasked with Living Well.. freely choosing your way, and in doing so demonstrating the nature of Consciousness to itself.. You ARE Consciousness, in the same way a raindrop is separate from the ocean, and.. both are the same 'Water'.. the Human experience is defined by its freewill, there is no other meaning.. the denial of freewill is no more than the fear of its responsibility..

 

Be well..

 

Brilliant! Such a poignant characterization...so simple yet so powerful! Kudos...

[Lucky7Strikes]

Brilliant! Such a poignant characterization...so simple yet so powerful! Kudos...

 

WHOA! DWAI WE AGREE!

 

That was a great a post.