Ruthless Truth

[Informer]

"There is no you... investigate is this true? In direct experience. In seeing... there is just the seen, no seer. Is this true? etc... (you can do it with anything)"

 

No this does not seem to be true. If it were true, how would I know it?

 

(this is your que to jump in start making insults and ask me the same question again with adding in look and focus)

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Otis]

How do you explain then the Taoists basically talking of an oscillating universe, (expansion and contraction of the universe) centuries before Albert Einstein?

 

Believe it or not, it is possible through meditation, to verify and know things. Do you currently have a meditation schedule? It is through deep states of meditative absorption that you can verify for yourself, the nature of yourself and the universe.

I've never said that we cannot have a fuller view of the world, through meditation and quiet reflection. That is very different than "knowledge of the actual". A big part of why meditation reveals more, is that during it, we let go of beliefs, in order to escape, temporarily, the boundaries that those beliefs make. But we shouldn't then turn around and make the mistake, of bringing the contents of those meditation experiences, and turning them into beliefs, because that's just creating more clutter and disinformation, which is precisely what we're trying to wake up from.

 

Meditation is not a way of gaining true knowledge, but a way of letting go of the internal prisms (beliefs) which obscure our view. It is precisely surrender of the concept of knowledge, which opens our eyes to possibility. "I don't know" is precisely the path to freedom; "I know" is the path to delusion.

 

Look around at the world. Of the people who disagree with you, don't the ones who act the most certain, seem the most deluded? So, consider their point of view: to them, the more certain you are, the more deluded you appear. So what differentiates you from them? Is it that you are "right"? Oh, no, because that's just certainty, which is the sign of delusion.

[xabir2005]

"There is no you... investigate is this true? In direct experience. In seeing... there is just the seen, no seer. Is this true? etc... (you can do it with anything)"

 

No this does not seem to be true. If it were true, how would I know it?

 

(this is your que to jump in start making insults and ask me the same question again with adding in look and focus)

lol yeah. You probably won't realize it so fast.

 

Truthfully, it took me years to see that. It can be faster for others. But you really need to investigate it... it does take effort and diligence and doesn't 'come cheap'... it is not an immediate thing. If it were that easy, I don't see why everyone in the world is not enlightened by now.

 

 

You think a self exist. Now, apart from that thought "I exist", can you find the self? You may say, I feel like I am... that is a feeling, a mental construct.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I've never said that we cannot have a fuller view of the world, through meditation and quiet reflection. That is very different than "knowledge of the actual". A big part of why meditation reveals more, is that during it, we let go of beliefs, in order to escape, temporarily, the boundaries that those beliefs make. But we shouldn't then turn around and make the mistake, of bringing the contents of those meditation experiences, and turning them into beliefs, because that's just creating more clutter and disinformation, which is precisely what we're trying to wake up from.

 

Meditation is not a way of gaining true knowledge, but a way of letting go of the internal prisms (beliefs) which obscure our view. It is precisely surrender of the concept of knowledge, which opens our eyes to possibility. "I don't know" is precisely the path to freedom; "I know" is the path to delusion.

 

Look around at the world. Of the people who disagree with you, don't the ones who act the most certain, seem the most deluded? So, consider their point of view: to them, the more certain you are, the more deluded you appear. So what differentiates you from them? Is it that you are "right"? Oh, no, because that's just certainty, which is the sign of delusion.

There is a big difference between "Experience" and "realization".

 

Experiencing the dissolving of self in samadhi is merely an experience. Experiencing the merging of self with environment is merely an experience.

 

Realizing that there never was separation, there never was a self... is vastly different. At that point, non-dual becomes seamless because you realize there never was separation to begin with.

 

(non-dual is still not seeing there is no self, but is getting closer)

 

Insight/realization: seeing what is always already the case, for example in the realization of no-self/anatta, you realize that in seeing there is always only the seen, no seer. You realize that seeing IS the seen, the experience of scenery only, no seer stands apart. And this is not an experience, this is the nature of reality, what has always been so.

 

D.O. is likewise...

 

Realization of the nature of reality is NOT a meditation experience... it is an insight, a knowledge and vision of the way things are. Experience doesn't liberate... realization does (it liberates you from the view of duality and inherency, the latent tendencies at viewing reality distortedly which always affect our daily life experience)

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

lol yeah. You probably won't realize it so fast.

 

Truthfully, it took me years to see that. It can be faster for others. But you really need to investigate it... it is not an immediate thing. If it were that easy, I don't see why everyone in the world is not enlightened by now.

 

 

You think a self exist. Now, apart from that thought "I exist", can you find the self? You may say, I feel like I am... that is a feeling, a mental construct.

 

Umm, but how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter?

 

So what is being investigated? the root of I? It is a spirit that is a concentration of energy. Can I see it? No, for that would require conjuring a mirror inside inside of the head,(if it even has a reflection) which would interfere with normal brain functionality. So If I can't see it, then can It be heard? Maybe!

Can It be felt? Definitely!

[Informer]

Let's see if I can open up my third eye and convince it to look at itself.

 

Nope, pretty impossible.

[xabir2005]

Umm, but how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter?

 

So what is being investigated? the root of I? It is a spirit that is a concentration of energy. Can I see it? No, for that would require conjuring a mirror inside inside of the head,(if it even has a reflection) which would interfere with normal brain functionality. So If I can't see it, then can It be heard? Maybe!

Can It be felt? Definitely!

Usually we perceive the world in this way:

 

Seer.... sees... the seen/world/scenery.

 

Hearer... hears... the sound/music/etc.

 

But in seeing the world, there is just the seen, the seeing IS the scenery... seeing is occuring. In direct experience, isn't this the case?

 

You think, "no, I heard it."

 

But "I heard it" is an after-thought to the actual experience of hearing.

 

Furthermore, the sense of 'me' in here... hearing that... is a conjured mental construct. A thought cannot hear. A feeling cannot hear. It isn't what is actually doing the hearing. It isn't the actuality of the hearing. The hearing is simply occurring. Perceiver, inside, outside... are all conjured. The actuality of hearing sound is not related with all these mental conjurations - the actuality of hearing sound is not inside, outside, there is just the hearing sound 'brrr' without a 'you' in relation to that.

 

That sense of 'I' does not refer to an actual entity - it is just a thought.

 

The sense of an observer hearing is a conjured mental fabrication... hearing is just 'brrrrr' (when the aircon blows)

 

Hearing is just the sound!

 

You may be thinking an unobservable observer is hearing it... but that is actually not what is going on. Hearing is the 'brrrr'... it has nothing to do with a hearer.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

D.O. is theory for you, not me. It is also not theory for the Buddha as the Buddha already stated he is free from theories and clearly know the causes and conditions for body, mind, etc (in other words: he clearly realize D.O. in direct experience).

 

I am saying this not again to say "I see it, believe me" but I am saying this to let you know that it is entirely possible to see it for yourself, to experience it for yourself. Don't stop at theories or beliefs.

Fundamentalists require you to believe them and there is no way you can know for certain.

 

I am saying, what I, Buddha, and countless practitioners proclaimed by direct experience, can be directly realized, and experienced. We don't need your belief, just your open mindedness to deeply consider this, to see and experience this for yourself.

 

Just like scientists.

 

I am not saying faith is no good either.

 

If you can have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well great if it inspires you, but don't stop there. Investigate, see for yourself. That's what truly matters.

 

If you don't have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well, that's ok, but at least be open-minded would you? And do the experiment, see for yourself.

When you say that you and Buddha have had the same or similar experience, how would you know?

 

When you say that it is possible to "see for yourself", how do you know that is not just your desire, wanting to believe something that allows you to be "in the know"? How do you know that you are not just trying to make yourself important?

 

Why do you think that somehow you have arisen beyond delusion, when certainty is so highly correlated with delusion? What makes you so special?

 

You believe in ruthless truth, ruthlessly saying "I do not exist". But you apparently do not believe in ruthlessly saying "I cannot know". Don't you see that the latter statement is more true, and more important on the path, than the former? What else is "no self" good for, except to realize that the "self" is just a cluster of habits (some of which we call beliefs, and some of those which we call knowledge)? Surrendering "self" is not about telling yourself a story that "self" is not true. Surrendering self is precisely getting rid of certainty.

[Informer]

I said it was heard . . .

 

Enough of your cherry picking, answer my questions.

 

how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter?

[Informer]

How can anything be observed if there is not an observer?

 

How do you manage to make the subject (I) veiw the object (I) which is already the subject? You want me to use objective tools to judge something that is subjective? Why wouldn't I use the subjective tools which would be much more relevant?

 

Like feeling, which is in the same realm as I.

[xabir2005]

When you say that you and Buddha have had the same or similar experience, how would you know?

 

When you say that it is possible to "see for yourself", how do you know that is not just your desire, wanting to believe something that allows you to be "in the know"? How do you know that you are not just trying to make yourself important?

 

Why do you think that somehow you have arisen beyond delusion, when certainty is so highly correlated with delusion? What makes you so special?

 

You believe in ruthless truth, ruthlessly saying "I do not exist". But you apparently do not believe in ruthlessly saying "I cannot know". Don't you see that the latter statement is more true, and more important on the path, than the former? What else is "no self" good for, except to realize that the "self" is just a cluster of habits (some of which we call beliefs, and some of those which we call knowledge)? Surrendering "self" is not about telling yourself a story that "self" is not true. Surrendering self is precisely getting rid of certainty.

I don't "believe in" ruthless truth. I already know for a fact, before visting Ruthless Truth site, that there is no you.

 

And I have said many times it is not "I do not exist" or "I exist" but "there is no I that could exist or not exist". There is a difference there. If you say I don't exist, you presume that there is an I that could be pinned down as a reality... as existence and non-existence only apply in reference to real entities.

 

The realization that there is no you... is a direct, experiential seeing that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer. In hearing there is just the heard, no hearer. Hearing, seeing, awareness is just the object of perception. There is nothing behind experience. And there is nothing perceiving experience.

 

The experience 'perceives'. The perceiving perceives. The process perceives... there is no knower.

 

This has nothing to do with a story nor an experience nor a belief... this has to do with the permanent ending of the illusion of self, and everything effortless presenting itself without the notion, view, and sense of a self-agent, or any sense of separation at all.

 

This is deeply experiential also as there is nothing more experiential and direct than "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard".

 

Every moment, ordinary sights and sounds reveal themselves in utter intimacy, wonder, delight.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I said it was heard . . .

 

Enough of your cherry picking, answer my questions.

 

how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter?

It is not "I" knows, but a direct seeing into the fact and nature of reality... this seeing does not require an "I".

 

But ok I get what you're asking...

 

This is seen for me, due to contemplation as per Buddha's instructions in Bahiya Sutta.

 

There is in seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer.

 

The seeing is the experience of scenery, the hearing is just the experience of music. The process itself knows.

 

Any sense of a hearer, inside, outside, is an after-thought imputed due to latent tendencies and dualistic views upon direct experience.

 

That sense of self is a mere mental construct, a thought, that bears no resemblance to actuality. A thought that refers not to an actual entity/self, but only a thought.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

There is a big difference between "Experience" and "realization".

 

Experiencing the dissolving of self in samadhi is merely an experience. Experiencing the merging of self with environment is merely an experience.

 

Realizing that there never was separation, there never was a self... is vastly different. At that point, non-dual becomes seamless because you realize there never was separation to begin with.

Agreed, this is different. It is at this point that you have moved into delusion. Once you turn it into a concept, then it is false. "No separation" is merely a story, a metaphor, not the truth. It is the finger pointing, not the moon.

 

(non-dual is still not seeing there is no self, but is getting closer)

 

Insight/realization: seeing what is always already the case, for example in the realization of no-self/anatta, you realize that in seeing there is always only the seen, no seer. You realize that seeing IS the seen, the experience of scenery only, no seer stands apart. And this is not an experience, this is the nature of reality, what has always been so.

I disagree. This is a good story, that helps relieve the stress of worrying about the self. But no-self is also not the truth.

 

The story I would use is: seeing is a function of my brain, but the function does not equal a self. The perception is a function, but not a self. Etc. Put all the functions together, and we're describing something much closer to the actual Self (i.e. the body), but the "true nature" of that self always remains unknowable.

 

My story, I think, fits the evidence a lot better than "no self" does. But it doesn't mean that either is true. They are both just working models, useful tools for framing experience and thoughts. None of it is truth.

 

D.O. is likewise...

 

Realization of the nature of reality is NOT a meditation experience... it is an insight, a knowledge and vision of the way things are. Experience doesn't liberate... realization does (it liberates you from the view of duality and inherency, the latent tendencies at viewing reality distortedly which always affect our daily life experience).

What differentiates "realization of the nature of reality" from unicorns? They both seem mythical to me. You keep mentioning this power of realization you have, but you have not stated why you think that you are not deluded.

[Informer]

I don't "believe in" ruthless truth. I already know for a fact, before visting Ruthless Truth site, that there is no you.

 

And I have said many times it is not "I do not exist" or "I exist" but "there is no I that could exist or not exist".

 

The realization that there is no you... is a direct, experiential seeing that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer. In hearing there is just the heard, no hearer. Hearing, seeing, awareness is just the object of perception. There is nothing behind experience. And there is nothing perceiving experience.

 

The experience 'perceives'. The perceiving perceives. The process perceives... there is no knower.

 

This has nothing to do with a story nor an experience nor a belief... this has to do with the permanent ending of the illusion of self, and everything effortless presenting itself without the notion, view, and sense of a self-agent, or any sense of separation at all.

 

This is deeply experiential also as there is nothing more experiential and direct than "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard".

 

Every moment, ordinary sights and sounds reveal themselves in utter intimacy, wonder, delight.

 

 

Again with the lies, then why are you promoting ruthless truth and their methods?

 

Make a post on there (RT) stating what you just said.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Informer

[Otis]

I don't "believe in" ruthless truth. I already know for a fact, before visting Ruthless Truth site, that there is no you.

 

And I have said many times it is not "I do not exist" or "I exist" but "there is no I that could exist or not exist".

 

The realization that there is no you... is a direct, experiential seeing that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer. In hearing there is just the heard, no hearer. Hearing, seeing, awareness is just the object of perception. There is nothing behind experience. And there is nothing perceiving experience.

 

The experience 'perceives'. The perceiving perceives. The process perceives... there is no knower.

 

This has nothing to do with a story nor an experience nor a belief... this has to do with the permanent ending of the illusion of self, and everything effortless presenting itself without the notion, view, and sense of a self-agent, or any sense of separation at all.

 

This is deeply experiential also as there is nothing more experiential and direct than "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard".

 

Every moment, ordinary sights and sounds reveal themselves in utter intimacy, wonder, delight.

You "know for a fact"? Do you? Really?

 

Why is it that your realization = fact? What can possibly substantiate your certainty? What measuring stick of reality do you have, other than the belief system that you already subscribe to?

 

There are alternate ways of looking at "self/no-self". I've presented one of them on this thread, already. So just because "there is hearing, no hearer" does not mean that "no self" is true. It is not a necessary inescapable conclusion, and only a lack of imagination will say that "it must be so".

 

You have not made any sense on this thread, yet. You have merely stated other people's metaphors like "hearing, no hearer" and D.O. But these are not facts, either. They are just something you believe. Other people's stories are neither proof nor facts. Nor is the fact that these stories make a great deal of sense to you, therefore make them true.

 

Justify your vaulted position of insight, or stop relying on it as authority.

[xabir2005]

Agreed, this is different. It is at this point that you have moved into delusion. Once you turn it into a concept, then it is false. "No separation" is merely a story, a metaphor, not the truth. It is the finger pointing, not the moon.

 

 

I disagree. This is a good story, that helps relieve the stress of worrying about the self. But no-self is also not the truth.

 

The story I would use is: seeing is a function of my brain, but the function does not equal a self. The perception is a function, but not a self. Etc. Put all the functions together, and we're describing something much closer to the actual Self (i.e. the body), but the "true nature" of that self always remains unknowable.

 

My story, I think, fits the evidence a lot better than "no self" does. But it doesn't mean that either is true. They are both just working models, useful tools for framing experience and thoughts. None of it is truth.

 

 

What differentiates "realization of the nature of reality" from unicorns? They both seem mythical to me. You keep mentioning this power of realization you have, but you have not stated why you think that you are not deluded.

The truth is this:

 

Seeing happens. Hearing happens.

 

Experience of music... experience of scenery...

 

Why truth? Because it is undeniable with or without thought, conceptualization, inference. It is CLEARLY, VIVIDLY manifest. If you deny direct experience, then you are deluded beyond hope. lol

 

 

The delusion is this:

 

A seer sees scenery. A hearer hears music. Mind imputes entities that cannot be found into the picture.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Irretrievable

[xabir2005]

You "know for a fact"? Do you? Really?

 

Why is it that your realization = fact? What can possibly substantiate your certainty? What measuring stick of reality do you have, other than the belief system that you already subscribe to?

 

There are alternate ways of looking at "self/no-self". I've presented one of them on this thread, already. So just because "there is hearing, no hearer" does not mean that "no self" is true. It is not a necessary inescapable conclusion, and only a lack of imagination will say that "it must be so".

 

You have not made any sense on this thread, yet. You have merely stated other people's metaphors like "hearing, no hearer" and D.O. But these are not facts, either. They are just something you believe. Other people's stories are neither proof nor facts. Nor is the fact that these stories make a great deal of sense to you, therefore make them true.

 

Justify your vaulted position of insight, or stop relying on it as authority.

These are facts that can be realized and experienced, and I am not speaking from belief.

 

It is a fact that in seeing there is just the seen.

 

It is a delusion that there is a seer seeing seen - it is an afterthought pasted upon reality. There is no actual seer that can be found - but the experience of seeing is undeniable.

[Otis]

The seeing is the experience of scenery, the hearing is just the experience of music. The process itself knows.

 

Any sense of a hearer, inside, outside, is an after-thought imputed due to latent tendencies and dualistic views upon direct experience.

 

That sense of self is a mere mental construct, a thought, that bears no resemblance to actuality. A thought that refers not to an actual entity/self, but only a thought.

This is good. I agree with all of this.

 

But it is not truth. It is not a fact. It is not "actual reality". It is merely a good explanation.

 

There is a huge gulf between the "truth" and "good explanations", and we confuse them, at our own peril.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Otis

[xabir2005]

Chandrakirti's sevenfold inquiry.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Greg%20Goode

 

 

The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons

Personal things often rivet our attention while impersonal things are hardly noticed. The conception of inherent existence of persons (such as one's self) causes more suffering and is harder to remove than the conception of inherent existence of non-personal phenomena such as cars and trees. According to Middle Way Buddhism, both kinds of conceptions must be refuted in order to end the ignorance that causes suffering and cyclical existence. The conception of the inherent existence of phenomena is the root of the conception of the inherent existence of persons. This is because the senses perceive phenomena such as shapes, sounds, colors, textures, etc. The mind, if it considers the final nature of these phenomena, considers them to be inherently existent. For some phenomena, perhaps the shape of an arm, a hand, or a face, or the sound of a voice, the mind attributes the entity of person. For the mind that considers the final nature of this person, the person is considered to be inherently existent. In Middle Way teachings, it is said that without realizing the selflessness of persons, it is not possible to realize the selflessness of phenomena.[2] So the meditative reasonings are done first on persons. Even so, it is often recommended to beginners to familiarize themselves with the reasonings by using the example of a car, or chariot, as in Chandrakirti’s example.

 

(Back to top)

 

We will simply list the seven steps for these phenomena, and then examine the reasonings in terms of persons.

 

The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena:

 

The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena:

 

 

1. The car is not inherently the same as its parts.

 

2. The car is not inherently different from its parts.

 

3. The car is not inherently dependent upon its parts.

 

4. The car is not inherently the substratum upon which its parts depend.

 

5. The car is not inherently the possessor of its parts.

 

6. The car is not inherently the mere collection of its parts.

 

7. The car is not inherently the shape of its parts.

 

The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons:

 

The reasonings on the selflessness of persons try to find the true person. They search by trying to isolate the inherent existence of the person in relation to the parts the body/mind. For purposes of one's meditation, the parts of the body/mind include everything related to what one thinks of as one's self. It can be any physical, mental, moral or psychological phenomenon whatsoever. We might think of ourselves as a body, a mind, set of memories, or a collection of character values, or something that essentially includes all of these. The reasonings go like this. With a firm sense of this inherent existence in mind, we try to isolate it – is the inherent existence of the self exactly the same as the parts of the body/mind? Is it different from the parts? These first two steps of the Sevenfold Reasoning logically cover all the bases. The self is either inherently the same as, or different from, the parts. The other steps of the reasonings are valuable to go into because they keep the meditation from being purely an intellectual exercise. We might, for example, truly feel that the self owns the body/mind. This is the conception to get at, even though it is logically entailed by the self being different from the body/mind. Once all the reasonings are gone through in depth and the inherent existence of the self is not found anywhere, this can upset one's conception of the way things are. At first it is disorienting and perhaps scary. Later, it can be the source of great joy.

 

 

1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind.

 

2. The self is not different from the parts of the body/mind.

 

3. The self is not dependent upon the parts of the body/mind.

 

4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend.

 

5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind.

 

6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind.

 

7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind.

 

 

(Back to top)

 

Taking these one at a time,

 

1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind. If we understand the parts as various groups of physical, mental, and psychological factors, we ask: Is the self equal to these things? Is it equal to them individually? If it is, then certain counterintuitive results apply. The self would be equal to each body part or each thought individually. The self would be many just as the parts are many. But we don't think of the self as many, so it cannot be found in all the parts taken individually. How about the parts taken as a whole? This is also not what we think of when we conceive of the inherent existence of the self. If the self is equal to the parts and the self is single, then the parts must be one single entity. This is clearly not the case. Also, if the self is equal to all the parts, then we could never get our hair cut, or lose a finger or gain a new thought. For that newly missing or added element changes the overall parts. If the self is equal to all the parts, this new addition or deletion would mean that we have a new self. But our strong intuition is clearly that the self can undergo change. So the self cannot be equal to all the parts. It is not just that we have not looked hard enough. We have looked at the possibility of the self being the parts. In the parts we have found the lack of inherent existence of the self. It cannot be there.

 

(Back to top)

 

2. The self is not inherently different from the parts of the body/mind. If the self were inherently different from its parts, then too odd things result. You would be able to apprehend the self somehow in total isolation from the parts. Conceptually, you would be able to strip away the elements of the body/mind until none are left but nevertheless still be able to point to the self. You would have to still be able to distinguish this partless self from someone else's self. Where would this partless self be? It must be able to have a different location from the body. As they might say in Missouri, “Show me that self with no parts.” The self would be one thing and the parts would be a totally separate thing. So the self is not inherently different from the parts of the body/mind.

 

3. The self is not inherently dependent upon the parts of the body/mind. Is the self inherently dependent upon the parts? Sometimes we think so. Sometimes the self appears as something above and beyond the parts, but somehow supported or buoyed up by the parts. This relation of dependence is another case of (2) above, the self being a different entity from the parts, which has been refuted. If the self is dependent on the parts, it must be different from the parts. Why is dependence given as a separate meditation in addition to mere difference? So we can gain insight on the falsity of the sense we often have that dependence on the body/mind is a special way that the self truly exists. It is almost as though the sense of inherent existence is hiding out in the sense we have of dependence.

 

Besides the problem that dependence entails difference, which was refuted, there is another problem with dependence. That is, what is the link between the self in question and this particular set of parts such that this self is dependent upon the parts? Why isn't another self dependent upon the parts? Conversely, why is the self in question dependent on these particular parts and not my next-door neighbor's parts? Two more odd consequences follow if there were inherent existence of the self in dependence on the parts. (a) The self related to these parts… What makes that self my self? This supposedly inherently existent self fails to satisfy the criteria that would make it my self. I would need another self to bind the parts and the self together under the auspices of "mine," but this second self does not exist. Even if it did, there would need to be yet another self to make that one mine, and so on ad infinitum. And (, why is there not more than one self dependent upon the same set of parts? Why not? This is consistent with the conditions given. Since this self is totally different from the parts, I cannot see this self; other selves can be supported by the same parts. These are all natural conclusions if there is a self different from the parts that is inherently dependent upon the parts. In a search for the inherently existent self which depends on the parts of the body/mind, this self has proved unfindable.

 

(Back to top)

 

4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend. Do the parts inherently depend upon the self, which serves as their substratum? This is another case of the refuted alternative (2) above, the self being inherently different from the parts. And it is similar to alternative (3) above, with the dependence running in the opposite direction. Similar consequences occur with this alternative.

 

"Why these parts? Why this particular self? Show it to me in isolation from the parts. No! Not that one over there, this self!"

 

In addition, since we are looking for the substratum in this case, trying to isolate it as the inherently existent self, it is especially instructive to meditate on this? Can more than one substratum support the same set of parts? Either simultaneously or in succession over time? Assume for the moment a relation of an inherently existing self as the substratum of the parts of the body/mind. Is it the same at time T1 as at time T2? Going by the reasoning of case (4), there is no reason it cannot be a different self and no proof that it is the same self. But if it is different, then we have the absurd conclusion that the same body/mind is supported by two selves over time. Then, I would be an inherently different self at T2 than I am at T1. And if the body can depend on two selves simultaneously, then I am different from myself even now! Therefore, the inherent existence of the self cannot lie in its being the substratum on which the parts of the body/mind depend.

 

 

(Back to top)

 

5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind. This is yet another case of (2), the self being different from the parts, as well as a bit of (1), where the self is the same entity as the parts. But it is very fruitful to go though this meditation completely on its own, since we have often have a strong conception that the self possesses the parts of the body/mind. This alternative deserves its own meditative refutation.

 

Perhaps the self possesses its parts in the way that I possess my hand. This would be a case in which I am the same entity as my hand (as in (1) above.) If this alternative is gone into, it becomes quite doubtful, since for me to conceive strongly of possessing my hand, I must mentally pull away from the hand for the moment at least, and conceive of myself as something other than the hand. For me to be truly the same entity as the hand, I cannot possess the hand. A thing cannot possess itself. So the self cannot possess the parts in this way.

 

(Back to top)

 

Or, perhaps I possess my hand in the way that I possess the car. This is a case of (2) above, the possessor and the possessed as two separate entities. In addition to the impossibility of the self being a different entity from its parts, what is there in common that links the parts and the self as possessor and possessed? Just what is it that serves as the possessor of the hand? It is not the hand or any other part of the body or mind. Where is it? We can only come up with a vacuity, the emptiness of the inherent existence of such an inherently existing self.

 

6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. Perhaps the self is inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. The falsity of this one is a little harder to realize. Our sense of inherent existence of the self seems to put a little distance between the parts and the self. We seem to conceive of a bit of a gap between appropriator and appropriated, between agent and action, between "my" and "body/mind." In this alternative, all there is, is the body/mind. Why even talk about the self? There would be no need to have something called "the self" which is exactly the parts of the body/mind. Agent and action would be one. Self and body/mind would be one. The self would be redundant, and unfindable. Also, in the Middle Way schools of Buddhism that employ the Sevenfold Reasoning, it is said that the conventional self is not the parts themselves, but is posited on the basis of the parts. Based on apprehending those particular parts, a designated self is said to exist conventionally. It is not the parts, but is based on the parts. The appropriator and appropriated are slightly and subtlely different. There is room to make sense of "my life," "my actions." A self redundant with the parts cannot exist inherently.

 

(Back to top)

 

7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind. This alternative investigates whether the self is inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind. Can this be? According to this, self would be a physical thing. Non-physical components such as a mind and thoughts and values do not have a shape. Even though these non-physical things are not inherently the self (as we saw in (1) above), it certainly makes no sense for them to be totally irrelevant to the self, as they would be if the self were merely the shape of the parts. Also, if the self is the shape, then this allows no change in shape without a corresponding change in identity of the self. Over time the shape of the body changes. People grow, gain weight, perhaps take up yoga or weightlifting and tone up. Perhaps they lose a limb, lose their hair, become bent with age. Even in the absence of these kinds of shape changes, there are the perceptual shape changes due to changes in posture, standing vs. sitting. There are other shape changes due to the angle from which the parts are viewed. From the left or the right, from near or far, the appearance of the shape changes. The shape criterion misses the point of our conception of the inherent existence of the self, since according to that conception, the inherently existing self is able to persist through changes in shape of the parts. So the self is not inherently the shape of the parts.

 

(Back to top)

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

This is good. I agree with all of this.

 

But it is not truth. It is not a fact. It is not "actual reality". It is merely a good explanation.

 

There is a huge gulf between the "truth" and "good explanations", and we confuse them, at our own peril.

I have already said, the actuality of it is this...

 

 

In seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard.

 

How can you deny that? You can't. To deny that, a thought of denial manifest, and that thought is undeniable - in thinking just thought.

 

If you think there is a self, that thought of a self is actual - only as a thought. It does not actually refer to an actual thing. A thought of unicorn is actual as a thought, but the unicorn is not actual, it cannot be found or pinned down as a reality.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

The truth is this:

 

Seeing happens. Hearing happens.

 

Experience of music... experience of scenery...

 

Why truth? Because it is undeniable with or without thought, conceptualization, inference. It is CLEARLY, VIVIDLY manifest. If you deny direct experience, then you are deluded beyond hope. lol

 

 

The delusion is this:

 

A seer sees scenery. A hearer hears music. Mind imputes entities that cannot be found into the picture.

 

But how do you "know" this? How could "you" know anything if you don't exist? How could you formulate the conclusion with controlled thoughts that "you" do not exist? How is any of it formulated and fallowed, dismissed or accepted?

 

Sure if you turn of internal dialogue there is a blank state, but that doesn't prove anything about the self. It proves that thoughts can be supressed, and let out, sorted out and counted. What is deciding to do this? What is deciding to sit here and type this stuff about no-self? Did you decide to do that? Of course not you don't exist, so it must have been another influence that directed you to do this.

 

So I take it you believe there is no such thing as free will as well?

[Otis]

The truth is this:

 

Seeing happens. Hearing happens.

 

Experience of music... experience of scenery...

 

Why truth? Because it is undeniable with or without thought, conceptualization, inference. It is CLEARLY, VIVIDLY manifest. If you deny direct experience, then you are deluded beyond hope. lol

 

The delusion is this:

 

A seer sees scenery. A hearer hears music. Mind imputes entities that cannot be found into the picture.

I do not deny direct experience. I only deny that conclusions that are drawn from direct experience = truth.

 

Clear and vivid manifestations are part of delusion everyday. The "self", for example, is both clear and vivid.

 

Truth must include what exists "out there", not just what is "in here". As soon as you try to "know truth", then you are in delusion, because "knowing" is only "in here". Reality is always too large to fit into someone's brain, which is why we have simulacra, to simplify the process. When I hear you say "reality", it sounds to me like you are only describing your simulacrum.

 

Once again, how do you justify your "view of reality" as being right?

[Otis]

I have already said, the actuality of it is this...

 

 

In seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard.

 

How can you deny that? You can't. To deny that, a thought of denial manifest, and that thought is undeniable - in thinking just thought.

I do not need to deny it. I only need to deny that it is anything more than a good explanation.

 

There are, as I have previously written extensively on, other ways of viewing this same phenomenon. Lack of being able to see the alternate models is a lack of imagination. Your "undeniable" is only your admitting that you haven't thought it through well enough.

[xabir2005]

I do not need to deny it. I only need to deny that it is anything more than a good explanation.

 

There are, as I have previously written extensively on, other ways of viewing this same phenomenon. Lack of being able to see the alternate models is a lack of imagination. Your "undeniable" is only your admitting that you haven't thought it through well enough.

You are missing my point.

 

The actuality of hearing has nothing to do with explanation.

 

The brrrr is an actuality. Whether you want to deny it or not - it's there. And it can hurt, if it is a screeching sound.

 

The words appearing on this screen too, is an actuality as a visual experience, which leads to a mental translation of that visual image of words into mental process of verbalization... which is in actuality a process of thoughts.

 

All these are actual.

 

Even the thought of unicorn is actual as a thought. It cannot be denied.

 

The unicorn however is not actual, cannot be found anywhere in reality.

 

Interpretation... is also actual, but only as a thought.

 

Actuality has is there whether or not there is imagination - actuality of sights, sounds, is here whether you are having imaginations. Even imagination (like imagining unicorn) is actual as a thought, but the content of the imagination may not be actual.

 

A thought of self, the fictional self is only actual as a thought... the imagined self is not in itself actual, it cannot be found in, or apart from the thought and all experiences.

Edited May 16, 2011 by xabir2005