Ruthless Truth

[xabir2005]

To those interested in seeing this. Trying to reason or convince yourself why there is no self is not going to work.

 

You need to investigate if this is the case:

 

In the seeing there is just the seen, no seer

In the hearing there is just the heard, no hearer

 

You really have to investigate and see this, not just agree or disagree.

 

As in the seeing is just the seen, the seeing is just the seen, and there is no me in connection with that since there is only that.

 

 

Since seeing is just the seen, there can be no doubts there is no such thing as "seer + seen". The word "just" is a keyword.

 

It is as ridiculous as santa claus is seeing or unicorn is the seer

 

In actuality seeing is simply the seen

 

No agent, distance, doer

 

All things self-manifest without control

 

Like hearing airplane can't be avoided even if it is despised

 

It is absolutely possible to wake up forever from the dream of self. Liberation is possible.

Edited May 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth,

 

Well, 'my' 'self' is sitting here at the computer so the thought of 'no self' is not a universal truth. Therefore it is only a personal belief. And we all know how differing personal beliefs can be.

 

(No, I cannot put my finger on 'my' 'self' because it is a collection of the totality of what I am at this very moment in time and my next moment in time will make 'my' 'self' something different than what I am at this moment in time.)

 

And I will suggest this: if anyone has an opinion or belief that is different from anyone else's then they too have a 'self' and from all the posts I have read in this thread this would include everyone - no one excluded, not even those who argue that they have no 'self'.

 

Well, could it be possible that the only reason you experience a self at all is that you believe [a form of faith] in it? Could it be belief itself that holds the sense of self all together?

I am not really Interested in belief.

 

If a person has the ongoing 'experience' of No self, and find it liberates them from suffering and anxiety, and then states that it was just seeing really clearly their own nature that freed them... Is that really belief, or is it possible that, even if only in a small percentage of claimants, that is actually what is going on?

 

On the other hand, If No self is really is just a belief, then how can it have such a drastic effect on the psyche? Sure beliefs are powerful, but this belief can somehow permanently unravel ones very sense of self hood?

 

I believe I have to take what they say at face value, and then Inquire. Many of them may simply 'believe' in No self, but not really experience its 'alleged' reality.

 

I want to know about those who really Experience this reality.

 

There are not many options for classifying the possibilities..

1 They are Lying con men.

2 They are Lying to them selves. [confused believers]

3 they are feeble minded.

4 they are just mistaken about their experience [philosophically confused]

5 they are not very Intelligent [can't see the bleeding obvious]

6 they are experiencing what they claim.

 

I think it is very risky to approach them as belonging to category 1 - 5, not to mention kind of insulting and surely condescending.

At face value I accept that they experience what they claim, then Inquire. This may quickly remove many from category 6, but all of them? I do not think so.

 

Peace

[三江源]

a fundamental misconception is that asking others will provide an answer.

 

and that if no answer is found from others, then that in itself proves something.

[C T]

Thank you, Aaron, for bringing that up.

 

They badger you into accepting one very specific idea, and then once you capitulate, they reward you with the idea that you are now "enlightened". You have now moved into the special group, and should join us now to convert others to this esoteric truth. In other words, the rewards are not for making sense, or thinking it through carefully, but for giving in and believing what they say you should. If you push back, the way that they push you, they kick you out.

 

The founder of the site describes himself (indirectly, by quoting someone else): as half-God / half-genius. Says he believes in "no self" but sure acts full of self. Which one is more convincing, the words or the actions?

Since i am still participating in this discussion, it may be good to inform that i have not ventured into that RT site at all, am not familiar with what is going on there, nor have i the inclination/curiosity to begin to do so. I prefer to keep to basic premises where investigations of Anatta is concerned. Having found the Mahayana view to be a most satisfactory map for this, whatever is being said here would have been understood and put forth based on my limited scope of contemplating the Mahayana path. In particular, i have found Shantideva's The Way of The Bodhisattva very helpful as a primary tool in the course of my journey. Without meaning to offense the sensitive, i am taking the liberty to include some of the contents from his texts here, more as a reminder to myself and as refresher for others who are familiar with the teachings:

 

What we call the body is not feet or shins,

The body, likewise, is not thighs or loins.

It's not the belly nor indeed the back,

And from the chest and arms the body is not formed.

The body is not ribs or hands,

Armpits, shoulders, bowels, or entrails;

It is not the head or throat:

From none of these is 'body' constituted.

 

If body, step by step,

Pervades and spreads itself throughout its members,

Its parts indeed are present in the parts,

But where does 'body', in itself, abide?

If 'body', single and entire,

is present in the hand and other members,

However many parts there are, the hand and all the rest,

One will find an equal quantity of 'bodies'.

 

If 'body' is not outside or within its parts,

How is it, then, residing in its members?

And since it has no basis other than its parts,

How can it be said to be at all?

Thus there is no body in the limbs,

But from illusion does the idea spring

And is affixed to a specific shape,

Just as when a scarecrow is mistaken for a man.

 

As long as the conditions are assembled,

A body will appear and seem to be a man.

As long as all the parts are likewise present,

Its there that we will see a body.

 

Likewise, since it is a group of fingers,

The hand itself is not a single entity.

And so it is with fingers, made of joints;

And joints themselves consist of many parts.

These parts themselves will break down into atoms,

and atoms will divide according to direction.

These fragments , too, will also fall to nothing.

Thus atoms are like empty space - they too have no real existence.

 

All forms, therefore, is like a dream,

And who will be attached to it, who thus investigates?

The body, in this way, has no existence -

What is male, therefore, and what is female?

 

 

Many Mahayana students use this investigative tool as a means to arrive at the preparatory stage of insight into No-self and Emptiness. Thru this contemplative exercise some will gain various fruits of realization, but there is still more work to be done to stabilize the view, to ground it into experience so that the grasp of this understanding surpasses the conceptual level. In effect, when the mind is stable, such inferences can be put aside. By then, it is no longer necessary to cling to such teachings. When there is a strong foundation set, the student can arrive at the union of tranquil abiding and insight without much effort, and can then extend such to all other types of mind training and energetic cultivations.

 

 

 

At a further stage of the above training, Shantideva further elaborates on the Mindfulness on the Emptiness of Feelings:

 

If suffering itself is truly real,

Then why is joy not altogether quenched thereby?

If pleasure is real, then why will pleasant tastes

Not comfort and amuse a man in agony?

If the feeling fails to be experienced

Through being overwhelmed by something stronger,

How can 'feeling' rightly be ascribed

To that which lacks the character of being felt?

Perhaps you say that only subtle pain remains,

Its grosser form has now been overcome,

Or rather, it is felt as mere pleasure.

But what is subtle still remains itself.

If, through presence of its opposite,

Pain and sorrow fail to manifest,

To claim with such conviction that its felt

Is surely nothing more than empty words.

 

If between the sense power and a thing

There is space, how will the two terms meet?

If there is no space, they form a unity,

And therefore, what is it that meets with what?

 

Atoms and atoms cannot inter-penetrate,

For they are equal, lacking any volume.

But if they do not penetrate, they also do not mingle;

And if they do not mingle, there is no permanent encounter.

For how could anyone accept

That which is partless could be said to meet?

And you must show me, if you ever saw,

A contact taking place between two partless things.

 

The consciousness is immaterial,

And so one cannot speak of contact with it.

A combination, too, has no reality,

And this we have already demonstrated.

Therefore, if there is no touch or contact,

Whence is it that feeling takes its rise?

What purpose is there, then, in our striving,

What is it, then, that torments what?

 

Since there is no subject for sensation,

And sensation, too, lacks all existence,

Why, when this you have begun to clearly understand,

Will you not pause and turn away from craving?

 

Seeing, then, and sense of touch,

Are stuff of insubstantial dreams.

If perceiving consciousness arises simultaneously,

How could such a feeling be perceived?

If the one arises first, the other after,

Memory occurs and not direct sensation.

Sensation, then, does not perceive itself,

And likewise, by another it is not perceived.

The subject of sensation has no real existence,

Thus sensation, likewise, has no real being.

What damage, then, can be inflicted

On this aggregate deprived of self?

(On mindfulness on the Emptiness of Mind)

 

The mind within the senses does not dwell;

It has no place in outer things, like form,

And in between, the mind does not abide:

Not out, not in, not elsewhere can the mind be found.

Something not within the body, and yet nowhere else,

That does not merge with it nor stand apart -

Something such as this does not exist, not even slightly.

Beings have nirvana by their nature.

 

If consciousness precedes the cognized object,

With regard to what does it arise?

If consciousness arises with its object,

Again, regarding what does it arise?

If consciousness comes later than its object,

Once again, from what does it arise?

 

 

"Having established the absence of intrinsic existence of phenomena, Shantideva goes on to say that we can use this understanding as an antidote to our grasping at true existence - in this particular case, our grasping at feelings, thoughts, and body as if they have an independent, concrete reality".... The Dalai Lama

 

Since so it is, the antidote

Is meditation and analysis.

Investigation and resultant concentration

Is indeed the food and sustenance of yogis.

[xabir2005]

Also nothing is me or mine

 

If it were me or mine I can choose the way it will be

 

We can't

 

Cos everything arises are not me, not mine, there is no agent or controller and arise due to conditions

[xabir2005]

Seth ananda. Seems like you have really seen it, congrats. What triggered your realization and when?

[Aaron]

I wish I knew how to break up the quote into fragments to better answer and organize my thoughts. I am a techno NoOb!

 

Some Immediate thoughts are:

 

1. how is understanding that you are not I different to realizing No self? I am not sure how you mean that.

 

2. Of course thought is real, who said it wasn't? I only challenge some of its conclusions as Illusory...

 

3. Stilling the Mind has nothing to do with realizing No self [as I understand it]. Other traditions may call a still mind empty of self, but that does not mean one has realized no self. I did certain practices many years ago that completely ended my internal dialogue for several months. Not a single thought I did not deliberately think. But that, peaceful as it was, was not No self -the way I mean it.

 

4. If you want to deconstruct the body, sure, but you cant take the self away from the sum of the parts to begin with, because the self does not exist in the first place. Realizing No self does not remove the self. It is just clearly seeing the matrix of Interdependent parts, and realizing there never even was a self in there.

 

5 and no, you do not need an Idea of self, to assert the Idea of No self. Buddha would be my example.

 

6. I think it is very Important to weigh the experience as claimed by the people who claim to have realized it.

I think it is equally Important to not just believe them either.

I think arguing against something someone says they experience can not go very far.

For Instance, if someone says they Literally have no sense of being 'someone' and that the matrix for suffering has literally come undone in the face of that realization, then I am Interested and want to know more. If I just say "no, you still have a Self, because Its impossible to not have a self", then that is just belief and projection. Where is the inquiry into someones 'alleged' actual experience?

 

If what 'No selfers' are claiming, is their actual experience, then I want to explore their methodology and experience it myself.

I am the alchemical lab for understanding.

Once I get it, I may see flaws or things they have missed.

But until I really understand their perspective, by being it, anything I say to them is really just Theory.

 

Its quite funny to see all the survival mechanisms and ego defenses kick in, during No self discussions. People come to all kinds of whacky conclusions about what it means, get very uncomfortable and defensive, then argue with sometimes spectacular levels of denial and ignorance against the Idea.

 

How can you know if it is a real perspective if you haven't experienced it? Several people here have claimed here to 'Know' it, to be all over it philosophically speaking, Argue against it. Yet each one of them, just by the assumptions they make about what it means, in their writing, demonstrate that they do not have the foggiest Idea of what they are actually talking about.

But still they prattle on... Their false sense of self desperately needs the reaffirming sound of their voices to set it at ease again.

 

Blessings!

 

 

Hello Seth,

 

So my final question, are you saying the mind has nothing to do with no-self? I guess my inherent problem with the idea is that science seems to disprove the notion. Scientists quantify thought as an energy and that energy is created within the brain. If the brain does not work, then any concept, self or no-self, doesn't exist.

 

Now if you're saying there is no concrete concept of self, that our idea of being a self is hard to define because we cannot pinpoint it's origins and endings, then I can understand what you're saying. I'm still not sold on the no-self idea or how that leads one to greater compassion, in fact it seems like it would lead one to indifference.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

the actual matter is that a body is sitting there.

 

The thought "I am sitting" is an inferred afterthought pasted on reality. The thought "I" does not reference an actual entity

 

Yes, the body, all its organs, including the brain, sometimes referred to as the mind. It is the mind that does all this thinking. But the mind would not exist without the brain and the brain would not exist without the body.

 

So even the thought "I" is a result of the fact that there is a body. And yes, the body of each and every one of us is different in some aspect. Even identical twins are not 100% identical. And this brain that is a part of this body has its own memories of past experiences we become even more unalike and therefore more individual.

 

So the fact that "my" body is sitting in "this" chair at "this computer makes me pretty damn unique and special. That goodness there is only one of "me". (Two of us couldn't fit in this freakin' chair.)

 

But I do again agree with you that "I" cannot put a finger on what it is that "I" am becuase there are trillions of factors that consist of what "I" am.

[Marblehead]

Well, could it be possible that the only reason you experience a self at all is that you believe [a form of faith] in it? Could it be belief itself that holds the sense of self all together?

I am not really Interested in belief.

 

If a person has the ongoing 'experience' of No self, and find it liberates them from suffering and anxiety, and then states that it was just seeing really clearly their own nature that freed them... Is that really belief, or is it possible that, even if only in a small percentage of claimants, that is actually what is going on?

 

On the other hand, If No self is really is just a belief, then how can it have such a drastic effect on the psyche? Sure beliefs are powerful, but this belief can somehow permanently unravel ones very sense of self hood?

 

Peace

 

Hi Seth,

 

No, that this body of my "is" is a physical manifested fact. I am taking up space in the universe. "I" am sitting in "this" chair and therefore no one else can sit in this chair.

 

I am not argueing against the concept of believing that there is no self in order to be liberated from suffering. Personally, I am not suffering therefore I do not need to be liberated. I rarely speak negatively about any belief system.

 

But remember, for the to be a belief there must be a mind and for there to be a mind there must be a brain and for there to be a brain there must be a body. If there is a body then "I" exist.

 

I am a Taoist. We believe that the manifest (physical) is just as real as the mystery (potential).

 

When I die there will no longer be thought in this brain of mine. (Some tell me that I am already brain dead.)

 

So I will agree that beliefs are just a valid for the individual believer as is the validity of the manifest universe. But only for that individual. I may not agree with your or any one elses beliefs. Those that I hold work for me. They may not work for any one else.

[Marblehead]

Also nothing is me or mine

 

If it were me or mine I can choose the way it will be

 

We can't

 

Cos everything arises are not me, not mine, there is no agent or controller and arise due to conditions

 

You do know that I disagree with that, don't you? Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

If the brain does not work, then any concept, self or no-self, doesn't exist.

 

Aaron

 

That's a tricky comment there. True, for the individual who's brain does not work, they would have no concept of 'self'. However, an external viewer would see a body lying there in bed and that viewer would likely see the no brainer as an individual self.

[xabir2005]

You do know that I disagree with that, don't you? Hehehe.

Can you know your next moment of thought? you can't.

 

It just appears.

 

Same goes to everything else.

[Marblehead]

Can you know your next moment of thought? you can't.

 

It just appears.

 

Same goes to everything else.

 

Not true. I can control my next thoughts as long as I keep my mind busy and concentrated on a subject.

 

But true, if my mind is idle thoughts will come and go randomly.

[xabir2005]

Not true. I can control my next thoughts as long as I keep my mind busy and concentrated on a subject.

 

But true, if my mind is idle thoughts will come and go randomly.

It just means intention is fixed on a particular train of thought. It is thought leading to more thought.

 

For example the thought "Think fish" is followed by the thought "Fish". The thought "fish" was the result of the previous thought. Thought serve as condition for more thought. Without the previous thought "think fish" the thought "fish" wouldn't have come into being.

 

Thought thinks... it is not you not yours and not a thinker.

 

If feelings are produced by a feeler, if thoughts and emotions are produced by a thinker...

 

Then you would well have been able to choose only to have positive feelings, thoughts, and emotions.

 

You can choose never again to experience sorrow, anger, desire, or any unpleasant experience.

 

It doesn't work that way.

 

Not you, not yours, no thinker, no controller, no experiencer.

Edited May 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

Hi Seth,

 

No, that this body of my "is" is a physical manifested fact. I am taking up space in the universe. "I" am sitting in "this" chair and therefore no one else can sit in this chair.

 

I am not argueing against the concept of believing that there is no self in order to be liberated from suffering. Personally, I am not suffering therefore I do not need to be liberated. I rarely speak negatively about any belief system.

 

But remember, for the to be a belief there must be a mind and for there to be a mind there must be a brain and for there to be a brain there must be a body. If there is a body then "I" exist.

 

I am a Taoist. We believe that the manifest (physical) is just as real as the mystery (potential).

 

When I die there will no longer be thought in this brain of mine. (Some tell me that I am already brain dead.)

 

So I will agree that beliefs are just a valid for the individual believer as is the validity of the manifest universe. But only for that individual. I may not agree with your or any one elses beliefs. Those that I hold work for me. They may not work for any one else.

Beautiful!

 

The distinction I hear you making, and the one I've been trying to make, is not a denial of the importance of the concept of "no self". It's merely an acknowledgment that a two word sound-bite is not literally accurate. The phrase points at something deeper. What exists is more subtle than "self" or "no self".

 

I don't even know why this is controversial. You and I (and Seth and CowTao) have not been denying the words of the Buddha, but rather doing what he asked, which is to thoroughly explore the middle way between the dualistic concepts.

 

To take any bit of scripture, and say: "mine is the only possible interpretation" is nothing but fundamentalism and folly.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

It just means intention is fixed on a particular train of thought. It is thought leading to more thought.

 

For example the thought "Think fish" is followed by the thought "Fish". The thought "fish" was the result of the previous thought. Thought serve as condition for more thought. Without the previous thought "think fish" the thought "fish" wouldn't have come into being.

 

Thought thinks... it is not you not yours and not a thinker.

 

If feelings are produced by a feeler, if thoughts and emotions are produced by a thinker...

 

Then you would well have been able to choose only to have positive feelings, thoughts, and emotions.

 

You can choose never again to experience sorrow, anger, desire, or any unpleasant experience.

 

It doesn't work that way.

 

Not you, not yours, no thinker, no controller, no experiencer.

 

You know that I am going to disagree with you, don't you?

 

Okay. Think fish. The next thought is the fish pond pump I had to buy today because the one on line went bad.

 

What causes thought is the brain. The chemicals in the brain are active and oftentimes these chemicals cause randon connections and thought occurs. Other time a thought is intentional as in "My fish pond pump is broken. What do I do now?" If I could not control my thoughts I would never have made the decision to go to Lowes as opposed to Home Depot for a new pump. All thoughts on the subject of fish pond pump was controlled thought until I had the new pump on line and operating. This enables the fish to continue to live.

 

There MUST be a thinker in order for thoughts to happen. To the best of my knowledge thoughts do not occur in outer space void of all living creatures.

 

There MUST be a feeler in order for feelings to be had. The feeling of cold, for example, may be a result of "me" putting my finger on an ice cube while "I" am looking in "my" freezer. You cannot feel this cold because "you" did not touch the ice cube. This feeling of cold is recognized in the brain and then this feeling invokes the thought, "That's cold". A person with their hand in hot water would not experience this feeling of cold.

 

I have chosen to have only positive emotional feelings. I have the process fairly well perfected. Sure, a memory from the past will sometimes sneak in but not often. And no matter how frequently I have positive thoughts and emotional feelings it is only "I" who is experiencing them unless I care to share them with others and then they too may have the experience simply by hearing of mine. We have free will and we can choose to be positive or negative; an optimist or a pessimist.

 

We can choose to suffer or we can choose to not suffer. Many Jews learned how to not suffer while in the hands of the Nazis. I have heard of their personal experiences and how they were able to overcome suffering. And I am sure you know that Jews are among the most identy conscious people on this planet.

 

But then, we can choose to try it the Buddhist way. Ah!, the thought of even trying. Intentional thought by an individual.

[Marblehead]

Beautiful!

 

The distinction I hear you making, and the one I've been trying to make, is not a denial of the importance of the concept of "no self". It's merely an acknowledgment that a two word sound-bite is not literally accurate. The phrase points at something deeper. What exists is more subtle than "self" or "no self".

 

I don't even know why this is controversial. You and I (and Seth and CowTao) have not been denying the words of the Buddha, but rather doing what he asked, which is to thoroughly explore the middle way between the dualistic concepts.

 

To take any bit of scripture, and say: "mine is the only possible interpretation" is nothing but fundamentalism and folly.

 

Thanks. I haven't seen any hard core statements in this thread that are saying "my way is the only way." I don't have a problem with what Xabir has been saying. He (I assume it is a he) believes what he is saying. That's fine. I am just pointing out that there are different way to get to the same place (non-suffering).

 

Indeed, all our experiences rely on our being able to first, have the conscious experience, and secondly, being able to translate the first hand experience into logical thought-words. Words are necessary as long as we think in conditions of time (past, present & future). If I were a Sage time wouldn't matter very much at all and I would go through life just living, making no judgements on anything. If this were true then I would have to almost agree with Xabir that self is insignificant and could probably just be done away with.

 

But none of us here are hiding out in the mountains. There are others with whom we must relate. We used words most of the time to do this. In order to use words properly there must be intentional thought, not random thought. These thoughts are formed into words that the listener will understand and then they are transferred to the other.

 

I am not suggesting that Xabir does not truely believe what he is saying. I openly accept his honesty. And afterall, if his belief has worked for him then I can understand his wanting to share it with others. That is beautiful too.

 

Ultimate truths? Are there any? Only conditional truths, I think.

[Marblehead]

LOLZ! Yeah it's no surprise to anyone on this board that I'm an asshole!

 

I know that like 99% of the people won't like what I post on this forum...So I definitely have lowered expectations of what people on this board think of me.

 

P.S. I upped one the counter, cause this post made me EL O EL.

 

Hey fella'! I don't think you are one of those "A" things. We don't always agree but neither did my ex-wife and I. That's the way life is most of the time.

 

Hehehe. Don't put any expectations on me. I don't even know what I might say next. (I hope Xabir reads this.)

[Marblehead]

Everyone who is arguing against the notions of "no self," are pretty much going to the other extreme of self and phenomena being absolutely "existent." I have yet to read the opponents to "no self" talking about the "middle way."

 

I wish I could go there but I wouldn't be being true if I were to do so. I am a materialist. I love the physical universe. I will almost always speak from this perspective. Not because I want to disagree with someone, it's just the way "I" am.

[Simple_Jack]

From the Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata have physical eyes?"

"Yes, World Honored One, the Tathagata has physical eyes."
Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata have deva eyes?"
"Yes, World Honored One, the Tathagata has deva eyes."
"Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata have wisdom eyes?"
"Yes, World Honored One, the Tathagata has wisdom eyes."
"Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata have dharma eyes?"
"Yes World Honored One, the Tathagata has dharma eyes."
"Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata have buddha eyes?"
"Yes, World Honored One, the Tathagata has buddha eyes."
"Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Buddha say that the sand in the Ganges River is sand?"
"World Honored One the Tathagata says it is sand."
"Subhuti, what do you think? If there were as many Ganges Rivers as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Buddha realms as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Ganges Rivers as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Buddhas realms as there are grains of sand in all these Ganges Rivers, would those Buddha lands be many?"
"Very many, World Honored One!"
The Buddha said, "The living beings in the multitude of lands have many different kinds of minds which are all known to the Tathagata, why is this? That which the Tathagata calls the mind is not really the mind, but is merely called the such. Being as such, Subhuti, the past mind is ungraspable, the present mind is ungraspable, the future mind is ungraspable."

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth,

 

No, that this body of my "is" is a physical manifested fact. I am taking up space in the universe. "I" am sitting in "this" chair and therefore no one else can sit in this chair.

 

I am not argueing against the concept of believing that there is no self in order to be liberated from suffering. Personally, I am not suffering therefore I do not need to be liberated. I rarely speak negatively about any belief system.

 

But remember, for the to be a belief there must be a mind and for there to be a mind there must be a brain and for there to be a brain there must be a body. If there is a body then "I" exist.

 

I am a Taoist. We believe that the manifest (physical) is just as real as the mystery (potential).

 

When I die there will no longer be thought in this brain of mine. (Some tell me that I am already brain dead.)

 

So I will agree that beliefs are just a valid for the individual believer as is the validity of the manifest universe. But only for that individual. I may not agree with your or any one elses beliefs. Those that I hold work for me. They may not work for any one else.

I never at all challenged the fact that your body is sitting there, or that the manifest universe is there, only about the "I" that you seem to believe is as solid and as physical as your body is.

I am not sure if you read my original post too quickly. I am sitting here contemplating your words, and am finding it hard to understand how your response relates to what I wrote...

 

I wrote:

 

"Well, could it be possible that the only reason you experience a self at all is that you believe [a form of faith] in it? Could it be belief itself that holds the sense of self all together?

I am not really Interested in belief.

 

If a person has the ongoing 'experience' of No self, and find it liberates them from suffering and anxiety, and then states that it was just seeing really clearly their own nature that freed them... Is that really belief, or is it possible that, even if only in a small percentage of claimants, that is actually what is going on?

 

On the other hand, If No self is really is just a belief, then how can it have such a drastic effect on the psyche? Sure beliefs are powerful, but this belief can somehow permanently unravel ones very sense of self hood?

 

I believe I have to take what they say at face value, and then Inquire. Many of them may simply 'believe' in No self, but not really experience its 'alleged' reality.

 

I want to know about those who really Experience this reality.

 

There are not many options for classifying the possibilities..

1 They are Lying con men.

2 They are Lying to them selves. [confused believers]

3 they are feeble minded.

4 they are just mistaken about their experience [philosophically confused]

5 they are not very Intelligent [can't see the bleeding obvious]

6 they are experiencing what they claim.

 

I think it is very risky to approach them as belonging to category 1 - 5, not to mention kind of insulting and surely condescending.

At face value I accept that they experience what they claim, then Inquire. This may quickly remove many from category 6, but all of them? I do not think so.

 

Peace "

 

 

 

Marble head, I think you avoided most of my questions, particularly about whether It could be possible to be in this state 'free of belief'?

It seem's to me too easy to just say "All anyone experiences is just their belief systems" and there fore my belief system is just as good as yours.

1. are all belief systems equal and Valid?

2. are you really sure that everyone is existing in a belief system?

3. Is no self [always in every case] just another belief?

4. Or could No self really be [even if just in very rare cases] the {belief free} result of just looking at the Idea of self and deconstructing it...

 

If 4 has even the slightest chance of being possible, Including the remarkable and radical shift in perception/experience that it brings about, are you not interested in the least to see what they say they have learnt?

 

If you want to Be a Taoist {awesome anyway} and specifically never broach a more Buddhist perspective [although it doesn't have to be Buddhist] like No self, I am kind of wondering why you are here in this thread. I do not at all want you to leave, as you are greatly capable of Intelligent discussion, [when you read the thread properly ] but, what are you getting here? [lol i do appreciate the desire to flex ones philosophical muscles of course...]

 

Anyway, Have fun.