"you only know the words and not the meaning!"

[3bob]

Copied from the "Pocket Buddha Reader", edited by Anne Bancroft

 

When the Buddha was dying, he said to his followers: Just as the earth has hills and grass, healing herbs and nourishing grains for all beings to use, the truth that I have taught is also so. It produces the flavor of wonder and is the healing medicine for the ailments of humankind. I have brought you to abide peacefully in this great treasure. But if you have any doubts, you must ask about them now. Whatever your doubts are, I will try to answer them.

 

Honored One, we understand the ideas of no self, of no permanent state, and of the suffering caused to the person by the belief that he has a self and is permanent. He is like one who is drunk and sees the hills and rivers, moon and stars wheeling dizzily about him. Such a one will never understand selflessness and will wander on endlessly in a miserable state. It is because of such an undesirable state that we cultivate the idea of no self.

 

Then the Buddha was roused from the calm of coming death and said, Listen closely! You have used the metaphor of a drunken person but you know only the words and not the meaning! The drunk believes the world is spinning when it is not. You still think the self is a something if you believe you should be selfless in order to save yourselves. You believe you should see the eternal as impermanent, the pure as impure, happiness as suffering. But these are concepts and you have not penetrated the meaning. The meaning is that the real self is truth. The eternal is existence. Happiness is nirvana, and the pure is things as they are.

You should not practice ideas of impermanence, suffering, impurity, and selflessness as though they are real objects like stones or rocks but look instead for the meaning. You should use expedient means in every place and cultivate the ideas of permanence, happiness, and purity for the sake of all beings. If you do this, you will be like one who sees a gem in the muddied water among stones and rocks and waits for the water to settle before he skillfully plucks it out. It is the same with cultivating the idea of the self as with permanence, happiness, and purity.

The monks were taken aback. They said, Honored One, according to all you have taught and spoken, we have been asked to cultivate selflessness, leading to the dropping of the idea of a self. But now you tell us we should cultivate the idea of a self what is the meaning of this? 

Good, replied the Buddha. You are now asking about meaning. You should know that, like a doctor, you should find the right medicine for an illness. It is as a doctor that I observed the aliments of the world. I saw that ordinary people believe they have a self and that whoever they meet has a self. They think of the self as within the body. But it is not like that. Because it is not like that, I have shown the fallacy of all ideas of self and shown that the self is not there in the way it is thought to be. In everything I have said I have shown that the self is not as people think of it, for this is expedient means, the right medicine.
But that does mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

 

(submitted as another interpretation to consider about Buddhism, which I consider is hitting the mark and others obviously will not...)

[Karl]

The only thing that changes is mans thoughts and the physical actions he brings about in accordance with those thoughts. First obey nature, then change nature. Existence exists, A is A, a thing is a thing, it is what it is and it isn't anything else. Man may choose to accord with reality because he can directly know reality, or he can choose to remain ignorant, or to deliberately evade. Pure virtues are those that accord with reality and then man is truth and purity. Those that choose to drunkeness remain ignorant and evasive, they refuse to accord with reality, their virtues are hence corrupted and they are incapable of purity or truth.

 

This is not a once only outing. You can't be baptised pure, you have to work at it every second of life. Happiness is achieved by that work; by working to dispel ignorance and evasion.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both spoke to this.  And I too have spoke to it.

 

To understand the words is not enough.  The meaning must be grasp else no matter how many words you know you still know nothing.

[Miffymog]

... if I can't work out the meaning from the words ... then the words are meaningless ... 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Miffymog

[Marblehead]

... if I can't work out the meaning from the words ... then the words are meaningless ... 

Yep.  But we can almost always ask for clarification.  With time and patience perhaps understanding can be had.

[3bob]

Not sure of all your meaning Karl but I'd say that "purity" is innate and deathless for such can not be made by mind or will, thus to me the work you speak of is uncovering and letting that manifest itself... 

Edited June 4, 2016 by 3bob

[Karl]

Not sure of all your meaning Karl but I'd say that "purity" is innate and deathless for such can not be made by mind or will, thus to me the work you speak of is uncovering and letting that manifest itself...

I don't see purity as innate. You have the choice. Existence is. Man is the only creature that IS capable of choosing and who must choose. In effect, man is the only animal capable of creating his own suffering. Man is impermanent, his conscious identity is impermanent, but existence is beyond man and is permanent.

 

I'm not saying that this is what Buddah meant by the words, but It's interesting that I find a certain similarity in my understanding of what is being said. Buddah pronounces a dichotomy and then he said that it is the dichotomy which is the medicine. Man is the ONLY being capable of living in the cracks. He can and must choose what he will conceptualise despite reality. He can live entirely contra-reality; and here we see the analogy to a drunk who sees that the room spins, but here lies the dichotomy that, though the drunk sees the room spinning he is not forced to accept that this is reality and you see the opposite is true, a sober man might conceptualise a spinning room despite his senses telling him the room is not spinning.

 

You can live a life predicated on no-self, but you must first be self-this is what I have been saying all along during many months on this forum. You may act as the drunk does, or the sober man who conceptualises what is not reality. You may seek permanence where there is impermanence, no-self where self must be, purity must be continually practised, suffering for those who will not abide by reality.

 

The world is the world, it is permanent as a whole, but changing in parts. Man is impermanent. There is the false self that evades and practices ignorance, then there is the pure self that seeks itself through realities doorway.

 

Is that what Buddah means ? I don't know, each person has to interpret the words in line with his current philosophy and store of knowledge. Did Buddah lay out such a philosophy ? No, he didn't, he created puzzles and left it to each person to figure out the answer. By creating the dichotomy he suggests that something is and something isn't. It's like "when is a door, not a door?" It leads to figuring out the logic of a statement which seems to suggest A is not A, but it's word play, you cannot take the words as solid objects: the answer "when it's a jar" does not suggest the door is both solidly a door and a jar. A jar is the condition of the door in 'relation' to the frame. If you go back and look at the thread on 'the definition of space' you can see that 'space' is that same relationship as defined by man, there is no 'space' as such, just as there is no 'jar' as such in a partially opened door.

 

The problem is that starting a philosophy by picking out dichotomous arguments isn't very helpful. It asks the listener to solve an equation for which he does not know the 'meaning' of the symbols, yet must somehow perform a high level calculus in order to define them.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Karl

[3bob]

depending on how perception is operational and conditioned - states of what are really changing realities can seem so solid... thus man may think and choose as conditioned man but the underling spiritual desire that mankind yearns to fulfill is to know and to be a reality beyond that of only a conditioned human along with having degrees of animal nature.  (which is his innate and incorruptible purity of spirit that is Free and also of a Joy that is without the duality of sorrow or suffering states of dichotomy)

Edited June 5, 2016 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

  (which is his innate and incorruptible purity of spirit that is Free and also of a Joy that is without the duality of sorrow or suffering states of dichotomy)

That's the toughest part.

[Karl]

depending on how perception is operational and conditioned - states of what are really changing realities can seem so solid... thus man may think and choose as conditioned man but the underling spiritual desire that mankind yearns to fulfill is to know and to be a reality beyond that of only a conditioned human along with having degrees of animal nature.  (which is his innate and incorruptible purity of spirit that is Free and also of a Joy that is without the duality of sorrow or suffering states of dichotomy)

 

Reality is reality even if it's changing. Perception is perception of reality-as it is. You can chunk up and down conceptually from the whirling energies of a table, to the cell structure of wood, to the table amongst all tables of every shape and design everywhere, to furniture and all furniture, to all objects and the entire universe. You can know that the wood will break and rot and turn to dust, that the table may be used for firewood or to construct some other thing. You can know all that and much more conceptually despite direct perception.

 

You are free now, there is no duality, sorrow there is from loss of value and joy from gaining value. This is what it means to be alive. Unnecessary suffering comes from thinking it is other than it is, from the darkness of ignorance or the evil of evasion.

[3bob]

there is variable reality as a grand light show of colors and change going on among woven forms, then there is a vast Ocean of pure light and roaring silence as common denominator and source for those colors, then there is the source for that Ocean which is unreachable by mind - but not by itself.

[Karl]

there is variable reality as a grand light show of colors and change going on among woven forms, then there is a vast Ocean of pure light and roaring silence as common denominator and source for those colors, then there is the source for that Ocean which is unreachable by mind - but not by itself.

 

Its believing that reality is variable that is the problem. You are trying to imagine a different reality and are evading what is right in front of you.

 

Only axioms remain beyond further scrutiny because they are the bedrock on which everything else rests. You can't go beyond consciousness, existence or the universe for instance, because all understanding is dependent on them and they, not on anyone understanding them.

[Miffymog]

Going back to the OP, whenever some one like the Buddha gives an answer to a question, it is always specific to the situation he was in and the person who he was talking to at the time. When I slowly read through the OP again, I could almost sense the confusion in the questioner in the story who was asking that question, but I couldn't really work out what it was.

 

My confused reaction was something along the lines of   "I'm not sure if you can achieve a state of no self by acting selflessly".

 

I'm not saying that it will hinder you, but will it help you to realise no self? Are they completely different things? The whole concept of 'no-self' is one that I find abstract and beyond my comprehension anyway.

 

hmmm, I just struggle with these things as I find them too difficult to understand ...

[3bob]

40.
"THE movement of the Tao consists in Returning.
The use of the Tao consists in softness.

 

All things under heaven are born of the corporeal:
The corporeal is born of the Incorporeal."

 

Karl, this little quote above is partly along the lines of what I've been alluding to...if you don't relate to it then we are not even in the same ball-park which is also ok.  You seem to make everything complicated when the purity of innateTruth is as simple as can be...

[Karl]

40.

"THE movement of the Tao consists in Returning.

The use of the Tao consists in softness.

 

All things under heaven are born of the corporeal:

The corporeal is born of the Incorporeal."

 

Karl, this little quote above is partly along the lines of what I've been alluding to...if you don't relate to it then we are not even in the same ball-park which is also ok.  You seem to make everything complicated when the purity of innateTruth is as simple as can be...

 

I think my version is the easiest to understand-what you perceive is reality as it is. The complexity is in building a conceptual argument which disputes that simplicity. How much more pure does anyone need ?

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

What the Tao statement says (as I read it) is that existence exists, but existence is the result of non-existence. The problem here-beside the illogical syllogism-is that it completely ignores conscious identification and yet it should be obvious that such a syllogism can neither have been created nor understood without conscious identification of it.

[Marblehead]

What the Tao statement says (as I read it) is that existence exists, but existence is the result of non-existence. The problem here-beside the illogical syllogism-is that it completely ignores conscious identification and yet it should be obvious that such a syllogism can neither have been created nor understood without conscious identification of it.

It doesn't ignore it, it just doesn't speak to that concept here.

 

Remember, existence before consciousness and non-existence before existence.  And the return is once again non-existence.

[Karl]

It doesn't ignore it, it just doesn't speak to that concept here.

 

Remember, existence before consciousness and non-existence before existence.  And the return is once again non-existence.

 

That's an equivocation on he word 'existence' MH. You can't just use the word interchangeably. Existence means existence, you are equivocating causality with existence.

 

A chair is not 'non existent' before it is a chair. It is a chair only when it is a chair.

[Marblehead]

That's an equivocation on he word 'existence' MH. You can't just use the word interchangeably. Existence means existence, you are equivocating causality with existence. A chair is not 'non existent' before it is a chair. It is a chair only when it is a chair.

I'm using your logic Karl.  It's called "cause and effect".

 

Yes, before there was a chair there was only "stuff".  Put the "stuff" together properly and you have a chair.

 

Body and brain before consciousness.  Cause and effect.

 

But there really was a cause for existence.  From energy to matter.  From matter to energy.

[Karl]

I'm using your logic Karl. It's called "cause and effect".

 

Yes, before there was a chair there was only "stuff". Put the "stuff" together properly and you have a chair.

 

Body and brain before consciousness. Cause and effect.

 

But there really was a cause for existence. From energy to matter. From matter to energy.

Energy 'IS' something, it isn't non-existence.

 

A human consciousness has first to conceptualise a chair. A chair is man-made. Existence only exists (it is just existence) without a consciousness to identify it. Recognising existence is to establish identity.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. Those two axiomatic corrolaries are such a break through that it's easy to understate the truth contained within that simple statement.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Energy 'IS' something, it isn't non-existence.

But it is not matter.  It is not manifest.

 

A human consciousness has first to conceptualise a chair. A chair is man-made. Existence only exists (it is just existence) without a consciousness to identify it.

Agree with you here.

 

Recognising existence is to establish identity.

Not really.  Non-dual recognizing does not need to identify.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. Those two axiomatic corrolaries are such a break through that it's easy to understate the truth contained within that simple statement.

And here is where you have gone astray.  Hehehe.

 

Existence is not equal to identity.  Consciousness is not equal to identification.

 

So what you have broken through is the truth barrier and created equalities that do not exist.

[Karl]

But it is not matter. It is not manifest.

 

 

Agree with you here.

 

 

Not really. Non-dual recognizing does not need to identify.

 

 

And here is where you have gone astray. Hehehe.

 

Existence is not equal to identity. Consciousness is not equal to identification.

 

So what you have broken through is the truth barrier and created equalities that do not exist.

It is not required to be matter. You are aware of electricity and heat. These are energies. The engine behind these energies isn't fully understood, but that makes no difference to the existent identity of those energies. They are something. Your consciousness gives them the identity 'energy', but your consciousness does not create them.

 

Existence is not EQUAL to identity. Existence IS identity, as consciousness IS identification.

 

If there were no conscious beings then Existence would exist, but there would be no awareness of existence. If you are unconscious, or dead then existence is something that you no longer are. Existence and the consciousness of existence arise together. Consciousness must be conscious of something. Existence is only valid to those who are conscious of it. That existence has primacy does not in any sense devalue the experience of the conscious being that identifies itself and its place in the universe.

 

That is why there is no duality. Rand magnificently ended the feud. She simplified it. It's so fundamental that it makes me laugh that I couldn't see what was so obvious.

 

You are seeing duality because you do not see that both existence and consciousness arise together, but that consciousness does not create existence. However they are not seperate things, they are corollaries of each other; axiomatic twins. It is true that existence can exist without anything being conscious of it, but that's a hypothetical condition, because we ARE conscious of it. Existence is what conscious human beings call it. An existence without consciousness would not be unaware, just like a rock is not aware of itself or anything else. It is us that define the rock as being seperate-as having a unique identification. The rock does not know it is a rock, or care that it's a rock, or feel any kind of seperation from its surroundings, or any awareness of itself in any way.

 

It's like a equation in which every part balances:

 

'Existence exists' is an axiomatic statement made by a conscious being. It can only be made by a conscious being because they are conscious of existing and existence.

 

I think the light bulb moment will occur at some point and it will be a real 'kapow'. I hadn't realised that it took Leonard Peikoff almost ten years to understand what Rand was saying. It's like we have these blinders on our eyes and can't see what should be obvious.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Existence is not EQUAL to identity. Existence IS identity, as consciousness IS identification.

 

We will never agree here.  Existence does not need man for it to exist.  And consciousness does not have to identify anything.  We can simply recognize it for what it is and let it go.

 

Yes, energy is real but the majority of energy in the universe cannot be identified by man as of yet.  Therefore we cannot define it.

 

You have a different background of this concept than I have.

 

I can't say you are wrong.  But I can say I feel I am right.

 

Again, I have not read (and don't want to) Rand or Peikoff so I do not know of their perspectives.

[Karl]

We will never agree here.  Existence does not need man for it to exist.  And consciousness does not have to identify anything.  We can simply recognize it for what it is and let it go.

 

Yes, energy is real but the majority of energy in the universe cannot be identified by man as of yet.  Therefore we cannot define it.

 

You have a different background of this concept than I have.

 

I can't say you are wrong.  But I can say I feel I am right.

 

Again, I have not read (and don't want to) Rand or Peikoff so I do not know of their perspectives.

 

I did not say that existence needs man in order for it to exist. I'm saying that ONLY a conscious entity can know existence and only a conscious reasoning entity can identify the categories within that existence.

 

Man without spirit is a robot, without a body, a ghost.

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

I did not say that existence needs man in order for it to exist. I'm saying that ONLY a conscious entity can know existence and only a conscious reasoning entity can identify the categories within that existence. Man without spirit is a robot, without a body, a ghost.

Well, damn!  I have to agree with that entire post.

 

You are mellowing in your old age.

[Karl]

Well, damn!  I have to agree with that entire post.

 

You are mellowing in your old age.

 

Or learning how to articulate the argument in a clearer, simpler way. :-)