Do you exist?

lobster

Apart from @Earthninja who will of course not be replying to this thread as he does not exist, most of us have a sense of being.

This relative self based on body, its place in time and space, personal history and experience and thought patterns most definetly exists as what we call 'self'.

However the Buddhist sages including everyones favourite wake up call, Shakyamuni Buddha, also teach and suggest experiencing [and shrugging and moving on] the non permenant nature of self. The non conditional self. In meditation we can focus on the breath but are not the breath. Not the things that 'disturb' our calm whether from hearing or sight or mind meandering.

You want to find yourself? Some sort of personal independent being? Nothing found by this cructacean.

Do you exist? What are you?

Jeffrey

It would be cool if I could flag to the forum not to post in this thread (as we don't exist right?)...

laughs aside I think it depends what one means by 'exist'. I think the Buddha said that the self is not the skhandas. That's my story anyhow

Walker

I like the 'wave' idea regarding existence. We exist the same way that an ocean wave exists. It's there, but it's not permanent, and it's part of a greater whole. It doesn't exist as a separate entity.

seeker242

Yes

seeker242

No

lol

David

Aside from when I tried to lose myself, I never really had a need to look for myself.

I look with myself but I cannot look at myself.

@Walker said:
I like the 'wave' idea regarding existence.
We exist the same way that an ocean wave exists. It's there, but it's not permanent, and it's part of a greater whole. It doesn't exist as a separate entity.

I like that one too. It's a great illustration of the middle way between the two.

pegembara

Of course I exist. I answered your question didn't I?

What do I take myself to be?
Now that is a different proposition.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

And if I cannot find an inherent self, then do I truly exist? Mind boggling stuff.
But this will not end dukkha. Better give it a pass

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

Shoshin

"Do you exist?"

Yes and like everything else, this psycho-physical phenomenon exists as a state of flux....

Well this is what the thoughts have to say on the 'matter' at this point in time

Earthninja

There are thoughts arising, no thinker
There are sounds, no hearer
Deeds are done, no doer

Just like the emptiness of a flower. We say a flower exists? But does it really? What are we actually referring to?

There is a stem, petals, stamen. Is there a flower apart from these? No.

If we take one petal away, is it still a flower? We say yes.
If you take each part apart and put them side by side, where did the entity"flower" go?

How can a collection of things that are not a flower, suddenly make a flower?
Can a collection of shoes, chairs and soil make a dog?

Our objectifying minds see "things" "out there" not realising the image is taking place in our brains.

Does a flower exist? The label points to a collection of all things that are not a flower.
The "flower" is a continuous process of all things that are not flower, the image we see is dependant on the ".flower" "light" eyes" "nervous system" and a "conscious awareness" . - dependant origination. Without each flower does not exist.

Don't take me seriously though, like lobster said. I don't exist! XD

Jeffrey

I think you explained that we are not form skhanda!

Shoshin

I exist when I'm happy - I exist when I'm sad- I exist when I'm joyful- I exist when I'm mad-I exist when I'm a lot of things, but one thing's for sure, I know to be true- I can only exist with things to cling to ! ..... I guess I'm just a [K]clingon

federica

You'd all better be damned sure that I exist!!

DairyLama

"we are stardust, we are golden....."

lobster

OK thanks guys,

Quite naturally some of us are bringing up our knowing and experience of dependent origination

It is an important teaching but empty until confirmed by practice. All of us here can be identified by a set of arisings, skhandas, components of being we attach to and when attached too tightly to [spoiler alert] we suffer.

Our dukkha or suffering is often linked to the strong sense or attachment to the components of self.

The most obvious one, most difficult to let go of is pain, when I thwack @Earthninja on the head for posting on a thread where there is no @Earthninja, no pain is felt. In real life things might not be let go of so simply ...

That is why in meditation, the difficulties, the arisings, the dreams, the experiences are all said to have causation but are no more real than the elephant we are told not to think of ...

Be kind to the cructacean, even if imaginary kindness ... [phew should be safe]

DairyLama

@lobster said: Our dukkha or suffering is often linked to the strong sense or attachment to the components of self.

Indeed, and in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are significant obstacles ( fetters ).

Earthninja

@lobster said:
OK thanks guys,

Quite naturally some of us are bringing up our knowing and experience of dependent origination

It is an important teaching but empty until confirmed by practice. All of us here can be identified by a set of arisings, skhandas, components of being we attach to and when attached too tightly to [spoiler alert] we suffer.

Our dukkha or suffering is often linked to the strong sense or attachment to the components of self.

The most obvious one, most difficult to let go of is pain, when I thwack Earthninja on the head for posting on a thread where there is no Earthninja, no pain is felt. In real life things might not be let go of so simply ...

That is why in meditation, the difficulties, the arisings, the dreams, the experiences are all said to have causation but are no more real than the elephant we are told not to think of ...

Be kind to the cructacean, even if imaginary kindness ... [phew should be safe]

Well everybody knows you shouldn't call out names of imaginary creatures because they appear!

Metta

DairyLama

@Earthninja said:Well everybody knows you shouldn't call out names of imaginary creatures because they appear!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spiny+norman

Hamsaka

The trouble is, there's this tendency to even turn not-self into a kind of self, along with all the other phenomena. Alas.

As long as the self can leech some significance for itself out of the latest phenomena, you know, lay some claim to it and put up a flag . And then the next thing you know, someone stole the flag and changed the scenery. Where did my self go? I just had it right here . . .

Maybe it's my age, but certain annoying aspects of self are like picking your nose and being unable to wipe it off on something. There it is no matter how your flick or flap your hand.

mockeymind

Exist - yes just a being without attached to identity. (mostly)

DairyLama

Do I exist or is orl a bleedin' dream? Gawd blimey, somefink else to worry abart...

Shoshin

"Do you exist?"

Who is asking the question ? (Every Tao & Zen it pays to question the questioner )

federica

Yesh... and it's at this point that a lot of discussions veer into the metaphysically esoterically ridiculous.... :roll eyes!:

David

I think subjectively selfing is a means of expression for ultimate truth.

federica

I thought this was selfing...

Buddhadragon

Do I exist?
I don't know. I do happen, though.

Spoogle

I do exist yes, but not independent of existence. All of existence is within me too......

mmo

I just been worrying about something which will happen next year. I am still reacting to usual life happenings with cold feet. So I think I do exist, at least for sure this evening.

namarupa

Do I? Wait hold on...Ouch! Yes I do.

Shoshin

@namarupa said:
Do I? Wait hold on...Ouch! Yes I do.

That's just pain existing ...Suffering is optional

Mahhler

What if I don't exist? or what if I do?
Changes anything? or everything?

upekka

when 'I' was reading the OP 'I did exist'

when 'I' write this post 'the I that read the OP' don't exist

i can not find the 'I' in the first line and the 'I' in the second line now or in between the two lines (time and space)

lobster

So everybody here exists, we can point to our nose, describe our thoughts etc. Everybody manifests in some form ... and gets very attached to it ...

Is the Buddhist concept of anatta relevant?

When asked about the existence of a self, the Buddha often refused to answer. Instead, he pointed out the drawbacks of thinking in terms of existence and non-existence, and recommended that one view phenomena as arising and passing away, based on impermanent conditions. This means that instead of the question "Is there a self?", it is recommended to ask, "How does the perception of self originate?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

Earthninja

Never did Nisargadatta, Ramana, U.G. J. K., Rumi, Rainer Maria Rilke, Ramesh Balsekar, Hafiz, Wei Wu Wei, Alan Watts, Jean Klein, Jan Cox, Rupert Spira, Wayne Liquorman, Sankara, Ashtavakra, Swami Atmananda, Sri Aurobindo, Jed McKenna, David Carse, Sadghuru, Mooji et al.......show the slightest hint of doubt in their attempts to express the essential emptiness(Shunyata) of all things including the holder of things.(Anatta)

Sorry lobster bad earth ninja! Ego leave lobsters thread alone!!

seeker242

Chan Master Huang Po had some interesting comments about this. Love this guy!

All Buddhas and all sentient beings are no different from the One Mind. In this One Mind there is neither arising nor ceasing, no name or form, no long or short, no large or small, and neither existence nor non-existence. It transcends all limitations of name, word and relativity, and it is as boundless as the great void. Giving rise to thought is erroneous, and any speculation about it with our ordinary faculties is inapplicable, irrelevant and inaccurate.

.

"Hold neither a concept of holy nor of worldly; think neither of emptiness nor tranquillity in the Dharma. Since originally there is no non-existent Dharma, it is, therefore, not necessary to have a view of existence as such. Furthermore, concepts of existence and non-existence are all perverted views just like the illusion created by a film spread over diseased eyes. "

.

do not hold any view of the Buddha and you will never go to the Buddha extreme; just do not hold a view about sentient beings and you will never go to the sentient-beings extreme; just do not hold any view about existence and you will never go to existence extreme; do not hold a view about non-existence and and you will never go to the non-existence extreme; do not hold any view about worldly characteristics and you will never go to the worldly-characteristics extreme; do not hold any view about holy characteristics and you will never go to the holy-characteristics extreme.

Thus the state of merely being without any view whatsoever is already the Immeasurable Body. If you have something to see, you are a heretic. While heretics like to hold all different kinds of views, Bodhisattvas are not moved by any view whatsoever. Tathagata' means the suchness of all phenomena, the undifferentiated whole of all dharmas.

.

David

@Earthninja said:
Never did Nisargadatta, Ramana, U.G. J. K., Rumi, Rainer Maria Rilke, Ramesh Balsekar, Hafiz, Wei Wu Wei, Alan Watts, Jean Klein, Jan Cox, Rupert Spira, Wayne Liquorman, Sankara, Ashtavakra, Swami Atmananda, Sri Aurobindo, Jed McKenna, David Carse, Sadghuru, Mooji et al.......show the slightest hint of doubt in their attempts to express the essential emptiness(Shunyata) of all things including the holder of things.(Anatta)

Emptiness is not the lack of being. It's the lack of an original form.

lobster

@ourself said:
Emptiness is not the lack of being. It's the lack of an original form.

Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness
http://room4truth.com/2011/02/10/form-is-emptiness-emptiness-is-form/

Oh I could not resist

What does that mean in part (I feel it has many meanings)?

One of the most important meanings is the emptiness or lack of real being in the form/solidity of self. We all have a sense/experience/sensation of self. A form if you will but it is an empty being.

In other words during meditation we come to know thoughts/arisings/sense of self/experiences etc etc all have a form, all are empty.

It is an experiential paradox.

Self exists. There is no self.

Can we go home now?

David

@lobster said:
Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness
http://room4truth.com/2011/02/10/form-is-emptiness-emptiness-is-form/

Oh I could not resist

I said the lack of an original form, not the lack of form. Big difference there.

One of the most important meanings is the emptiness or lack of real being in the form/solidity of self. We all have a sense/experience/sensation of self. A form if you will but it is an empty being.

See, you still had to tack on the disclaimer, "in the form/solidity of self".

Emptiness is not the lack of being, it is the lack of having a fixed location and identity.

In other words during meditation we come to know thoughts/arisings/sense of self/experiences etc etc all have a form, all are empty.

It is an experiential paradox.

Self exists. There is no self.

We are here now.

It's actually pretty silly to speak in terms of self and/or the lack of a self for two reasons.

1. We are here now and our actions have effects on others whether we see them as existing or not.

2. Nobody can seem to agree on a definition of "self" and when we do define it, we have to add little disclaimers that many like to ignore such as "no abiding self" or "no permanent self" or "no separate self" or "no solidity of self".

We are here right now.

We either deal with it or try to run away.

lobster

@ourself said:
We are here right now.

You are not

David

@lobster said:
You are not

So then how are we discussing this topic?

I am either here or I do not exist.

If I do not exist, then you are the delusional one, not me, lmao.

You do get that, right?

Here is a pretty big place @lobster. I've yet to come across any borders that don't seem to be made up.

It feels like you were just being silly there but still.

Will_Baker

Cogito ergo sum, and as for the question, "what am I," my answer would be wu...

silver

Here today...goon tomorrow......err gone tomorrow, heheh.

The thing I like to THINK about (bad silver!) is the fact that we leave an impact, however small. Maybe the universe will be the same - big entrance - and then just fade away slowly or GO BOOM again!

Shoshin

In the conventional ‘sense’ there is a self- :
in the ultimate [non] 'sense' there’s not !

be careful how you broach the subject of self -
for you could end up losing the plot !

Don't you just love the paradox of 'being' or not 'being'
"To Be or not to Be ?" ("I" guess I'll will just settle for 'being' a little of both )

DairyLama

@Shoshin said:> "To Be or not to Be ?"

"Tis the winter of our dukkha..."?

David

To be or not to be?

Well, nothing to lose, right?

Deal me in.

lobster

Thanks guys for all your ideas. For those wishing to turn their intellectual chatter into an understanding on the nature of self we have meditation, even online groups to get to grips with those attached to their mind manifests ...
http://liberationunleashed.com

Those of us who have all the certainties can refer to the sutras or other great resources. The teachings on the Buddhist understanding of what constitutes a self and its nature are easily accessible.

One of the simplest expressions of being is our reflection. In other words we find ourselves in how we project our understanding, knowledge of dharma and essential nature.

... and now back to the quest ...

David

Then of course there is Deepak Chopra and Osho.

~ducks and covers~

DairyLama

@ourself said:> Then of course there is Deepak Chopra and Osho.

Urgh! Bring me my sick bucket!

David

Actually, even though he duped those poor people back in the 70s into paying for his car collection, I think Osho is hilarious as he plays Maras advocate.

At least Deepak Chopra likely means well but Osho is a cheeky bastard.

Oops, there I go again... Sorry for the off-topic

Will_Baker

@lobster said:
Thanks guys for all your ideas. For those wishing to turn their intellectual chatter into an understanding on the nature of self we have meditation, even online groups to get to grips with those attached to their mind manifests ...
http://liberationunleashed.com

Those of us who have all the certainties can refer to the sutras or other great resources. The teachings on the Buddhist understanding of what constitutes a self and its nature are easily accessible.

One of the simplest expressions of being is our reflection. In other words we find ourselves in how we project our understanding, knowledge of dharma and essential nature.

... and now back to the quest ...

All that we are is the result of what we have thought...
-Gautama Buddha

federica

(He didn't actually say that....)

Will_Baker

All that we are is the result of what we have thought...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/sbe1003.htm