Just because there is no 'abiding self' doesnt mean the idea of self is a delusion...!

zenmyste

Im reading a buddhist book and i dont agree with this no self'

It says;

"What we call 'self' is an imagined entity. The idea of self is a delusion because there is no abiding self...."

Im sorry but i think there is a huge difference;

Its not rocket science that there is no abiding self, we dont 'need' buddhism to tell us that.. We have all seen and had family, friends who have passed away so obviously we are all gonna be gone soon! Not rocket science..

However; how does that mean that the self is a delusion???

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Am i missing something?
And pls explain what???

Jeffrey

There are no skhandas of the self. Skhandas are fluxional but Buddha nonetheless said we are not skhandas.

Good idea questioning this. I recommend looking up shentong and rangtong. This is a great divide in Buddhism.

Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche said that on casual inspection non-self is easily refuted. That is because the view is hard to find. So it's like a promise. It may not seem real now but others have gone before you and they have found the truth of non-self.

Think about it. A bodhisattva realizes emptiness leading to enlightenment directly. How many have a book knowledge of some of this that they trot out versus having the difficult realization Khenpo ^ talks about. If it is so easy to realize then we should have more Buddhas, right?

Jason

Personally, I think it all depends on how one defines 'self.' Without that term being properly defined, one can't really have a meaningful discussion about what it is or isn't, in my opinion. Providing the source and/or context of the quote in question might be helpful in that regard.

And just for reference, here's a reply of mine from another thread dealing with the Buddha's teachings on not-self that you may or may not find useful:

The way I like to look at it, the teachings on dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada), the aggregates (khandhas), and not-self (anatta) are quite insightful in that they're the parts of Buddhism that correspond to parts of modern psychology. For one thing, they basically detail the process by which we construct our sense of self, i.e., our ego or identity, and, ultimately, how to utilize that process in more skillful ways.

The aggregates themselves, for example, aren't simply descriptions of what constitutes a human being as some people mistakenly think—they're one of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements or properties, six sense-media, etc.). But more importantly, they represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109). The aggregates aren't so much things as activities or processes, which is why in SN 22.79 they're described in verb form, illustrating the element of intention that goes into our experience of suffering via clinging.

The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves. But what does this really mean? According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear,' although 'stress,' 'suffering,' and 'unsatisfactoriness' are the most common English renderings. In MN 9, clinging is defined as:

"And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving, there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving, there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

In addition, the Buddha says that the five clinging-aggregates are not-self. He calls them a burden, the taking up of which is "the craving that makes for further becoming" and the casting off of which is "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving" (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is a mental process that arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta).

Looking at it from another angle, there's rarely a moment when the mind isn't clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways mentioned in MN 11 (i.e., clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to doctrines of self). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something that's always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli; and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second. As the Buddha warns in SN 12.61:

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this 'I' remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're 'me.' We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.

That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as 'me' or 'mine' is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming, i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self — the ephemeral 'I' — is merely a mental imputation, and when we cling to our sense of self as being 'me' or 'mine' in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things.

And these attachments, particularly our attachment to views and doctrines of self, keep us rooted in 'perceptions and categories of objectification' that continually assail us and our mental well-being. Thus, with the presence of clinging, the aggregates have the potential to become suffering (i.e., 'difficult to bear') when our sense of self encounters inconstancy. That's why the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self:

"What do you think, monks — Is form [same with feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness] constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

Thus, monks, any form [same with feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' (SN 22.59)

In order to break down the conceptual idea of self (i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent, and completely subject to our control) in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine,' we must essentially take this analytical knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience, opening one up to a state of mind that's said to be unshakable, luminous, and free.

Dakini

The Buddha didn't teach "no-self". He taught a Middle Way between no-self and a permanent self. He taught that the self is always evolving. For example, as a child, we might be demanding and contrary (think: "the terrible twos"). But we outgrow this phase, and begin to learn generosity and concern for others. As adults, we may experience a period of depression. But the depression isn't us, it's only temporary. We can overcome that, and continue developing ourselves. If we stop to identify with any special qualities, that would be illusory, because we're always changing, adapting, growing. So it's best not to cling to a self-image, because from a broader perspective, we're always in a state of flux.

In the Mahayana tradition, there's the teaching of the "True Self", or Buddhanature. Once one has let go of clinging to self-image and the ego's self-ish needs, one becomes open to the Buddha within, the evolving self that strives for Enlightenment. One opens to glimpsing one's true nature; not a needy, grasping self, but a calm, compassionate, self-less Self dwelling in a process of realizing Buddhahood.

genkaku

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

@zenmyste -- By the time you have uttered, within or without, the word "now," it has become "then." All the claptrap about "living in the now" is just that ... claptrap. How much more in the "now" could anyone get since they are already in what others call "now."

So ... saying there is "still a 'self' right NOW" sounds a bit strange. If the present ("now") is ungraspable and the past ("then") cannot be grasped ... what does that say about the "self" that is so busy grasping for straws?

It all reminds me a bit of the old scam in which some shyster stands on a street corner selling cans of "dehydrated water" on which the directions read, "just add water."

misecmisc1

@zenmyste: can you find a self - which you can pin-point to as - this is self in and of itself, as an entity - not dependent on any other conditions?

there is I but no 'I' as an entity exists in and of itself. delusion is - 'I' exists as an entity in and of itself.

ThailandTom

As Dakini stated there is a middle way here like with a lot of the teachings of the Buddha, people tend to really enjoy jumping to one of two extremes for some reason. There is a self, there is a you, Buddhism is not Nihilism because it does suggest there is a reality out there just can only tap into it from a few view points. Buddhism does teach non-self and that does not only apply to people but everything, we create a self to all kinds of things in life, your computer, your house, your car etc, these are all given names and then claimed as being an object separate from everything else. The truth is that you are just a combination of different parts of the universe that have come together in a certain order to create what you see, this changes from moment to moment physically and mentally. Parts of 'you' are always fluctuating with the world around you, parts of 'you' leaving back into the cosmos and parts of the cosmos moving into 'you'.

It requires time and a lot of close observation to actually realise non-self in objects and you yourself, you can read about it for a long time and still it will not click, you need to do the looking for yourself.

lobster

there is I but no 'I' as an entity exists in and of itself. delusion is - 'I' exists as an entity in and of itself.

This permanent 'I' is what other systems look for and of course find or construct. The Buddhist term of 'emptiness' is both technical and experiential. Those who are unaware of the meaning or the experience can disagree all they want. We call their disagreement, pardon my use of what sounds judgemental, 'ignorance'.

Dakini

zenmyste said:

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Yes, there is a self; there is someone doing the experiencing, the thinking, the posting on the forum. There is the self that performs the everyday tasks that human beings perform. The trick is to not get attached to self, not to get wrapped up in it, or view any qualities as permanent.

vinlyn

Dakini said:

zenmyste said:

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Yes, there is a self; there is someone doing the experiencing, the thinking, the posting on the forum. There is the self that performs the everyday tasks that human beings perform. The trick is to not get attached to self, not to get wrapped up in it, or view any qualities as permanent.

Well said!

pegembara

zenmyste said:

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

According to Advaita, there is a "Self" that experiences sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, feelings and thoughts. This Self is like the sky which is never affected by clouds, rain, sun etc.

In Buddhism, even this type of consciousness is not to be taken as a self : Sabbe dhamma anatta - All phenomena is not self.

Recognising that all that arises passes away, we begin to look at that which doesn't arise or pass, and is always there. If you start trying to think about that sound, have a name for it, or claim any kind of attainments from it, then of course you are using it in the wrong way. It's merely a standard to refer to when you've reached the limit of the mind, and the end of the mind as far as we can observe it. So from that position you can begin to watch. You can think and still hear that sound (if you're thinking deliberately, that is), but once you're lost in thought, then you forget it and you don't hear it anymore. So if you get lost in thought, then once you're aware that you're thinking again, turn to that sound, and listen to it for a long time. Where before you'd get carried away by emotions or obsessions or the hindrances that arise, now you can practise by gently, very patiently reflecting on the particular condition of the mind as anicca, dukkha, anatta, and then letting go of it. It's a gentle, subtle letting go, not a slam-bang rejection of any condition. So the attitude, the right understanding is more important than anything else. Don't make anything out of that sound of silence. People get excited, thinking they've attained something, or discovered something, but that in itself is another condition you create around the silence. This is a very cool practice, not an exciting one; use it skilfully and gently for letting go, rather than for holding onto a view that you've attained something! If there's anything that blocks anyone in their meditation, it's the view that they've attained something from it!

Now, you can reflect on the conditions of the body and mind and concentrate on them. You can sweep through the body and recognise sensations, such as the vibrations in the hands or feet, or you can concentrate on any point in your body. Feel the sensation of the tongue in the mouth, touching the palate, or the upper lip on top of the lower, or just bring into the consciousness the sensation of wetness of the mouth, or the pressure of the clothes on your body -- just those subtle sensations that we don't bother to notice. Reflecting on these subtle physical sensations, concentrate on them and your body will relax. The human body likes to be noticed. It appreciates being concentrated on in a gentle and peaceful way, but if you're inconsiderate and hate the body, it really starts becoming quite unbearable. Remember we have to live within this structure for the rest of our lives. So you'd better learn how to live in it with a good attitude. You say, 'Oh, the body doesn't matter, it's just a disgusting thing, gets old, gets sick and dies. The body doesn't matter, it's the mind that counts.' That attitude is quite common amongst Buddhists! But it actually takes patience to concentrate on your body, other than out of vanity. Vanity is a misuse of the human body, but this sweeping awareness is skilful. It's not to enforce a sense of ego, but simply an act of goodwill and consideration for a living body -- which is not you anyway

So your meditation now is on the five khandhas[6] and the emptiness of the mind. Investigate these until you fully understand that all that arises passes away and is not-self. Then there's no grasping of anything as being oneself, and you are free from that desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance. This is liberation from birth and death.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/path4.htm#Emptiness

You're breaking through that illusion that you're a mortal thing -- but I'm not telling you that you're an immortal creature either, because you'll start grasping at that! 'My true nature is one with the ultimate, absolute Truth. I am one with the Lord. My real nature is the Deathless, timeless eternity of bliss.' But you notice that the Buddha refrained from using poetic inspiring phrases; not that they're wrong, but because we attach to them. We would settle for that identity with the ultimate, or one with God, or the eternal bliss of the Deathless Realm, and so forth. You get very starry-eyed saying things like that. But it's much more skilful to watch that tendency to want to name or conceive what is inconceivable, to be able to tell somebody else, or describe it just to feel that you have attained something. It is more important to watch that than to follow it. Not that you haven't realised anything, either, but be that careful and that vigilant not to attach to that realisation, because if you do, of course this will just take you to despair again.

zenmyste

Dakini said:

zenmyste said:

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Yes, there is a self; there is someone doing the experiencing, the thinking, the posting on the forum. There is the self that performs the everyday tasks that human beings perform. The trick is to not get attached to self, not to get wrapped up in it, or view any qualities as permanent.

Yes i know that, i understand that nothing is permanent (including ME) its a fact that im gonna die so obviously i am not permanent!

But i also understand that im only here once and my life is NOW! I dont want to worry about 'rebirths' because for 1. Thats something in the future, and 2. I dont believe in it anyway! I only believe in Right NOW.

And right now i do have a 'self' and i wanna make the most of my time on earth! Therefore i dont think getting attached to the self is necessarily a 'bad' thing as long as we do realize we're not permanent! But even if we did get attached, when the day comes when we die, well we wouldnt suffer because we'll be DEAD!

Dakini

The point isn't that we're impermanent, therefore we'll die. The point is to not identify with self. As soon as you identify with self, you freeze it in time. But we're always evolving. And hopefully, with Dharma practice, we're evolving in the direction of Buddhahood.

But some people become attached to self-image, as in: "I'm attractive, popular, and stylish", or "I'm no good, nobody loves me", or "I'm a shrewd and powerful businessman". In the second example, someone is limiting their prospects for growth. They believe they're in a permanent state of worthlessness. They believe that suffering for them is inevitable. In the other examples--what will they do if/when something happens that radically changes their life, and their self-image goes down the drain? Suffering results. Clinging to self tends to entail either self-limiting beliefs ("I'm not good at math"), vanity (a losing proposition, since we all age), or rigid roles (also subject to change by life's vagaries). All of it is self-limiting, because our potential is so much more than our mind can imagine! If we narrow our view of our potential, we may be cheating ourselves and others, as well as preventing our realization of Buddhahood.

It's not about rebirths, it's about our quality of life in this lifetime, and our potential to be all we can be, and go beyond suffering, while we're at it.

zenmyste

Mmm i dunno, its deep stuff isnt it really!

Im all about Living for 'Now'

If im good looking now then im gonna enjoy it
If im wealthy now im gonna enjoy it
And whatever my fate holds so be it!

There is nothing but the NOW!
I only care about 3 things;

ME
OTHERS
NOW

ThailandTom

zenmyste said:

Mmm i dunno, its deep stuff isnt it really!

Im all about Living for 'Now'

If im good looking now then im gonna enjoy it
If im wealthy now im gonna enjoy it
And whatever my fate holds so be it!

There is nothing but the NOW!
I only care about 3 things;

ME
OTHERS
NOW

There is nothing wrong in enjoying things, we are not here to be totally indifferent to everything that goes in our lives, we after all human beings. But again I feel it is good to find a middle way here, there is a difference between enjoying something and having forms of attachment to something. Sure enjoy your good looks now, but be mindful that they will soon fade and change, your wealth may be gone by tomorrow, who knows. That is not being negative but being wise. When things are going great enjoy them now but be ready for them to change, when things are going shitty, deal with it and make what changes you can whilst keeping in mind that it will eventually pass. Living in the now does not mean we should be blind or ignorant to the future or past, we can learn from this two things just it is not wise to attach to fantasies that lay within them.

misecmisc1

zenmyste said:

Mmm i dunno, its deep stuff isnt it really!

Im all about Living for 'Now'

If im good looking now then im gonna enjoy it
If im wealthy now im gonna enjoy it
And whatever my fate holds so be it!

There is nothing but the NOW!
I only care about 3 things;

ME
OTHERS
NOW

@zenmyste: are you thinking that you are living in 'Now' - or - are you living in 'Now'? While you are living in 'Now', during that time are you able to find anything there?

zenmyste

misecmisc1 said:

zenmyste said:

Mmm i dunno, its deep stuff isnt it really!

Im all about Living for 'Now'

If im good looking now then im gonna enjoy it
If im wealthy now im gonna enjoy it
And whatever my fate holds so be it!

There is nothing but the NOW!
I only care about 3 things;

ME
OTHERS
NOW

@zenmyste: are you thinking that you are living in 'Now' - or - are you living in 'Now'? While you are living in 'Now', during that time are you able to find anything there?

Yeh, when im living in the now , i find happiness!

Its only when i am not living in the now that i suffer!

ThailandTom

But whenever you then contemplate that you are living in the now, you aren't and then get lost again hehe, what fun.

misecmisc1

zenmyste said:

misecmisc1 said:

zenmyste said:

Mmm i dunno, its deep stuff isnt it really!

Im all about Living for 'Now'

If im good looking now then im gonna enjoy it
If im wealthy now im gonna enjoy it
And whatever my fate holds so be it!

There is nothing but the NOW!
I only care about 3 things;

ME
OTHERS
NOW

@zenmyste: are you thinking that you are living in 'Now' - or - are you living in 'Now'? While you are living in 'Now', during that time are you able to find anything there?

Yeh, when im living in the now , i find happiness!

Its only when i am not living in the now that i suffer!

@zenmyste: if while living in the now, you can classify it as finding happiness in now, then the only thing happening is that you are thinking that you are finding happiness in now and then you will not be living in now - because if you are really in now, there will be just sensations arising and ceasing, without your interpretation that you are finding happiness in now.

So there is a difference in thinking that you are living in now and really living in now.

zenmyste

Im not 'thinking' - im just 'being'

When im fully in the now , i dont 'think' about anything therefore i have no desires, goals, attachment or suffering etc etc , its when i 'am' not in the now that i realized i 'was' happy when i was 'just being' living in the now!

BhanteLucky

You should declare yourself Enlightened and start to teach.

zenmyste

JamestheGiant said:

You should declare yourself Enlightened and start to teach.

Why ? Just because im expressing my opinions like everyone does on here!

Anyway, i dont believe in 'enlightenment' so it wouldnt be a good seller would it!

People want to believe there is 'something' to attain or awaken to, but that itself is the delusion!

"We will never be happy or (enlightened) if we continue to search for what happiness/enlightenment is/consists of. We will never live if we are looking for the meaning/practice of enlightenment.,"

robot

zenmyste said:

JamestheGiant said:

You should declare yourself Enlightened and start to teach.

"We will never be happy or (enlightened) if we continue to search for what happiness/enlightenment is/consists of. We will never live if we are looking for the meaning/practice of enlightenment.,"

Taking the Buddhist path is not really searching. It is a very well trodden path. Thankfully it has been illuminated by many greatly realized practitioners.

seeker242

zenmyste said:

Im reading a buddhist book and i dont agree with this no self'

It says;

"What we call 'self' is an imagined entity. The idea of self is a delusion because there is no abiding self...."

Im sorry but i think there is a huge difference;

Its not rocket science that there is no abiding self, we dont 'need' buddhism to tell us that.. We have all seen and had family, friends who have passed away so obviously we are all gonna be gone soon! Not rocket science..

However; how does that mean that the self is a delusion???

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Am i missing something?
And pls explain what???

You are missing "stream entry". But so are most other people.

Florian

zenmyste said:

JamestheGiant said:

You should declare yourself Enlightened and start to teach.

Why ? Just because im expressing my opinions like everyone does on here!

Anyway, i dont believe in 'enlightenment' so it wouldnt be a good seller would it!

People want to believe there is 'something' to attain or awaken to, but that itself is the delusion!

Pardon my pedanticness, but if you are expressing an opinion then your third sentence should not be a dogmatic statement.

Saying you don't believe in enlightenment, and then stating that there is nothing to awaken to and that it is a delusion to think that there is, suggests that you tend to turn your opinions into dogma. Not a good idea for progress in any area of knowledge.

If you do not believe in enlightenement then obvioiusly you believe there is nothing to awaken to. It follows that all those who speak of awakening are deluded or lying. Fair enough. Many people share your opinion.

mettanando

A small whirlwind, just a couple of feet high, emerges as the result of weather conditions.
The small whirlwind crosses a dusty yard and becomes a " dust devil ".
It then goes through corn field and has a body of corn husks.
Then it goes across a body of water and becomes a small water spout..
This small whirlwind emerged because the conditions existed for its arising.
It continues as long as conditions arise for its continuity'
It takes different forms, but is basically the result of changing conditions.
By a leap of the imagination lets give the whirlwind consciousness. of itself.
It might then even take a form that posts opinions to a Buddhist website.

Nevermind

Florian said:

zenmyste said:

JamestheGiant said:

You should declare yourself Enlightened and start to teach.

Why ? Just because im expressing my opinions like everyone does on here!

Anyway, i dont believe in 'enlightenment' so it wouldnt be a good seller would it!

People want to believe there is 'something' to attain or awaken to, but that itself is the delusion!

Pardon my pedanticness, but if you are expressing an opinion then your third sentence should not be a dogmatic statement.

Saying you don't believe in enlightenment, and then stating that there is nothing to awaken to and that it is a delusion to think that there is, suggests that you tend to turn your opinions into dogma. Not a good idea for progress in any area of knowledge.

If you do not believe in enlightenement then obvioiusly you believe there is nothing to awaken to. It follows that all those who speak of awakening are deluded or lying. Fair enough. Many people share your opinion.

Pardon my pedanticness, but someone merely stating opinions does not constitute dogma, particularly when they state, "im expressing my opinions like everyone does on here!"

David

zenmyste said:

Im reading a buddhist book and i dont agree with this no self'

It says;

"What we call 'self' is an imagined entity. The idea of self is a delusion because there is no abiding self...."

Im sorry but i think there is a huge difference;

Its not rocket science that there is no abiding self, we dont 'need' buddhism to tell us that.. We have all seen and had family, friends who have passed away so obviously we are all gonna be gone soon! Not rocket science..

However; how does that mean that the self is a delusion???

Although there is no 'abiding self, there is still a 'self' right NOW isnt there????

Am i missing something?
And pls explain what???

I don't think it's really saying there is no self, but that the self is not an entity unto itself.

There is not "a" being, there is only being. We are not human beings, we are being human. No nouns, just verbs with essense.

The flow in ever changing form.

Gui

Yes, you are.
Just not what or who you think you are.
That is just a dream.
Don't be attached to it.
It's easy to let go once you don't give a damn about the dream.

zenmyste

Ok , thanks everyone for the responses and explanations! However, im afraid i still just dont agree with it!

Like i have stated, i understand that 'we' are not 'permanent', but 'Right now' , i do believe there 'is' a self! I 'am' 'real'

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance..

(Im still a nice , compassionate person though so dont judge me pls - lol x )

FullCircle

IF you really wanna know the answers to your questions- your best bet is to meditate. Its great to be present and live in the now like you're saying you do, but if you're pulling your hair out in frustration trying to understand what enlightenment is, then you are a seeker and you're not fully present. -which is fine- I've lived like that. I call that suffering. You want to KNOW. So you're gonna have to stop thinking and LOOK.
WITHIN. No one will give you the answer you want. NO ONE. Its IN YOU.
NOT in your thoughts.

Nevermind

ourself said:

There is not "a" being, there is only being.

Uh, then how do we tell each other apart? :eek2:

Nevermind

FullCircle said:

No one will give you the answer you want. NO ONE. Its IN YOU.

But "you" is a delusion! :eek:

FullCircle

love that face nevermind:)! aaaahahah i just found the faces/emoticon thingys lol! shoot my computer isn't doing them! soooo behind on technological anything..

But if we dont use the word "you" what can we say? We could say it IS you- but thats still using 'you'! Gotta use language sometimes, but it doesnt work does it!

Nevermind

Don't blame the tool.

misecmisc1

zenmyste said:

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance

@zenmyste: is there anything which you like and is there anything which you dislike? if there is any of these two things, then you can know that there is ignorance.

ThailandTom

Just get over yourself

Dakini

zenmyste said:

Like i have stated, i understand that 'we' are not 'permanent', but 'Right now' , i do believe there 'is' a self! I 'am' 'real'

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance..

But, um...this is what I said, wasn't it? :scratch:

David

Nevermind said:

ourself said:

There is not "a" being, there is only being.

Uh, then how do we tell each other apart? :eek2:

Not sure I understand the question.

Especially since you believe each of us is an illusion.

Just because there is only being doesn't mean that all aspects of being would be identical.

BhanteLucky

Florian

Ha ha...

Brilliant!

zenmyste

misecmisc1 said:

zenmyste said:

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance

@zenmyste: is there anything which you like and is there anything which you dislike? if there is any of these two things, then you can know that there is ignorance.

How is liking something and disliking someone ignorance??????

I dont like the fact there are murderers and rapists, (i accept that these things do exist) and of course i dont like it! (But shit happens)

How the hell is that ignorant???

FullCircle

How the hell is that ignorant??? "

Because being in the grips of duality is ignorance.

zenmyste

FullCircle said:

Because being in the grips of duality is ignorance.

Why? And who says so?

There is white and black
Warm and cold
High and low
Etc etc etc

All these 'dual' situations are 'real'
I 'do' however believe that they are all under 'one' roof (the roof of mother nature) but they still exist!

mettanando

Zenmyste, a simple question. Do you see any merit in Buddhism ?

zenmyste

mettanando said:

Zenmyste, a simple question. Do you see any merit in Buddhism ?

Me personally, no i dont!

Ive read peoples blogs though and authors who practice buddhism 'for' enlightenment. They practice meditation hoping that they will attain such a state of no more suffering etc

But like i said, i personally dont believe there is any merit in 'anything '

I do good because its just in my 'nature'
My mother is very 'nice and compassionate' so ive always followed her steps 'naturally' (not for any merit)

Why do you ask?

robot

@zenmyste went through all of this some months ago.

David

zenmyste said:

FullCircle said:

Because being in the grips of duality is ignorance.

Why? And who says so?

There is white and black
Warm and cold
High and low
Etc etc etc

All these 'dual' situations are 'real'
I 'do' however believe that they are all under 'one' roof (the roof of mother nature) but they still exist!

They only exist as aspects of each other though. White and black are not really opposites, they are complimentary because they are a part of the same cycle and through the balance of both, we get visual perception. Can they really be considered true opposites if they are found on the same polar cycle?

Warm and cold depend on a point of reference as do high and low. These things are only real in the subjective experience and as such are only conceptual so they don't actually exist.

The only opposite for anything is the lack of said thing. There is no opposite of "apple" except "no apple".

Yin may be the conceptual opposite of yang but there is no opposite to yin-yang except no yin-yang.

I understand the yin-yang is not really a Buddhist symbol but it does help illustrate some things.

ThailandTom

zenmyste said:

misecmisc1 said:

zenmyste said:

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance

@zenmyste: is there anything which you like and is there anything which you dislike? if there is any of these two things, then you can know that there is ignorance.

How is liking something and disliking someone ignorance??????

I dont like the fact there are murderers and rapists, (i accept that these things do exist) and of course i dont like it! (But shit happens)

How the hell is that ignorant???

It is ignorant because there is wrong view present. Ignorance in this context and most of the Buddhas teachings does not mean you are stupid, simply you are not aware of something fully as it is. We put labels on things, "this is good and that is bad" when in reality they are neutral. One quick example to explain this is a broken car, to the owner that would be bad because it is their car and it has broken down causing them time and money. To the person who gets paid to fix the car it is good because it means they will be getting paid. In reality it is neither good or bad, it is the same thing but we humans give it a label due to how we conceptualize it.

vinlyn

zenmyste said:

mettanando said:

Zenmyste, a simple question. Do you see any merit in Buddhism ?

Me personally, no i dont!

Ive read peoples blogs though and authors who practice buddhism 'for' enlightenment. They practice meditation hoping that they will attain such a state of no more suffering etc

But like i said, i personally dont believe there is any merit in 'anything '

I do good because its just in my 'nature'
My mother is very 'nice and compassionate' so ive always followed her steps 'naturally' (not for any merit)

Why do you ask?

If you see no merit in Buddhism, why are you here?

misecmisc1

zenmyste said:

misecmisc1 said:

zenmyste said:

I dont think im an 'illusion' and i dont believe i am living in ignorance

@zenmyste: is there anything which you like and is there anything which you dislike? if there is any of these two things, then you can know that there is ignorance.

How is liking something and disliking someone ignorance??????

I dont like the fact there are murderers and rapists, (i accept that these things do exist) and of course i dont like it! (But shit happens)

How the hell is that ignorant???

@zenmyste: do you know what is that ignorance (which is the root cause of all delusion)?