Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
anatta
ravkes
Veteran
is this somewhat of a paradox?
the body's still here, it still does stuff, relies on logical thought to survive..
but where are 'you' in all of this?
and if you aren't here, what's the point of surviving?
i guess no one would need a point then cause no ones there? haha
you'd work from the universe and use the body just live to live and experience the mystery cause at that point it's just all absurd play even amidst boring schoolwork or a boring job or suffering or anything really eh? the drive is not one of survival but of play and creation and compassion?
enlighten me!
haha
the body's still here, it still does stuff, relies on logical thought to survive..
but where are 'you' in all of this?
and if you aren't here, what's the point of surviving?
i guess no one would need a point then cause no ones there? haha
you'd work from the universe and use the body just live to live and experience the mystery cause at that point it's just all absurd play even amidst boring schoolwork or a boring job or suffering or anything really eh? the drive is not one of survival but of play and creation and compassion?
enlighten me!
haha 0
Comments
I have to disagree with you here. The self is completely false in all but a conventional way. It really is just a thought of the form "I am this body" and all of the conceptual proliferation based on preserving this thought against a hostile, threatening Other. We have a delusion that this "self" is the same from moment to moment, but when one tries to find a locus for it, one can not find it.
However, that doesn't mean that one is left with an empty void when you lessen your obsession with this thought. On the contrary, life becomes spacious, blissful and peaceful without there being any seemingly separate entity there to perceive it. To understand anatma deeply requires considerable analytical meditation/investigation to find out whether there is anything that can be called a self within the mind/body and its causal factors.
it seems as if life just is; it's neither impersonal nor personal..
things just happen here, life is experiencing itself through the appearance of a body.
anatta is mean't to be 'understood' intuitively and experientially, not through the understanding of any concept..
We can understand anatta when thoughts of self eventually settle during meditation. It can also be understood through seeing the body as just being mental states, feelings and consciousness.
This is an interesting article by Bhikkhu Buddhasasa called Anatta and Rebirth.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
What is the Sea-Imprint Samadhi?
excerpted from the Venerable master hua’s explanation of the flower adornment sutra
english translated by theresa kung
http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/433/vbs433p026.pdf
Does the United States of America exist? Can you point to it?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Anataman has two aspects (there are also other terms for both of these but I think they come well under Anataman as a composite).
Emptiness, which is an inward expression of the view. That being there are no things in themselves, no essence of being, no objects no inherent values.
Interconnectedness, which is an outward expression of the view. That being that all phenomenon are interconnected existentially and causally. There are no boundaries of kind or type. Its all one.
Does that seem reasonable? Can you imagine anything that isn't empty and interconnected? Can you imagine one without the other?
Note that this is true of all things in all possible realities. When we apply it to experience the same principles apply, there is no ego, no others. We are all one (or none?), hard as that may be to stay mindful of.
namaste
An eternal unchanging self, a soul, is false. There is no aspect of the human being that is unchanging and permanent.
However if we define self as "the unique point of perspective generated by the sense awareness of the human brain", then we have a concept that is undeniably true.
Complete illusion. Exactly the kind of self I am saying exists only conventionally. I am not intruding any such concepts as "human brain" or "sense awareness" into this as they merely add layers of conceptuality onto the root confusion "I am this body". I am not suggesting that you don't *believe* in this concept called self. I am saying that it is just one thought among many that we privilege and order our experience according to as long as we believe that this thought has an actual referent.
In your way of seeing, would you consider two computers having a conversation to be two "self"?
Computers aren't conscious.
but they are having a discussion, from two different perspective.
According to your own logic, so far it would seem as if you would consider these two computers as self don't you agree?
You mistake what I say. "Complete illusion" does not mean "completely non-existent". This conversation could occur in a dream. There would be no actual separate "selves" but mere appearances of them. As long as you believe that you are an ens, you will order your experience around it. However, I assure you that it is not necessary for a real self to exist in order for conversation to take place. This is why Buddha used all of the metaphors for illusion.
I have a unique perspective, as do you, that is undeniable. The mind and body doing the perceiving may be in flux, but no amount of meditation or enlightenment will allow you to transcend the confines of your unique point-of-view and enter another's.
You've no doubt read that the dichotomy between perceiver and perceived is false, that the perceived only exists in relation to the perceiver as a form and name within the perceivers mind. Yet the very fact that two people looking at the same object will perceive it in different ways, making three objects, is testament to the reality and inescapability of the unique perspective we each are bound to.
Computers don't have discussions and perspectives in the same sense as human beings do, but using your analogy loosely, yes their unique positions would make them distinct. In fact, I think it's the anti-virus software's ability to distinguish "self" from "other" that allows for successful intruder prevention.
Tomorrow I won't be who I am now, and you won't be who you are now, but there will still be two conscious minds perceiving this conversation from distinct and unique perspectives.
The conventional "self" is a "what", a "thing". To call it "self" seems to be misleading. Perhaps calling it a "unique perspective" seems to be appropriate indeed...
Tomorrow? How about from moment to moment. Sameness is just a concept, uniqueness just a concept. What you call uniqueness I call attachment to accumulating tendencies. I don't doubt that for you it seems very real. It is however, a grave error to confuse what you have become habituated to with the lived experience of your interlocutors. I find no such unique viewpoint, only a constantly unfolding, ever fresh, boundless field of awareness. I have no problem with speaking conventionally of an "I", but it doesn't match my lived experience. I have found no such entity.
What is wisdom in the buddhist context is non-dual buddhajnana. In the presence of it, all concepts like self and other evaporate. I have a feeling that you are arguing for realism and would likely agree that awareness is an epiphenomena of matter. I don't accept that premise. My experience is that matter is an epiphenomena of awareness.
The point of the dream metaphor was not to say that I am a dream, but merely to point out that within your present experience there are examples of the appearance of a multitude of unique viewpoints where in actually there was no multitude. The appearance is there, but the actuality is not. This is the same situation that I am pointing to in the waking state. I am not arguing with how things appear to you, I am saying that things appear that way because you are habituated to perceiving that way.
Where does America go when the salty patriot closes his eyes?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I'd like you to meditate by following my breath, tell me what you have experienced by following the flow of my breath for a few moments.
Two waves, one washing ashore in Dover, another in Cape Cod are alike in being the same ocean. One does not make the category error of calling it the same wave. There is no essence that makes that wave what it is-- no wave-self. It is merely a label for a certain appearance.
The same is true of our sense of identity.
Right after you read the rest of my post.
What is labeled "Dorje" is a different set of attachments to accumulating tendencies to what is labeled "Chrysalid". The example is of two waves crashing ashore on different beaches. Same ocean, same water, different location.
As one progresses in meditation, one sees how pervasive the tendency is towards what you could call centering-- the strong tendency to array experience around a central locus. With repeated samadhi, this tendency loosens to the point that it feels foolish to say "I am here in this body", or even "I am here as opposed to there". Experience becomes oceanic rather than self-other oriented. This does not mean that one experiences all of the particulars of other sentient beings efforts at solidifying, in the same way that one wave does not comprehend the entire ocean.
The anatta doctrine says the exact same thing about the Self, that is: the Self is not a permanent, everlasting, and absolute entity. It does not say that a Self does not exist (a nihilsm theory) or the Self does exist (eternalism theory). Maybe, the correct position is not to take hold of any opinions or views, but try to see that what we call "I", or "being", is just composed of the five aggregates, all of which are subject to the anicca doctrine.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/deathless.pdf
_/\_
You can't follow my breath. The reason you can't follow my breath is because you haven't the ability to sense my breath. The reason you cannot sense my breath is because your senses aren't in proximity to my breathing. The reason your senses aren't in proximity to my breathing is because they are integral to your sense organs. The reason your sense organs aren't in proximity to my breathing is because they are limited to your physical body, which is located at a great distance in relation to my breathing. The reason you can't extend your senses to follow my breath regardless of distance is that you cannot dislocate your sense organs from your consciousness. The reason you cannot dislocate your sense organs from your consciousness is that your consciousness is confined to your physical body, your brain. Thus your awareness is limited to the immediate surroundings of your physical body.
This limit is what I am referring to as your "unique perspective". No other mind shares your sense organs because no other mind shares your physical body. Every mind is confined to its own limit of sense awareness and so each mind can view the world only from its own unique perspective. This uniqueness, I conjecture, qualifies as selfdom.
What you're saying about experience becoming "oceanic rather than self-other orientated" is illusory. Your mind, your senses, are confined and limited, that is their nature. You may feel that you're experiencing the oneness of all things, but that is simply replacing one illusion, that of separate self, with another illusory state.
Because here's the thing, the unique perspective isn't separate and distinct from the rest of reality, it's part of reality's fundamental nature. It's not even limited to conscious beings. Rocks, stars, atoms, they all relate to the universe via a unique perspective (though granted, they don't have sense awareness) and in doing so generate physical laws such as special relativity.
Now, where I agree with you is that as human beings, our sense of a continuous entity is false. We are accumulations of experience - processed, refined, altered, destroyed. We aren't one being existing over time, but innumerable temporary phenomena (which includes the unique perspective) linked via dependant origination.
The point I was trying to make (and I've had to re-read the thread to figure out what that was) is that a concept like "self" is subject to more than one definition. The one Buddha debunked was anatman, the concept that at the heart of every human being is a core identity, a divine spark that exists eternally, unaffected by changes wrought on the physical body and mind.
My "unique perspective" could qualify as an alternative concept of self, as the unique perspective of a human being (or a bee, tree or moon) is unique precisely because it exists no where else in the universe. If we wanted to explain what makes one person distinct from another, or from their environment, the only thing that really differs between them is the point of view from which they perceive the world. I'm not saying however that it is immune from impermanence.
"I" is inherently an abstract concept. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. Waves exists just like seas and oceans do.
Certainly point of view is an important part of the form of a self.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I agree. I think it also contains in itself the reason why they are impermanent.
I am not sure this is true or that it relates to Anicca. What do you mean?
I think this is not quite right. Annataman is about all things, not just the idea of a self. Moreover it's realising the composite nature of all things, emptiness and interconnectedness.
I think it is pretty clear that if Anataman is true then there is no self or ego.
Just thoughts
namaste
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Nothing in the world is absolute. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I meant nothing is totally unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, perfect, or complete. I don't know if "emptiness" is absolute, though?
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>The anatta doctrine says the exact same thing about the Self, that is: the Self is not a permanent, everlasting, and absolute entity. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I thought "anicca" doctrine is about ALL things and the "anatta" doctrine was more specifically about the Self. But, I could be wrong here...
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>It does not say that a Self does not exist (a nihilsm theory) or the Self does exist (eternalism theory). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> I think a Self (ego) exists as a conventional truth, otherwise we won't be able to function in this world; but, in terms of ultimate truth, it would perhaps be correct to say "there is no Self".
I'm pretty much a beginner in Buddhism; so I have a long way to go yet to gain adequate confidence in complex teachings such as anatman/anatta doctrine. Thanks for your input.
Metta,
S
Hmmm, I think numbers and logical operators might be. But thats pernikitty
I think it absolutly is absolute, I think the buddha did to.
No, the marks of existence are about all things that might exist. You can think this out for yourself, it is indubitable.
Nooooo way, you do yourself disservice.... these are not hard to grasp. They are utterly simple concepts. They are not even deep, in the way that interdependent causation is.
The part I found hard was to make sense of Dukka being a mark of existence rather than mere experience.
namaste
I found this quite 'tricky' too, until I began seeing all three marks as one interconnected unit. If I separate them and view them in isolation, I kinda see dukkha as a possible result of impermanence/no self and not so much as itself being a mark of existence.
Your input is appreciated.
With metta,
S
Please point out to me where Lord Buddha spoke about the physical body and the brain as being the containers of consciousness. I have looked through the teachings on pratityasamutpada in some detail and I can't find this concept anywhere. Instead we find that ignorance (avidya) came first and all of the body formulations came after. How do we account for this if we are going to posit the body as foundational for consciousness?
An interesting theory, but not only counter to my experience but I can't find a single Buddhist teaching that posits the same thing. What you call "unique perspective" I call "grasping at a self" or "attachment".
There's that "you" again doing the experiencing and the a priori assumptions about its limits. If you have practiced vipashyana and investigated them in depth, I am quite sure I won't be able to shake them lose. However, I am not talking about some illusory state. I am saying that there is a non-conceptual wisdom that underlies all of these prapanca of limitations. That wisdom is self-illuminating and not confined in any way. It can only be spoken of metaphorically. You can accept it or not, as you wish. However, I can point to countless sources in the Prajnaparamita and Tathagathagarbha corpus that corroborates what I am saying.
If you want to create a hybrid model using current scientific speculation as the basis and adding buddhism where it fits into your understanding of science please don't let me dissuade you. However, you might start out with some real discipline in any one of the domains you have spoken of, be it cognitive psychology or quantum physics. Both have at their limits, be it in accounting for mystical experience or non-locality respectively, begun to look a lot more like the Buddhist view. Armchair psychology and physics is about as useful as armchair Buddhism.
Again, I would suggest that you go to the source texts of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) to find whether there is support for your view of consciouness and how it arises. I don't deny that you feel that unique persective is self-evidently true. However, it is as clearly self-evidently untrue to me after having practiced the path for some years and gained experience of the precepts I have been given. Hence, I am asking you for what teachings of Dharma you are basing your postulates on.
Kind regards,
Karma Dorje
If something is not in the texts that does not mean it should be rejected as Dharma
If something is in the texts that does not mean it should be accepted as Dharma.
Go not by what is written or what is taught, what is seen or what is thought...
This is not the case. Obviously when it comes to physics and a lesser degree psychology the armchair is not much of an arena.
Dharma can be found, seen and taught from the comfort of an armchair or the shade of a Bodhi tree.
Do you mean the 12 Niddanias or interdependent causation here?
The niddanias area very troublesome construction, when you take them off their alter. Interdependent causation, on the other hand, is where its all at;)
namaste
Depending on what you call mind, yes. I pointed this out earlier in the thread when I noted that I view matter as an epiphenomena of awareness and that perhaps you might be viewing awareness as an epiphenomena of matter.
No not merely for not being in the texts. However, it should accord with what is in the text.
Actually yes, if it is in the source texts it is by definition "Dharma". Not following you there. That is not to say that it should be left there. You need to apply it in your own practice.
What this is to say is that amateur speculation is often based on assumptions which are not current in the field under discussion, NOT a comment on the furniture in use.
I'll have two of whatever you are smoking. The twelve nidanas are the links of interdenpendent origination.
I disagree, everything should be available for rejection if it does not match with what we ourselves know we know.
"...don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought...
"
Dharma was discovered by the Buddha. it is a set of universal truths and practices that were around before the Buddha, at every point in the universe.
It is not what is written in those ancient texts, which refer to an even earlier time.
I think you have said enough on that, let me guess, you are or know some "Pro-Buddhists?":)
I disagree. I think the 12 Nids are a later attempt to systematize karmnic cycles. I don't imagine the Buddha would have taught them
Also, please can you try to speak with nobility. Accusing me of must having being on drugs because my ideas do not conform with your orthodoxies is impolite, and it looks bad upon you.
namaste
The point of the Kalama Sutta, which you quote without attributing, was for the followers of the Buddha to test his words rather than merely accept them because of legends, traditions, etc. They were certainly not an admonition for one to pick and choose from the Dharma based on one's own presuppositions.
I think you will find you are in a distinct minority if you are saying that the teachings contained in the dharma texts are not themselves the universal truths and practices of which you speak. Most of Buddhist traditions depend on "buddhavacana" the words of the Buddha as being an authoritative means of knowledge, hence they accept the Tripitika as being what the Buddha said.
How much have you actually read of the source texts? Vishuddhimagga? Samyutta Nikaya? The twelve nidanas are accepted by all Buddhist traditions.
I am not accusing you of being on drugs because your ideas don't conform with mine. I am just trying to account for the wonderfully incoherent statement:
Do you mean the 12 Niddanias or interdependent causation here?
The niddanias area very troublesome construction, when you take them off their alter. Interdependent causation, on the other hand, is where its all at
What on earth is a "niddania" and what are you refering to as "interdependent causation"? How can you put a nidannia, whatever it is, on an altar?
I appreciate your concern for how my words reflect on me, but I will take coherence over nobility any day of the week.
I disagree. The KS to my mind is probably the most important of the texts, a genius statement of a perfect epistemic principle.
Naturally, that is not the kind of principle one wants if one wants to be an orthodoxy.
Yet again speak negatively with you "without attributing." This is the advanced forum, we all should know where that quote is from. And to those who don't I would hope they can find it very easily.
But to appease your cynciism, next time I will attribute the quote.
We agree. They are very much not about picking and choosing Dharma.
I am in a distinct minority on many of my views about Dharma. I aodre the suttras, they hold countless truths and expositions of Dharma and the life of the Buddha. But to me, essentially they are ledgends about the man who discovered dharma.
To my mind this is wrong view and against the KS guidance.
It doesn't matter to you if I have read all ten thousand suttras in the cannon or just the kalama suttra and "Buddhism for Dummies". All that is relevant here is what is said about what is talked about, not the "Professional Qualifications" that you seem to hold so paramount.
As is literal rebirth and gender difference, it doesn't make it right view or what the buddha taught.
Clearly the 12 links that so often get construed as being what DO is rather than a fabricated model that spuriously (I believe) exhibits the interdependence causation.
As for the "alter", they are highly placed even though they are poorly understood. As said, I don't think the Buddha taught them and I dont think they belong besides the eightfold path, the noble truths or the marks of existence.
You should be able to do with without being ignoble... point out my incoherence please.
So your point is that anyone who hold what you call "orthodox" is wrong? You then neglect the voluminous epistemological writing of the various buddhist traditions in favour of a simplistic "Doubt everything" principle.
So the onus is on your reader to find where you are quoting from rather than spending the extra five seconds to attribute? Lord knows why advanced students in the Academy bother to cite. Their audience should know how to search for what they quote. Pointing out that you are quoting without sourcing your quote is not negative, it is factual.
Oh please don't change on my account, particularly if you hold me to be a cynic. As you build your argument, do what feels right.
So instead of looking to the substance of the arguments, you would rather just dismiss them as legends? That's a curious approach. Surely KS advises that one weighs each idea and put it to the test in one's own meditation.
Well, as you are an expert on the KS and have not read Dignaga, Dharmakirti et al on the foundations of Mahayana buddhist epistemology it's not clear how you are making such a judgement aside from talking off the top of your head.
On the contrary, what is important is the teachings of Dharma and how much you have applied them in your own practice. If you have not tested them in the laboratory of your own mind and merely dismiss them because they don't agree with your cherished notions, I believe you have missed the intent of the Kalama Sutta.
I am surprised that I need to point out that dismissing a point of view without actually reading it and understanding it is just foolishness.
You also confuse what I spoke of earlier. I was speaking of understanding of the disciplines of cognitive psychology and quantum physics, both of which move so quickly that it is nearly impossible to stay on top of developments in them without being engaged in an academic setting or in daily praxis. It is not impossible but they are not conducive to significant home study. It is not a question of credentials, it is a question of engagement.
So provide your evidence that what he taught is something different. Such speculation without evidence is of little point in a forum with opposing viewpoints. Lay your principles and evidence on the table.
OK. Thank you for sharing again. Now please explain how it is spurious.
Again, you state your claim without evidence. What evidence do you have that the Buddha did not teach the twelve nidanas as all extant buddhist traditions believe?
We should be able to converse without checking our sense of humour at the door. Please don't take the "thick" part of your monicker so literally.