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.
Who are you?
ravkes
Veteran
This forum can be filled to the brim with knowledge and practices, essentially loads of things to do and think about. However, does anybody here actually know who they are?
Who do you think you are?
The body?
Sensations?
Emotions?
Thoughts?
If you do think you're something or other do you know this for certain? It seems to me it's better to answer this fundamental question. Perhaps it's here where suffering originates and can be seen through. Because who suffers?
Who do you think you are?
The body?
Sensations?
Emotions?
Thoughts?
If you do think you're something or other do you know this for certain? It seems to me it's better to answer this fundamental question. Perhaps it's here where suffering originates and can be seen through. Because who suffers?
0
Comments
The question itself can be said to be wrong, as it implies there is a duality when there isn't.
Well, that's one understanding. We can label a process, but there's no static thing or an unchanging definition that will do to encompass what that process truly is. We begin by identifying ourselves with the aggregates (body, sensations, feeling, consciousness, perception and thoughts) and at some point the aggregates themselves have no "separate" reality; there is only sight, sound, taste, touch, smell and thought. When we no longer even identify these, even any one of them, as "me"... there's no separate thing/person to label.
The Buddha's way of dealing with it, especially since he was going to be associating with many people and passing on a doctrine and discipline, was to label himself "Tathagata", which translates as "teacher". It's not really about "who" we are, because this has no meaning, but rather it's what we do that matters (at least, in a relative worldly sense).
A "cloud" of transient, conditioned phenomena that is constantly changing and will by its nature disperse and condition new arisings. That's my answer in a nutshell. :om:
...nah, just a smartass
And then also "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam!". Ooh and the 1980's live action movie featuring Robin Williams as Popeye. Remember that?
It has no clue! Initially thoughts were getting freaked out, and cause most of us identify with thoughts I created a whole reality of panic attacks, fear and anxiety for myself. So then I was like naaa I can't be my thoughts, they is cruzzyyy and then my body came thru and was like YO I'M YOU! But likes, twas still the thoughts saying that ish and if I believed em then bam my reality was created. The mind is uber powerful!!
Now the only way to express how this is experiencing reality is that whatevers going on is going on. The minute I believe in the thought that tries to find self in anything, boom suffering happens. So forgettt it brah, 1 year of spiritual mumbo jumbo searching was enough.. the suffering helped me realize I was creating the illusion of suffering. Freaky deaky man, you can live as a body/mind and fully believe in it then BOOM you're shaken up don't know who you are or where you are. Suffer a bit cause it's mad uneasy when you see how absurd this all is, then you're like man it's just what it is and what it is ain't include me that's just the truf!
Please excuse my expression, I just felt like being silly.
haha you're funny.
You write the most concise posts dude, like fo sho straight up you be tellin us the truf. Likes, intellectually everybodys knows the truth but when you face the truth and all those fears comes up that's when transformation happens and youse just like WOAHHHHH WHERE I IS?
haha
AYYY
"Who am I?" Define being and I'll answer.
People need to start simplifying their philosophy. The big questions often have a simpler answer than we want to admit....it's not that we ask the wrong questions....we ask them thinking they are this big mystery, when the truth is really plain when you look at the fundamentals.
Pip Pip Cheerio Good Sir. Pip Pip.
Ain't no mystery hurr, it's happening right in front of us ay!! And no individuals doing it!
Although I'd like to hear your take on how logic is used to function properly in the waking state. Logic can be used, but by what is it used by?
Buddha-skynet? Instead of bringing the apocalypse, it forces you to be nice to your mom.
Before I ever heard of buddhism, it was clear to me, that we are changing all the time. That two twins were two different people despite having the same dna root. That, in a sense, a senile man was not the same person as who he was before alzheimer's hit him. etc etc
Determining identity is a holistic exercise. You can't look at any one part of me and that that is me. It's the whole that makes me who am I. It's the whole that gave rise to human consciousness.
It's like talking about society. You can say a society doesn't REALLY exist, because it's just an abstraction - in actuality we have, say, 10 million individuals living in a country. But human knowledge is ALL about what is in our head to begin with. We name and categorize...we make mental maps of reality...and for all intents and purposes, those concepts do exist in our head, because that's how a human perceives reality.
To do away with those mental maps...is denying what makes us human to begin with. To deny the existence of an "I", which in CONCRETE terms might not be the same throughout the years but in ABSTRACT/HOLISTIC terms can be, is a fools errand imo. I mean, I know it doesn't exist. It's a mental projection. But that's what humans are all about. Human projections.
I'm not any one cell in my body, but I am the whole. The whole that is aware. How aware of their existence are alzheimer patients? Not a whole lot. Identity is not a concrete palpable concept, but it's a tool.
No one cell in my body is responsible for logic reasoning, but I still do it nonetheless. The question is partial from the get go...it's asking who is using logic, when you are going inside the brain, and I'm not any one part of my brain....who only applies to a bigger scale. You don't ask which cell is responsible for me doing this or that....because it doesn't make sense.
Like society, you don't ask which individual is responsible for the current state of affairs. Sure, a president might have a bigger impact on the whole than a random individual of that society, but he still isn't in control of the whole system. Which does not mean that societies can't change "by their own volition".
If you cut my foot, I'm still me. If you get a new president you still have the same society. If you stab my heart I die......am I my heart?
What is being? That's the whole problem here.
The Buddha was right in say we are not just our thoughts or our emotions or our senses...etc....but the phrase I read on these boards so much "you are not your thoughts/*whatever else*" ....is misleading, because it implies that we are going to get to point where there IS something that we indeed ARE....and if we don't get to that point it means we AREN'T anything. Which is wrong. Abstract concepts are just as real as concrete ones.
Because they shape humans just as much if not more. And indeed humans are dependent on them to survive and to perceive the world.
I can only speak for myself. When I am speaking about such things, I am using a non-implicative negation. The whole of the Mahayana Buddhist philosophical project can be summed by saying that the labeling process is itself the source of confusion and that as a result of taking the labels for reality-- thinking that there is a real referent that attaches somehow to the label-- is the problem. The deconstruction of the ego concept is primary. When one sees clearly that there is actually no referent to the "I", one is freed from all of the neurotic efforts to preserve and protect that "I" on the one hand and to enhance and expand it on the other.
You can say that it is a mere label that can be used practically, and this is exactly what a Madhyamika would say is conventional truth. The problem is when you take it to be real at a deeply felt visceral level. This is not to say that labeling is itself bad, but rather that labeling what we see as discrete entities is confused. Concepts are an indirect way of knowing. In the Mahayana corpus there are a number of other ways to know that are more direct, primarily prajna and jnana. When these are active, concepts assume their rightful role. When they are not active, concepts arise as discursiveness and emotional confusion.
Nobody. Nobody at all.
Why not?
Everyone knows the truth already. There is no inherent meaning to things, the world is interdependent, if nothing else because there are interactions at the atomical and subatomical level...Labels are subjective and relative.
Saying when prajna and jnana are active concepts assume their rightful role is a label in itself.
Also, people don't want simply to know the truth. They want happiness. Buddhism often operates under the assumption that we can't control our environment. But that's not entirely true. We have a pre-frontal cortex for something. An "I" might not exist, but I can create it in my mind.
Not, talking, not labeling, isn't going to make you any happier. We are social beings. We can exile ourselves and realize all the truth in the world....but it's already pretty apparent nothing we conceive of, is real in itself. I mean, we think with words. Of course it's going to be limited. But who cares?
Realizing anatta, doesn't mean I'm gonna stop being me.
Thinking with the conceptual mind is not the only way of cognizing. This is where we are talking at cross-purposes. If you think that this is the only way to understand things for humans-- that there are no direct non-symbolic types of cognition, then it will be almost impossible to understand what most of buddhist epistemology postulates. Prajna is the cognition that whatever arises to mind is empty of any nature that makes it what it is. This is not a conceptual proposition. The object cognized is simultaneously viewed as empty. Jnana is pure awareness free from concepts. It is not a blankness but rather wakefulness freed from a duality of knower and known.
It is of course trivial to just say "It's all words". That's not what I am saying. I am saying that we have grown habituated to viewing the world through elaborate systems of labels. That habituation makes us take things that are unreal to be real. Removing that habituation is not accomplished simply by saying "Yeah, they're all words". That habituation must be first deconstructed logically through the analysis of anatma, madhayamaka, etc. Then one must gain experience of the non-conceptual through meditation. I would strongly suggest that you gain some experience of samadhi before you dismiss "not labeling" as unable to remove suffering.
Realizing anatma means that you realize you were never you in the first place, that you were mistaken. Not being you, nothing to grasp, nothing to avoid. How is this not an end to suffering? You like to say that Buddhism is simple, and I agree with you. However, I think you put legs on the snake most of the time. You are of course free to just pick and choose what tidbits of buddhist thought edify you. Just don't have very high expectations of the results. Buddha was not from Vienna and Spinoza was not the target of his philosophy.
I don't mean to dismiss "not labeling" as unable to remove suffering. I'm just saying that no labeling of anything whatsoever, is impossible. The Buddha used metaphors all the time to explain reality. I'm just saying that the problem is not in the labels themselves, but how we relate to them. How we use them. If they are benefitting us or not. I don't believe in extremisms.
If it's the end of the entity that suffers in the first place. And my personal goal is not the end of suffering. I've accepted I will suffer more in my life. It's highly likely. I just want to less and less suffering. In some areas more than others.
I'm lucky then that I don't tend to cling to other peoples opinions on my own spiritual search
The alternative to not to choose the tidbits that edify me...is to blindly believe in things that don't make sense to me. I don't even disagree with anatta. But I don't exist merely from a certain prespective.
In your opinion, then, what is the opposite of suffering?
I don't have a particular definition of suffering. By definition to suffer is to experience something bad. So I guess it would be to experience something good. Does that answer your question?
"Good" and "Bad" are relative sensations. Suffering is Birth, Death, Old Age, Sickness, Lamentation, Anxiety, Despair, Loss, Loneliness, Anger, Frustration, Confusion, Boredom, Hunger, etc. Nirvana is the end of suffering. Our concepts of "good" and "bad" have arisen from sensual contact and lead to desire, attachment, becoming, rebirth, and suffering. It's called Codependent Arising and one of the most basic tenets of Buddhist faith.
Yes. and that is what I was getting at. The Buddhist definition of suffering includes the suffering of change; happiness belongs to the suffering of change as it cannot last and will eventually leave you wanting. Therefore, to lessen the suffering of suffering (pain and the like) and increase the suffering of change (happiness and the like) seems kind of silly. It seems not to recognize the unsatisfactory nature of even such things that make us happy.
I understand. But when you try to force non-duality into everything, nothing good is left like you say. So I don't think it's that clear cut.
Happiness is not the suffering of change. Happiness might be tied to the suffering of change. But happiness is not suffering. The "all-out" pursuit of "high" states of mind, might be unwise....but buddhism doesn't teach that one shouldn't try to be happy. It just tells us the wrong/right ways to go about it.
I might have to leave my wife and kids to attain nirvana, but maybe I don't want nirvana, and still see some value in buddhism. Know what I'm saying?
We must all know our limits (whether they be real or imagined) so that we can bear witness to the limits being broken.
When will your bucket break?
In 40 years? Tomorrow? Your next breath?
Are you ready?
Some people aren't THAT unhappy with their lives, that they want to change them that radically
I wouldn't use the word Dharma-lite for myself, because I don't define myself in comparison to the the Dharma, the Buddha or the Sangha.
It isn't one's life that has to change, it is one's understanding. I have a wife, two kids, a big house in the suburbs, two cars, etc. I wouldn't practice a philosophy that tells me I have to give them up to attain realization.
One's understanding can be completely revolutionized without one atom of difference in the material situation.
I don't disagree with that statement. It is the compulsive labeling that is harmful. Unfortunately, most of what we do on a day to day basis is compulsive labeling-- we treat appearances as if we are a solid individual and the the appearances are solid objects in relation to this individual. When jnana becomes ascendant and vijnana takes its rightful place, then labeling is possible as a strictly conventional activity. One does not engage in the primarily semantic pursuit of meaning within language structures. One is able to intuit truth directly.
The traditional illustration is the rope and the snake. If you see a rope lying on the ground and mistake it for a snake, when it is pointed out to you that it is just a rope you don't say: "Whew, the snake is gone!". You realize that there never was a snake, merely an imagination of the snake. The so-called self is just like this.
I thought you said you don't like extremes. You are saying that there are only two choices: believe blindly or pick and choose what you believe in. There are many different ways to approach this. Like most other things, one can place trust in an authority provisionally. One can say, "Well I don't see this now, but I will use it as a working theory until I can see for myself". Active doubt is not openmindedness. It is the imposition of theories and axioms that one is not putting on the table. Of course, I personally think that good philosophy starts and ends with aporia- a sense of openminded wonder. I don't like mere doubt much, that's just my disposition.
Yet that's just what the Buddha did.
Change comes from within you mean. Atoms are being changed, if nowhere else, inside your brain:D While I agree with that to an extent....
...it's not a coincidence that monks refrain from sex and other things. We are not titans. Or at least, we don't become titans in a split second irrespective of context. Interdependence and all that.
Only to the best of our own ability.
That's assuming I think the self is something that it is not. That's assuming I'm independent from the rope in order to see it. That's assuming I trust the people who is telling me it's a rope. And that's assuming I have a easy way to tell it's not indeed a snake.
If there was no abstract self, there would be nothing that suffered. No one to practice buddhism, no one to become enlightened. If Buddhism is to make sense, it has to make sense to ordinary people in ordinary situations in ordinary life.
I don't believe in authority. I'm my own teacher. And what you explained is a subset of picking and choosing what to believe in.
Doesn't it make much more sense to use a theory after you see it for yourself? Doesn't it make much more sense to make one's own theories and pit them against reality and everyday life?
Do you think I'm limiting myself from seeing it for myself, because I disagree with some stuff like faith, and a part of what a few unenlightened guys interpreted some other guy to have said 2500 years ago?
My name is a pun on this: who knows, I don't!
Simplistically I would say that I am my mind. Yet I would also say that my mind is not inherently existing and therefore cannot be defined or found, even from a mental point of view. I would also say that my body and outer phenomena, literally from my point of view, are also reflections of the mind. That is the view of the tradition which I follow. It is said that not even a Buddha can find their own mind as it cannot be found.
Cheers, WK
In Tibetan: Bcom Idan 'das ma shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'I snying po
In English: The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom, the Bhagavati [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Thus have I once heard: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Blessed One was staying in Rajagrha at Vulture Peak along with a great community of monks and great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One fully entered the meditative concentration on the varieties of phenomena called the Appearance of the Profound. At that very time as well, holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, beheld the practice itself of the profound perfection of wisdom, and he even saw the five aggregates as empty of inherent nature. Thereupon, through the Buddha's inspiration, the venerable Sariputra spoke to holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and said, "Any noble son who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should train in what way?" [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] When this had been said, holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, spoke to venerable Sariputra and said, "Sariputra, any noble sons or daughters who wish to practice the perfection of wisdom should see this way: they should see insightfully, correctly, and repeatedly that even the five aggregates are empty of inherent nature. Form is empty, emptiness is form, Emptiness is not other than form, form is also not other than emptiness. Likewise, sensation, discrimination, conditioning, and awareness are empty. In this way, Sariputra, all things are emptiness; they are without defining characteristics; they are not born, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not undefiled. They have no increase, they have no decrease. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, no discrimination, no conditioning, and no awareness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, no phenomenon. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element and also up to no element of mental awareness. There is no ignorance and no elimination of ignorance and so on up to no aging and death and no elimination of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Therefore, Sariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no obtainments, they abide relying on the perfection of wisdom. Having no defilements in their minds, they have no fear, and passing completely beyond error, they reach nirvana. Likewise, all the Buddhas abiding in the three times clearly and completely awaken to unexcelled, authentic, and complete awakening in dependence upon the perfection of wisdom. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Therefore, one should know that the mantra of the perfection of wisdom - the mantra of great knowledge, the precious mantra, the unexcelled mantra, the mantra equal to the unequalled, the mantra that quells all suffering - is true because it is not deceptive. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is proclaimed: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] tadyatha - gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Sariputra, a bodhisattva, a great being, should train in the profound perfection of wisdom in that way." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Thereupon, the Blessed One arose for that meditative concentration, and he commended holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being. "Excellent!" he said. "Excellent! Excellent! Noble child, it is just so. Noble child, it is just so. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom in the manner that you have revealed - the Tathagatas rejoice!" This is what the Blessed One said. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Thereupon, the venerable Sariputra, the holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and that entire assembly along with the world of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, all rejoiced and highly praised what the Blessed One had said. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
There is no me, there is no "I". Basically what "I" am is just a mixture of attitudes and mannerisms I picked up in life due to friends, T.V. and the amount of Internet I view.
Namaste
(BTW I'm back, Merry Christmas all!)
// funny and interesting... but part of maia (so to speak)
If you would to look at a lit incense moving in a circle movement inside a dark room (you should not have preconception and preoccupation on darkness etc). You would find that the formed circle is actually started from a beginning. In fact, it never existed at all, but without it, circle cannot be formed, and so, its existence cannot be denied either. Circle in the darkness is liken to suffering and Bodhi, the former is impermanent, while the latter is permanent. If everyone would to understand and acknowledge this truth, and contemplates other beings and Buddha is no different as themselves, suffering would reduce as loving kindness taking root. And for good rooted beings, suffering is bodhi or suffering becomes bodhi, and bodhi is emptiness. Basically, materialism of poverty, wealth, looks, health, intellect and wisdom are the cause of previous lives, the fortunate helps the less fortunate, and both ought to learn and contemplate on Bodhi so as to attain inherent nature of Buddhahood.
I especially like the TV set analogy and how it relates to all phenomena being empty of self. I think everybody has the capacity to learn, at least at an intellectual level, that there is no self-nature in any of this. Science can prove that we're all made up of the same substances and our bodies are just compounded phenomena -- different elements and what not. Only time will tell if people begin to see this, if enough don't the human species is doomed. Then again maybe that's what's best. Who really knows..