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.
Because they believe there is a truth, they are farther from the truth.
As you grow spiritually, you continue to think that you have found the truth. The more convinced you are that you have found the truth, the farther you are from the truth.
What is enlightenment? Understanding that there is no truth.
Now I just have to understand that I can't just tell people and expect them to understand.
Everything you have posted is everything you have condemned.
Just talk as though "you" understand and "others" do not.
To believe there is no truth is just "your truth". It is the "truth" you believe you have found.
As your blurt your "truth" all over the internet, starting threads about your experience, the impression is your mind is strongly attached to and infatuated by whatever you are experiencing.
You talk too much for one who has found the truth.
The Tao says: "Those who know don't talk; those who talk don't know".
Your mind is in the zombie land of "no truth", "present moment", etc.
Worse, you posted "I" think "I" just experienced enlightenment.
The "I" does not experience enlightenment let alone "think".
The mind thinks, not "I". The mind experiences enlightenment, not "I".
When the mind experiences enlightenment, it does not have to think about whether it has experienced enlightenment or not. The mind knows directly. Thinking is not required.
The car is relatively real, that is, conventionally real, and we do get out of the way if we don't want to die. But it has no inherent existence. We live in conventional, that is, relative, reality on a day-to-day basis. But ultimately it's not real.
I think I'm starting to get it, SD. And yes, we're getting off-topic, which is why I thought about giving this a dedicated thread. Thank you all for your patience.
The point of my story is this: Enlightenment is seeing the non-existence of the ego-self. As long as one still stakes the ego-self as real, one will be trapped in hope and fear. Of all fears, the chief is fear of death. So as long as one still fears death, one has not yet completely overcome the belief that the ego-self is real. There are many scriptural citations that show arhats and bodhisattvas have overcome this fear.
So why not just let yourself be hit by a car? Even though one has overcome the fear of death, one still sees the value of life. One can value a thing without fearing losing it.
Yes, indeed. The longer our life, the more opportunity to develop wisdom and get closer to Enlightenment.
But the question never was about letting yourself get hit by a car. The question was: if it's correct that the car has no inherent existence, then it shouldn't exist for us to get hit by. It's a figment of our imagination, or of our deluded view of reality, if it has no inherent existence.
No, that's the problem right there. You're misunderstanding emptiness. Emptiness doesn't mean there's nothing there; it's literally combining Anatta (No Self) and Anicca (Impermanence). This means that all things are only transient, selfless phenomena that arise and fall, changing. There's nothing that stays that same, that isn't dependent upon other things; all "things" are temporary, we label them and cling to them but they aren't stable permanent selves.
In the sense that it had to be built and can be taken apart; that it wasn't a car, is only a car in the sense that we call it one, and it won't be a car anymore in the future. All phenomena are compounded... this is how things are not as they seem. They're not truly unreal or illusory, but the way we look at them is not in accord with their nature; with our nature.
See the flow of nature. What were you before you were born? Emptiness. DNA from both parents came together, nutrients (food) and oxygen etc. were added and this process has been going on ever since. You're more made up of what used to be plants and animals than anything. And when you die? It's anyone's guess where the various parts of your body disperse to, to be used for nests (bone and hair) or food for insects and animals, the decomposed portion perhaps fertilizer for plants. You're as "empty" as that car... not unreal, but not a stable self either. That is Anicca and Anatta, and if you come to know that truth through your own introspection this may lead to the ending of all Dukkha.
The first awakening is where self view is dropped, and so it is toward dropping self view that you should direct your attention, IMHO.
TheJourney's- your claim of enlightenment is being treated with polite attention. I think that is because you have worked hard at coming to some understanding over the last few months. I find you to be a sincere and likeable presence in my computer. And you get pretty good mileage out of your threads. Others who have tried this get shot down much sooner. I think that one can get a great deal of understanding from reading the work of sages such as Nagarguna, Chandrakirti ect. Trying to reword their material should be left up to commentators like Jamgon Mipham. I guess thats why so many people post quotes here. Its easier.
In the conventional sense the car exists, and we jump out of the way or we pass from this level of existence or become injured. In the ultimate sense, the car does not exist inherently from its own side, but rather is composed of its constituent parts.
In the sense that it had to be built and can be taken apart; that it wasn't a car, is only a car in the sense that we call it one, and it won't be a car anymore in the future. All phenomena are compounded... this is how things are not as they seem. They're not truly unreal or illusory, but the way we look at them is not in accord with their nature; with our nature.
See the flow of nature. What were you before you were born? Emptiness. DNA from both parents came together, nutrients (food) and oxygen etc. were added and this process has been going on ever since. You're more made up of what used to be plants and animals than anything. And when you die? It's anyone's guess where the various parts of your body disperse to, to be used for nests (bone and hair) or food for insects and animals, the decomposed portion perhaps fertilizer for plants.
Everything exists only temporarily. "Car" as opposed to "collection of parts bolted together". The collection of bolted-together parts can still kill me. And things exist only insofar as we all agree on the label for them? (I'm recalling reading that the Native people in the Caribbean didn't even see Columbus' ships, because they had no "ship" concept. I don't know if that story is true.)
You don't need to see the car or know anything about cars for it to kill you. So it's still something, still can affect you. It's just in labeling that we get "lost"... we apply a label to something and then that's what it "is", but it's not. The label is something we add to make it easier to recognize, work with, talk about, etc.; we have to know both the conventional and ultimate realities of things.
We start with labels, strip those off and understand the true nature of all "things", and then can go back to using the labels without being deceived by them. We live in a world with cars, boats, skyscrapers, mountains, deer, people, religions, technology... it seems so impossibly vast to know everything. And yet, everything follows the same nature, the same Dharma; impermanent, compounded (not self, interdependent) -- if we fail to recognize this, we remain bound in a cycle of dukkha, never finding peace.
The whole world exists inside your mind. If you don't understand the true nature of all phenomena, the true nature of mind, you won't be able to avoid dukkha. It's really dependent upon what you want; if you really want to find a peace of mind that is beyond dukkha, you have to face reality head-on. Really the only reason we suffer is that we don't see clearly; it's like needing to wear glasses, but we've forgotten to put them on and so the world remains blurry and we keep running into things.
So, if theres no truth, no reason, just chaos, whats the point? Is there absolutely no point? Are we all just "dust in the wind?" Is even helping other people pointless?
The Buddha thought it had a point. The Buddha taught both compassion and wisdom, and that there's no greater peace than Nirvana. So... we should get at that then, right?
So, if theres no truth, no reason, just chaos, whats the point? Is there absolutely no point? Are we all just "dust in the wind?" Is even helping other people pointless?
What exists simply exists, because there are no other options. There is simply existence. How could there be non-existence? As long as we are existence, the point is to enjoy life and learn.
I read on another thread that some teachers teach that helping others with day-to-day problems is not the goal of Dharma, that it is, indeed pointless, was the clear implication. We're supposed to only be concerned with reaching Liberation ourselves and helping others to do the same. That doesn't seem right to me, though.
The Journey: "The point is to enjoy life and learn." --and help others learn.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you; you already know there's wisdom in this, you know people suffer just like you and you'd want to be helped. And then also work on awakening to the greater reality, the one that's underlying this worldly reality we cling to that causes us so much distress. Then you'll know for yourself.
Thanks, Cloud. I don't know why the emptiness concept is so hard for me to get. Some of these explanations seem to make sense, they offer a glimmer, but it hasn't "clicked" yet.
Very welcome. Don't worry so much if you can't get everything easily... if you knew everything you'd already be enlightened. It's a process; we get out of it what we put into it. Practice practice practice.
How could there be non-existence? As long as we are existence, the point is to enjoy life and learn.
'I' have been dead billions of years and it hasn't bothered me one bit. I did not exist. Life did not have to exist.
You are only subjectively true. You can believe whatever you want about the concept of "I." There are many different ways of expressing it. But none of them are ultimately true. Life is all there is. There is no "dead" and "alive." We're not talking about you. We're talking about the ultimate. The ultimate is life, and all it entails. Beyond that it's whatever helps you. None of these words can express it.
Think about it. Another word for nirvana or enlightenment is liberation. Liberation means free. Seriously think about this. How else could you be free? If there were a truth, then there would be a goodness within that truth that we would have to strive for. This would limit our freedom, as we moved farther and farther away with the ultimate truth. The only way you can be truly free is if there is no truth.
So the truth is there is no truth? Contradictory, sir.
Exactly. Because "truth" or "no truth" are just concepts. Neither of them are true. That's why I can't describe it accurately. It CAN'T be described accurately. That's the point. All words are simply concepts. They help you get there.
The supramundane can't be described; it'll just be like this back and forth. You may be on a natural high right now TJ, may wanna just live a bit. We were using this thread here to get actual work done (hahaha). Sorry. We hijacked it. I guess we can give it a rest now.
It's called "discussion". This is how this site works. I think MindGate made a good observation. Let's not be judgemental.
I'm not being judgemental at all. It does seem contradictory. I agree with him 100%. That's the point. A contradiction is the opposite of truth. Therefore the truth, no truth, is in the form of contradictions.
Yes, we hijacked it. Thank you, Journey, for allowing our digression.
TJ, I was responding to "robot" with my "let's not be judgemental" comment. I think you and MindGate should be free to discuss with each other. I don't see it as finger-pointing. You kids go for it! I'm actually pretty impressed with both of you.
Your revelation seems a tad bit ridiculous. There are only subjective truths? So your some sort of solipsist now? What do you even mean by truth? truth as in what the point of life is? truth as in what reality is?
honestly everything you've written on this thread seems like pure sophistry.
wait.... so why are you posting at all? what was your reason? because to me your reason seems to be to convince people that you're enlightened through sophistry and then to dodge every attack on your logic and rationality by saying "no need to listen to what i say."
if your reason wasn't to convince people of a point, then why would you post at all? you claim its impossible to explain. this sort of reminds me of the mormon religion
if there is no truth why are you still typing? what does that do for you?
Check out Nagarjuna; TJ says Nagarjuna said that the truth is difficult to put into words; words are a human construct and therefore inadequate to describe some profound phenomena and mysteries (that last bit is my comment). Give TJ a break, don't be so hard on him. I'm interested in seeing how he feels about all this in a week's or a month's time.
Because I enjoy the discussions, and I know others will enjoy their life more if they understand. We're seeking liberation. Yet we assume that liberation is a thing to strive for. The truth is we are already liberated. We just have to see it and understand what that means.
Now you're talking, TJ! The Buddhanature is within, and all we have to do is realize it. It's right there, waiting for us to get out of our own way, and to see what's right inside.
Sure words may be inadequate, but I'm wondering why he's here posting at all if he knows words are inadequate.
Maybe im not enlightened but if someone goes and claims enlightenment there is no way I'm going to believe them unless they have something behind them.
He's just really happy at the moment, aHappyNihilist. Can't ya just be happy for him? We call it sympathetic joy in Buddhist lingo. Sure he can't prove enlightenment, but do you see him really trying to? Give the guy a break, I'm with c_w on that. It's enough for me to know he's so overjoyed that he's bursting at the seems to tell everyone how beautiful the world is. It's all good.
I'm not out to make him not be happy, he said he likes the discussion, so lets discuss.
I guess i'm doing this to better understand, because if someone claims enlightenment then I'm not going to pass up the chance to understand what made them enlightened. If he really is enlightened (which i doubt), awesome, I'll do whatever i can to learn from him, if not, then lets actually talk, learn, and move the process forward for us all.
Comments
Just talk as though "you" understand and "others" do not.
To believe there is no truth is just "your truth". It is the "truth" you believe you have found.
As your blurt your "truth" all over the internet, starting threads about your experience, the impression is your mind is strongly attached to and infatuated by whatever you are experiencing.
You talk too much for one who has found the truth.
The Tao says: "Those who know don't talk; those who talk don't know".
Your mind is in the zombie land of "no truth", "present moment", etc.
Worse, you posted "I" think "I" just experienced enlightenment.
The "I" does not experience enlightenment let alone "think".
The mind thinks, not "I". The mind experiences enlightenment, not "I".
When the mind experiences enlightenment, it does not have to think about whether it has experienced enlightenment or not. The mind knows directly. Thinking is not required.
So why not just let yourself be hit by a car? Even though one has overcome the fear of death, one still sees the value of life. One can value a thing without fearing losing it.
But the question never was about letting yourself get hit by a car. The question was: if it's correct that the car has no inherent existence, then it shouldn't exist for us to get hit by. It's a figment of our imagination, or of our deluded view of reality, if it has no inherent existence.
See the flow of nature. What were you before you were born? Emptiness. DNA from both parents came together, nutrients (food) and oxygen etc. were added and this process has been going on ever since. You're more made up of what used to be plants and animals than anything. And when you die? It's anyone's guess where the various parts of your body disperse to, to be used for nests (bone and hair) or food for insects and animals, the decomposed portion perhaps fertilizer for plants. You're as "empty" as that car... not unreal, but not a stable self either. That is Anicca and Anatta, and if you come to know that truth through your own introspection this may lead to the ending of all Dukkha.
The first awakening is where self view is dropped, and so it is toward dropping self view that you should direct your attention, IMHO.
It doesn't mean we don't jump out of the way.
We start with labels, strip those off and understand the true nature of all "things", and then can go back to using the labels without being deceived by them. We live in a world with cars, boats, skyscrapers, mountains, deer, people, religions, technology... it seems so impossibly vast to know everything. And yet, everything follows the same nature, the same Dharma; impermanent, compounded (not self, interdependent) -- if we fail to recognize this, we remain bound in a cycle of dukkha, never finding peace.
The Journey: "The point is to enjoy life and learn."
--and help others learn.
TJ, I was responding to "robot" with my "let's not be judgemental" comment. I think you and MindGate should be free to discuss with each other. I don't see it as finger-pointing. You kids go for it!
:-/
Most moms say that. Mine said that, even though she, herself, would point. She didn't think the rules applied to her. :-/
Your revelation seems a tad bit ridiculous. There are only subjective truths? So your some sort of solipsist now? What do you even mean by truth? truth as in what the point of life is? truth as in what reality is?
honestly everything you've written on this thread seems like pure sophistry.
if your reason wasn't to convince people of a point, then why would you post at all? you claim its impossible to explain. this sort of reminds me of the mormon religion
if there is no truth why are you still typing? what does that do for you?
Maybe im not enlightened but if someone goes and claims enlightenment there is no way I'm going to believe them unless they have something behind them.
oh and by the way, why do you want to help people enjoy their lives?
I guess i'm doing this to better understand, because if someone claims enlightenment then I'm not going to pass up the chance to understand what made them enlightened. If he really is enlightened (which i doubt), awesome, I'll do whatever i can to learn from him, if not, then lets actually talk, learn, and move the process forward for us all.