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.
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@Walker said: @Carlita The best way I can explain what I mean is to think of an ocean wave. A wave exists, but it is in constant motion. It is never the same from one moment to the next. And it exists as part of a greater whole. Now, you can look at a wave, and see it distinctly, but it is not really separate from the rest of the ocean. And it's always changing, so it's never the same from one moment to the next.
How I see it, though, is it is always the ocean. It doesnt change to other types of liquid. The nature under all the changes in the ocean is the ocean itself.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
One's environment, experiences, perceptions, etc are all changing is "no self" and that which is eternal, unchanging is "Self" ?
How do these two relate and relate to your last paragraph?
There is nothing that is unchanging. The cells, molecules, atoms, quarks that make up your body are in constant flux.
Look at a childhood photo of yourself, then look in the mirror. Notice anything?
There IS something, and that thing you call "you", but that thing is not permanent. It is merely a temporary pattern that will sustain itself for a period of time (your "life") then dissolve into something else.
How we were as a child, teen, adult, elder changes externally. We are still the same person no matter what clothes we wear.
No, that is not a skilful opinion, @Carlita ... Consider....
So you are a fixed identity, are you?
You still think and behave in the same way you did when you were a teenager? You still hold all precisely the same opinions you held then?
People DO change. In fact, they never stop changing. Experiences see to that.
Who is changing?
Carlita view change when she became a teen
Carlita view changed from teen to adult
Carlita view changes from asult to elder
There is only one True Self: Carlita. The common denominator. The hamster within.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
One's environment, experiences, perceptions, etc are all changing is "no self" and that which is eternal, unchanging is "Self" ?
How do these two relate and relate to your last paragraph?
There is nothing that is unchanging. The cells, molecules, atoms, quarks that make up your body are in constant flux.
Look at a childhood photo of yourself, then look in the mirror. Notice anything?
There IS something, and that thing you call "you", but that thing is not permanent. It is merely a temporary pattern that will sustain itself for a period of time (your "life") then dissolve into something else.
How we were as a child, teen, adult, elder changes externally. We are still the same person no matter what clothes we wear.
No, that is not a skilful opinion, @Carlita ... Consider....
So you are a fixed identity, are you?
You still think and behave in the same way you did when you were a teenager? You still hold all precisely the same opinions you held then?
People DO change. In fact, they never stop changing. Experiences see to that.
Who is changing?
Carlita view change when she became a teen
Carlita view changed from teen to adult
Carlita view changes from adult to elder
There is only one True Self: Carlita. The common denominator. The hamster within.
Saying that my identity/true self/nature changes is like saying I can become you in the next twenty years.
I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to say @Carlita We aren't arguing that there are no individuals. Of course I can't become you, and you can't become me. Think of two waves in a body of water. They're separate from each other in any given moment in time. But they're both connected to, and part of, the greater whole. Just as we humans are individuals that are part of the greater ecosystem. And they constantly change, a wave starts to form from external forces that are acting upon it. It builds in size, and eventually crashes, and returns to the environment that it came from.
At any point in time, you can identify a wave. But a second later it's not in the same place in space, and it's not the same shape. Time and motion have the same effect on us.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
edited February 2016
Guys.
I am saying our True Nature does not change. That is Who we are.
They are the view without the colors
The hampster without his ball
What makes Carlita different than Michael Jackson: even if we went throuh the same experiences, views, age the same, thought the same. I am still me.
Under all the attachments: experiences, emotions, view points as we age, etc...we still have a foundation.
Its like being naked. Perfect Zen.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@Carlita said: Using the Buddha-nature teaching. Is the Non-Self our Buddha-nature and the self, the Me, I, Mine (our dellusions)?
Buddha Nature doesn't sit comfortably with the anatta doctrine.
Some descriptions of Buddha Nature look spookily similar to atman, a sort of self-less essence lurking beneath individual personality, something to be uncovered. And then you read descriptions of the unconditioned in the suttas.....
I sometimes think that Buddhism is much closer to Hinduism than many would like to admit.
I think so, actually. When I was reading the suttas yesturday, The Buddha does mention Brahma (or Brahman?) and our relations with it. I only knew True Nature when I practiced Zen. I thought in one way or another thats what Buddhism teaches. What is "under" the attachments.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I am saying our True Nature does not change. That is Who we are.
They are the view without the colors
The hampster without his ball
What makes Carlita different than Michael Jackson: even if we went throuh the same experiences, views, age the same, thought the same. I am still me.
Under all the attachments: experiencez, emotionz, view points as we age, etc...we still have a foundarion.
Its like being naked. Perfect Zen.
There is no solid foundation.
Who were you before you were labeled?
What you call Carlita was born and will die.
The only foundation is change itself and it ain't solid.
2
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
I am saying our True Nature does not change. That is Who we are.
They are the view without the colors
The hampster without his ball
What makes Carlita different than Michael Jackson: even if we went throuh the same experiences, views, age the same, thought the same. I am still me.
Under all the attachments: experiencez, emotionz, view points as we age, etc...we still have a foundarion.
Its like being naked. Perfect Zen.
There is no solid foundation.
Who were you before you were labeled?
What you call Carlita was born and will die.
The only foundation is change itself and it ain't solid.
Who is changing?
That means I can be you in 60 years and dont know it?
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Saying our True Nature changes is saying that The Buddha can be enlightened one day, and ten years later, he can turn into me and be unenlightened. Then he can turn into a chair. Then to a force. Change "happens" to us. If we attach ourselves to change then we wont have a clear foundation of who we are (enligtenment). Your view of enlightenment will always be defined differently. One day it could be ones relationship with god. Another a relarionship with krishna.
We are not change. We do change. Unless we are animated characters or in the movies, Who is changing? If there is no answer, how can you find enlightenment?
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Saying our True Nature changes is saying that The Buddha can be enlightened one day, and ten years later, he can turn into me and be unenlightened. Then he can turn into a chair. Then to a force. Change "happens" to us. If we attach ourselves to change then we wont have a clear foundation of who we are (enligtenment). Your view of enlightenment will always be defined differently. One day it could be ones relationship with god. Another a relarionship with krishna.
We are not change. We do change. Unless we are animated characters or in the movies, Who is changing? If there is no answer, how can you find enlightenment? Who is being relieved from suffering?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2016
EDITED: Right, having done some research, I came across this page.
The concept is mainly from the Mahayana Tradition, and Sanskrit in origin.
I'm afraid I personally do not subscribe to this concept, and it does not sit comfortably with my own thought process, currently.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@federica said:
EDITED: Right, having done some research, I came across this page.
The concept is mainly from the Mahayana Tradition, and Sanskrit in origin.
I'm afraid I personally do not subscribe to this concept, and it does not sit comfortably with my own thought process, currently.
Yeah. Its Mahayana. I learnd it practicing Zen. Nichiren Buddhism/Ten Tai has it too. To me, personaly, it just makes sense. I mean, saying I (my true nature) can change really takes away the person who is actualy being freed from suffering.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
edited February 2016
@federica Its in the suttas but its not expressed as buddhanature (which is kinda newish) or anything like that. It just means our enlightenment is not changing back and forth to unenlightenment rather the enlightenment itself is the foundation/our view so we can see change happening to us without being attach to it. So, I know that I am not who I was as a teen. Yet, I know that I am who I am still as a teen and as an adult. I didnt disapear. The teen is still a part of me just as me being a child. All of our world experiences makes up who we are as a whole.
This isnt how a Mahayana school would describe it. It just makes sense in general that we change but our nature (general definition of the term)-who we are-stays the same.
Think about it?
Am I talking to federica now or am I talking to John Smith now? What makes you, you to where I and maybe family and friends knows you are still the same person no matter how much you change?_
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Federica is a just label. It's not even the name I normally go by. Moderator is a label. Woman, is a label. Familiarity makes people know me, but nobody says I don't change, not even I say that.
I don't see any part of me as unchanging.
Sorry.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
edited February 2016
@federica said:
Federica is a just label. It's not even the name I normally go by. Moderator is a label. Woman, is a label. Familiarity makes people know me, but nobody says I don't change, not even I say that.
I don't see any part of me as unchanging.
Sorry.
I dont see that you understanding what Im saying.
Yes. You change. We all change.
My point: If your family does not recognize you after 30 years, you change yourself externaly, gradually you change internally, you become a different person.
Will your family believe you if you said who you are?
Why would thry believe you if you changed?
Are you considered their family member anymore?
What makes you, you to where your family knows you no matter your experiences, age, etc (colors)?
That is what I am saying.
-- I am not saying you dont change.
Change happens to us all.
Thats not my point.
Please read.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
edited February 2016
@federica I read what you said. I honestly dont think you read what I said. I get that impression because I said "we all change" and for some reasons your posts make it as if I said the opposite.
We all change.
This is a very brief example of my point. Please read.
Water is water. It changes to vapor, ice, and liquid. It is still water.
Folks, please read my posts in context.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I have read your posts in context.
I don't think we have Buddha nature. I think we have as much Mara Nature as Buddha nature.
It is not inherent. It is cultivated.
There is no original Buddha Nature. We learn it, adopt it, develop it, and pay it attention; it doesn't already exist.
Saying we can change is saying you can change to James Bond or Obama.
No, it's not. Nobody is the same person they were when they were two. You don't look the same. You don't think the same. You don't act the same. Etc. While there's continuity involved in terms of identity and such, one doesn't stay the same, mentally or physically. Every seven years or so, you're physical body is almost entirely new, composed of new cells. And our personalities grow and change, as well. Some people even have different nicknames or decide to change their name to reflect the new them. One doesn't have to magically transform into James Bond for us to say that they've changed in some significant way over time.
From the Buddhist point of view (or at least the Theravadin POV), it's a mistake (an illusion really) to say that we don't change, that the aspects of our mind and body that make up who are (or think we are) are static, because they're not. The reason is that, through constant reflections, we begin to understand that our experience of the present is causally determined, and then start to reframe the way we relate to that experience (e.g., see SN 22.59, SN 12.12, etc.). Causality provides the basis for both continuity and inconstancy. Without out it, everything would either be completely chaotic (no semblance of order or continuity) or else completely static and unchanging (no arising, persisting, or ceasing), meaning no existence as we know it.
1
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
I have read your posts in context.
I don't think we have Buddha nature. I think we have as much Mara Nature as Buddha nature.
It is not inherent. It is cultivated.
There is no original Buddha Nature. We learn it, adopt it, develop it, and pay it attention; it doesn't already exist.
We differ. Id think in my view mara nature would be the attachments. Adaption, develop, etc would be learning how to better our minds, get rid of attachments, and (in my view) see the nature within.
Seeint my nature as mara nature in my personal opinion makes me think Im originally bad. Takes the purppse put of my being a Buddha if Im originally not "set" to be one.
Anyway. Thats my view. I havent read all the suttas but mostly I read from the suttas I have and cross reference with the sutras. > @Jason said:
Saying we can change is saying you can change to James Bond or Obama.
No, it's not. Nobody is the same person they were when they were two. You don't look the same. You don't think the same. You don't act the same. Etc. While there's continuity involved in terms of identity and such, one doesn't stay the same, mentally or physically. Every seven years or so, you're physical body is almost entirely new, composed of new cells. And our personalities grow and change, as well. Some people even have different nicknames or decide to change their name to reflect the new them. One doesn't have to magically transform into James Bond for us to say that they've changed in some significant way over time.
From the Buddhist point of view (or at least the Theravadin POV), it's a mistake (an illusion really) to say that we don't change, that the aspects of our mind and body that make up who are (or think we are) are static, because they're not. The reason is that, through constant reflections, we begin to understand that our experience of the present is causally determined, and then start to reframe the way we relate to that experience (e.g., see SN 22.59, SN 12.12, etc.). Causality provides the basis for both continuity and inconstancy. Without out it, everything would either be completely chaotic (no semblance of order or continuity) or else completely static and unchanging (no arising, persisting, or ceasing), meaning no existence as we know it.
I was telling Federicka how I see it practicing from a Mahayana point of view.
Water is always water. Cant change that. It is what it is: thats its nature.
The characteristics of this nature changes: ice, vapor, liquid.
Fast forward people
A person is always a person. Cant change that. He is who he is.
The characteristics of that person can change: infant, child, adult; personality, experiences,etc
Yet, in both cases:
Water is still water (if not, what is it that turns to liquid, ice, and vapor)
A person is still a person (if not who ages and who is enlightened?)
I dont know the Theravada view by book. I read the suttas. This isnt my opinion. Just what some call developing oneself that "hasnt been developed yet" others say developing self "so we see who we are that has been developed".
Regardless.
Another example: Nouns and adjectives
Say you have a Red Car.
Mahayana will say, strip the word Red. Adjectives change constantly. The root word is car. Cant change the root word but no one would know it is a car if we keep dollying it up with decorations.
Theravada seems to lool at the adjectives. "We are adjectives" we change constantly. When we (the adjs) change, the car changes.
I think. Yeah, it changes style, color, looks...and its still a car.
The nature of what/who someone is doesnt change. What makes them "seem" changing ia the adjectives. In the True Nature point of view, if you take away the adjectives, you see the enlightened soul.
My point That is were personal development grows...taking off the adjectives (attachments/suffering) not changing them to make the car look better.
@Carlita said:> Water is always water. Cant change that. It is what it is: thats its nature.
But even water isn't always water. Not only can it change forms through causal processes (liquid, solid, gas), it's a chemical compound whose constituent parts can become something entirely different when certain conditions are right (conditionality again). All such examples have their limitations, and it can be argued that nothing is ever eternally what it is, nor does said phenomenon remain the same for the time that it happens to abide as whatever it's conventionally abiding as (e.g., person, water, etc.). From the conventional point of view, it has an identity as water, but no abiding water-self who is created or destroyed when its constituent atoms bond and unbond. Ultimately, there's just inconstancy.
I suppose there may be some eternal water essence, some sort of self or ideal form of water a la Plato represented by the formula H2O; but I tend to view such forms as as more conceptual and linguistic universals/categories than inherently existing entities 'from their own side.'
2
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@Carlita said:> Water is always water. Cant change that. It is what it is: thats its nature.
But even water isn't always water. Not only can it change forms through causal processes (liquid, solid, gas), it's a chemical compound whose constituent parts can become something entirely different when certain conditions are right (conditionality again). All such examples have their limitations, and it can be argued that nothing is ever eternally what it is, nor does said phenomenon remain the same for the time that it happens to abide as whatever it's conventionally abiding as (e.g., person, water, etc.). From the conventional point of view, it has an identity as water, but no abiding water-self who is created or destroyed when its constituent atoms bond and unbond. Ultimately, there's just inconstancy.
I suppose there may be some eternal water essence, some sort of self or ideal form of water a la Plato represented by the formula H2O; but I tend to view such forms as as more conceptual and linguistic universals/categories than inherently existing entities 'from their own side.'
I think youre making this too complicated.
Water is water until it changes there is a chemical added or subtracted to make it not water. No matter the form, it is H2O. I dont know chemistry and philosophy.
Im pretty simple.
If you change every minute. (I mean you, not your age, traits, personality, etc), then how do I know Im talking to the same person with the same conversation I had with you five minutes ago?
We change externally and internally, sure. But Who is the one changing? Who was once a teen and now an adult?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I am saying our True Nature does not change. That is Who we are.
They are the view without the colors
The hampster without his ball
What makes Carlita different than Michael Jackson: even if we went throuh the same experiences, views, age the same, thought the same. I am still me.
Under all the attachments: experiencez, emotionz, view points as we age, etc...we still have a foundarion.
Its like being naked. Perfect Zen.
There is no solid foundation.
Who were you before you were labeled?
What you call Carlita was born and will die.
The only foundation is change itself and it ain't solid.
Who is changing?
That means I can be you in 60 years and dont know it?
Sorry, you lost me. I have no clue as to how you got that from what I said.
Just because you are always changing doesn't mean you are not also always unique.
Your counter point makes no sense. Not even a little bit.
Your true nature does not change because your true nature is change.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Its alright to say "This is me" when I was a child, teen, adult,elder. Its a whole nother to mistake these stages as different people. They all one person. @Jason
@Carlita said:> Water is always water. Cant change that. It is what it is: thats its nature.
But even water isn't always water. Not only can it change forms through causal processes (liquid, solid, gas), it's a chemical compound whose constituent parts can become something entirely different when certain conditions are right (conditionality again). All such examples have their limitations, and it can be argued that nothing is ever eternally what it is, nor does said phenomenon remain the same for the time that it happens to abide as whatever it's conventionally abiding as (e.g., person, water, etc.). From the conventional point of view, it has an identity as water, but no abiding water-self who is created or destroyed when its constituent atoms bond and unbond. Ultimately, there's just inconstancy.
I suppose there may be some eternal water essence, some sort of self or ideal form of water a la Plato represented by the formula H2O; but I tend to view such forms as as more conceptual and linguistic universals/categories than inherently existing entities 'from their own side.'
I think youre making this too complicated.
Water is water until it changes there is a chemical added or subtracted to make it not water. No matter the form, it is H2O. I dont know chemistry.
Im pretty simple.
If Who we are can change, in twenty years, I can be you. Id disapear.
Hm. I don't think so. I think it's quite simple, really. Water is a convention, not a self in the sense of some permanently existing thing that's not subject to conditionality. Our conceptions of identity and perceptions of continuity may give the appearance of such (water is water), but that appearance is like a mirage, without substance. And this realization into not-self and the dependently-arisen nature of phenomena is the gateway to non-attachment and awakening.
@Carlita said:
Its alright to say "This is me" when I was a child, teen, adult,elder. Its a whole nother to mistake these stages as different people. They all one person. @Jason
@Carlita said:
Its alright to say "This is me" when I was a child, teen, adult,elder. Its a whole nother to mistake these stages as different people. They all one person. @Jason
I'm not sure how to say it any more simply than I did above, so I'll just leave it at that I suppose.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@Jason said:
I'm not sure how to say it any more simply than I did above, so I'll just have let it at that I suppose.
The water thing was just an example. I dont know chemistry and philosophy to convesate. The Buddha's teachings make sense because I see it and experiencenit in everyday life. People who havent seen me for almost twenty years and live in a totally different area (over a couple hours away) know me by face. They know its me even though I had different views then, experiences, was shorter, more hair..and so forth. Something about my identity stuck out and they recognized Who I am not What I am.
Likewize with my family. We know each other without having to know each other. Like "I havent seen you since you were a peep sqeek" and they still know its me no matter how I grown, what I talk like, and so forth. My identity is the same.
When I meditate, I try to accept things around me changes. The Buddha says we go through stages of aging, living, and dying. These are stages. These are not us. Change hapoens to us. We have dellusions. We are not dellusions. We have attachments we are not are attachments. And so forth...
My family are christian and they too have this "inheritedly bad" nature they feel everyone has. I think, wait, babies dont have that "until" they are influenced by others. Without those influences, there is no mara. Personal development is "keeping that nature" not trying to change it.
I dont know Theravada view on it though. I just read.
@Carlita said:
When I meditate, I try to accept things around me changes. The Buddha says we go through stages of aging, living, and dying. These are stages. These are not us. Change hapoens to us. We have dellusions. We are not dellusions. We have attachments we are not are attachments. And so forth...
Ok, one last try. I'd agree that we go through stages of aging, living, and dying. I'd also agree that these are stages and that these stages aren't 'us.' And finally, I'd agree that change happens, period. There's no 'us' from the ultimately point of view (this is something that can be found in Mahayana as well, esp. Madhyamika). We cling to an 'I' and 'mine,' but that sense of self has as much substance as a glob of foam. Conventionally speaking, we have an identity (Jason, Carlita, etc.); but that identity isn't a self, i.e., it doesn't exist from its own side; it's not a thing, it's a concept; etc. As long as we don't cling to that identity, that sense of 'me,' there's no issue. But the problem is, we generally do. And seeing the inconstancy of what we cling to helps us weaken the hold that that self-identification view has upon us. Conventionally, we can say we exist. But ultimately, there's just arising and ceasing.
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
edited February 2016
Pronouns are used for convinence only. There are suttas and suttras for what Im saying. I just rather talk about it rather than conclude a statemate because we misunderstand each other. I hate that. Thats why we have discussions to understand each other.
My last post I said: Saying we change is saying you can change to James Bond or Obama"
In other words, change is turning from one thing to something completely different. If you can change to someone competely different, you could become anyone. (Not by choice)
Self development is a better word than change.
Here is something I found. I probably put it up on the study activity thread.
"The beautiful chariots of kings wear out,
The body too undergoes decay.
But the Dharma of the good does not decay
So the good proclaim along with the good"
SN 3:3;I 71 <163-64>
I post the whole thing. Its talking about Old Age, sickness, and death.
We are the Dharma. Good along with Good. We are the Law. The Dharma does not decay. It does not grow old, become sick,and die. In the Mahayan tradition, from those I practice, the Dharma is our True Nature. In this case (if you continue to read) this is from the suttas..so it general it implies the Dharma/Buddha's teachings do not decay. Zen looks at the Buddha's teachings as inherit in us. Thats why we practice Zazen. When we see change, we are like the Koan with the frog siting on a rock, I think it was. He sat perfectly still, relaxed, aware, and alert. Everything changed around him but he was intune with that change and thats why he can catch the flies etc. He was intune with it naturally. Beautiful Koan if I can find it.
Anyway.
I am still the child I was, the teen I was, the adult I am, and the elder I will be. Pronouns and nouns are for convenience. All my experiences etc makes up me. But they are not (from a Zen view) my identity (remember using words for easier convo). They are just the clothing. When I zazen then I dont atach myself to those experiences,me, you, i, whatever. I think some call it empitness (another conversation).
Change happens to people. We go through changes. But we dont change to a completely different person. I am still the child, teen, adult, and elder.
The difference is self development and maturity. We dont change. We mature.
Existence and Non-existence
When asked about the existence of a self, the Buddha often refused to answer. Instead, he pointed out the drawbacks of thinking in terms of existence and non-existence,[3] and recommended that one view phenomena as arising and passing away, based on impermanent conditions. This means that instead of the question "Is there a self?", it is recommended to ask, "How does the perception of self originate?"[3] source: one of the opening paragraphs in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
How does the perception of self originate? I find a sense of self within my "here-ness." In other words, things come and go, but the same consciousness remains within me "here" wherever I am most of the time. My teacher used to say that actually we shouldn't use the word "I," but rather use the word "Here" instead —if only it would not sound so darned affected!
I think that speculating on existence per se is for realtors and stockbrokers —and not for spiritual aspirants. There really are no strong rock-fortresses forever abiding. We be only temporary bewildered vertices caught up in awe of the great immensities. Essentially, I think that If we look deeply enough we will not be able to find anything deep within ourselves except our hearts. And what are our hearts but the pacemakers of our heres?
As the Heart Sutra emphasizes, it's not simply that form is empty, for emptiness is also form. Rather than devaluing the reality and validity of the forms of this world, we can appreciate them as the (wonderful, delightful, frustrating) ways that shunyata manifests. We can embrace its confluence of processes and transformations, a field of incessant creativity that includes my own activity.
—David Loy
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-loy/towards-a-new-buddhist-st_b_2545120.html
And even though I am a "Conditioned Being" that continues to be further reconditioned, my heart remains the same if I keep faith. I think the Buddhist teaching of no truly abiding self is very sound. "I" am a "Here," not a "Suchness."
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Mistaking the sense of self with identity is the cause of suffering.
The sense of self, in other words 'I AM' is dependent on arising conditions.
... dependent origination or dependent arising, states that all dharmas ("things") arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist." It is a pragmatic teaching, which is applied to dukkha (suffering) and the cessation of dukkha. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda
I feel others have explained this very well, whilst you insist you are not a chair.
1
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Anyway, I am still the child I was, the teen I was, the adult I am, and the elder I will be.
That is identity view. This the view "I am" the body that was born, ages, will grow sick and die. You didn't choose to be born, to grow old or die. This is what a body does. If you choose to be identify with that body then that is what is going to happen to "you".
The same goes for the other aggregates namely feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness. If you can break free from identifying with those aggregates, you are freed from death. That is the heart of Mahayana Buddhism imo.
When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara
Was coursing in the deep Prajna Paramita,
He perceived that all Five Skandhas are empty.
Thus he overcame all ills and suffering
Heart Sutra
1
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Anyway, I am still the child I was, the teen I was, the adult I am, and the elder I will be.
That is identity view. This the view "I am" the body that was born, ages, will grow sick and die. You didn't choose to be born, to grow old or die. This is what a body does. If you choose to be identify with that body then that is what is going to happen to "you".
The same goes for the other aggregates namely feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness. If you can break free from identifying with those aggregates, you are freed from death. That is the heart of Mahayana Buddhism imo.
When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara
Was coursing in the deep Prajna Paramita,
He perceived that all Five Skandhas are empty.
Thus he overcame all ills and suffering
Heart Sutra
Im using pronouns for convinence. There was a time when I think it was Shariputra was talking to the Buddha. The Buddha asked him a question and they both nodded without answering. Then the Buddha explained to his other disciples in analogy what that silence meant. Basically, it was Dharma without speaking the Dharma. It was like their true nature both clicked and understood. If their natures changed, they would not have been insync. Since there is one enlightenment, the found it at that split moment. When the Buddha founded, it stayed. It didnt change. He was not now able to accept change. Not cling to it. SN 22:7 III 15-18 (well, thats pretty much all the suttas).
When I read The Buddha's teachings about change, I am reading self development. How we mature. Things like that. The nature of something like a chair isnt really a chair just blocks of wood (for example) put together for siting. The emptiness and "we are here but not here" sounds very metaphysical and supernatural. The Buddha was pretty simple about things. Just his analogies and words throws me off completely. When I figure it out, I dont analyze it or philosophize. I see it in everyday life and in myself to where I dont even need to quote the sutras because after awhile, Im quoting me.
When we get to that point...there is no physical Dharma. Thats enlightenment (part of it).
I never studied Buddhism. I felt that was defeating the point of practice. I only started studying when I came into the Nichiren sect where study, faith, and practice are the key tenants. Now I cross reference the suttas that I have from with the Lotus and go from there. Its a heavy read and almost finished. I just dont know if many people on this forum take the Lotus seriously as they would the Pali Canon. Authenticity debates mess everything up.
Im using pronouns for convinence. There was a time when I think it was Shariputra was talking to the Buddha. The Buddha asked him a question and they both nodded without answering. Then the Buddha explained to his other disciples in analogy what that silence meant. Basically, it was Dharma without speaking the Dharma. It was like their true nature both clicked and understood. If their natures changed, they would not have been insync. Since there is one enlightenment, the found it at that split moment. When the Buddha founded, it stayed. It didnt change. He was not now able to accept change. Not cling to it. SN 22:7 III 15-18 (well, thats pretty much all the suttas).
Their true nature is "Buddha nature" or simply the knowing nature. What does the knowing nature know? All conditioned things (body, feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness) are not self ie. they don't belong to anyone. They arise and cease according to conditions. That knowing or Buddha nature is apart from the conditions.
There is no difference between your, mine or others knowing nature. Why? Because the knowing nature is not male, female, young or old. It is always here and now. Never anywhere else. And it doesn't grow old. The contents of the knowing may differ ("you" female body on the sofa, "me" a male body on a chair etc). This "knower" is what I think is referred to as Buddha nature. Anyway, whatever you conceive you are, you are not that.
The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: "All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature."
"How do I know this? Because _this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self_. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions.
"A disciple should develop a mind which is in no way dependent upon sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensory sensations or any mental conceptions. A disciple should develop a mind which does not rely on anything."
The lord Buddha replied, "This Sutra shall be known as
'The Diamond that Cuts through Illusion'.
Im using pronouns for convinence. There was a time when I think it was Shariputra was talking to the Buddha. The Buddha asked him a question and they both nodded without answering. Then the Buddha explained to his other disciples in analogy what that silence meant. Basically, it was Dharma without speaking the Dharma. It was like their true nature both clicked and understood. If their natures changed, they would not have been insync. Since there is one enlightenment, the found it at that split moment. When the Buddha founded, it stayed. It didnt change. He was not now able to accept change. Not cling to it. SN 22:7 III 15-18 (well, thats pretty much all the suttas).
Their true nature is "Buddha nature" or simply the knowing nature. What does the knowing nature know? All conditioned things (body, feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness) are not self ie. they don't belong to anyone. They arise and cease according to conditions. That knowing or Buddha nature is apart from the conditions.
There is no difference between your, mine or others knowing nature. Why? Because the knowing nature is not male, female, young or old. It is always here and now. Never anywhere else. And it doesn't grow old. The contents of the knowing may differ ("you" female body on the sofa, "me" a male body on a chair etc). This "knower" is what I think is referred to as Buddha nature.
True. Thats what I mean by True Nature doesnt change. Is that what emptiness is, what you described?
@Carlita said:
True Nature doesnt change. Is that what emptiness is, what you described?
Everything changes. Your personality is not the same as your childhood one. If it was, you would not be reading and writing in this forum. Your brain has changed. Your body has changed. "You" have changed. You many not have changed completely, which is why people recognize you, and why you feel like the same person, but you HAVE changed, and are not the same "you" as the child "you".
Lets use a non sectarian term. Knowing. The knowing nature has no identity. This knowing is separate from all the things that appear.
Thats why we practice Zazen. When we see change, we are like the Koan with the frog siting on a rock, I think it was. He sat perfectly still, relaxed, aware, and alert. Everything changed around him
We are not the change ie. thoughts, feelings, sights, sounds etc.
The empty mind is the mind that doesn't grab onto the changing conditions and not longer take ownership of those things. That is why it is able to remain still, relaxed, aware, and alert while everything else is changing.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@pegembara said:
Lets use a non sectarian term. Knowing. The knowing nature has no identity. This knowing is separate from all the things that appear.
Thats why we practice Zazen. When we see change, we are like the Koan with the frog siting on a rock, I think it was. He sat perfectly still, relaxed, aware, and alert. Everything changed around him
We are not the change ie. thoughts, feelings, sights, sounds etc.
The empty mind is the mind that doesn't grab onto the changing conditions and not longer take ownership of those things. That is why it is able to remain still, relaxed, aware, and alert while everything else is changing.
Can you explain that to the other guys. You say it better than I do, actually. How I say it is there is one empty mind/true nature and that nature doesnt grab to changing conditions (I call attachmets) too. Exactly. I was begining to think I was going nuts.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@Carlita said:
True Nature doesnt change. Is that what emptiness is, what you described?
Everything changes. Your personality is not the same as your childhood one. If it was, you would not be reading and writing in this forum. Your brain has changed. Your body has changed. "You" have changed. You many not have changed completely, which is why people recognize you, and why you feel like the same person, but you HAVE changed, and are not the same "you" as the child "you".
Change to me means, you we one thing and you turned into something completely different. (like turning from human to frog)
Self development and maturity (what the Buddha talked about) is when we grow from one stage of life to another. Buddhist terms aside, we are one person (not fifty) going through these stages or changes, if you like. I am still the child I was before and the elder I will be later. If not, how would I remember my experiences as a child if they are not my experiences anymore.
Self development and maturity (what the Buddha talked about) is when we grow from one stage of life to another. Buddhist terms aside, we are one person (not fifty) going through these stages or changes, if you like. I am still the child I was before and the elder I will be later. If not, how would I remember my experiences as a child if they are not my experiences anymore.
The empty mind doesn't grab onto a body or memories and thinks that "that is me or mine". Because it has no identity, it doesn't change.
The body and mind are seen merely as phenomena that belongs to nature. They arise and cease.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
Self development and maturity (what the Buddha talked about) is when we grow from one stage of life to another. Buddhist terms aside, we are one person (not fifty) going through these stages or changes, if you like. I am still the child I was before and the elder I will be later. If not, how would I remember my experiences as a child if they are not my experiences anymore.
The empty mind doesn't grab onto a body or memories and thinks that "that is me or mine". Because it has no identity, it doesn't change.
The body and mind are seen merely as phenomena that belongs to nature. They arise and cease.
I know it doesnt change (which Ive been saying to the other guys for the longest). "We" do have memories, though. I dont mind seeing different colors even though the true view without colors doesnt change. The point isnot to attach to those colors as if they are the true view--colors being memories to anything else.
Comments
How I see it, though, is it is always the ocean. It doesnt change to other types of liquid. The nature under all the changes in the ocean is the ocean itself.
Who is changing?
Carlita view change when she became a teen
Carlita view changed from teen to adult
Carlita view changes from asult to elder
There is only one True Self: Carlita. The common denominator. The hamster within.
Saying that my identity/true self/nature changes is like saying I can become you in the next twenty years.
I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to say @Carlita We aren't arguing that there are no individuals. Of course I can't become you, and you can't become me. Think of two waves in a body of water. They're separate from each other in any given moment in time. But they're both connected to, and part of, the greater whole. Just as we humans are individuals that are part of the greater ecosystem. And they constantly change, a wave starts to form from external forces that are acting upon it. It builds in size, and eventually crashes, and returns to the environment that it came from.
At any point in time, you can identify a wave. But a second later it's not in the same place in space, and it's not the same shape. Time and motion have the same effect on us.
Guys.
I am saying our True Nature does not change. That is Who we are.
They are the view without the colors
The hampster without his ball
What makes Carlita different than Michael Jackson: even if we went throuh the same experiences, views, age the same, thought the same. I am still me.
Under all the attachments: experiences, emotions, view points as we age, etc...we still have a foundation.
Its like being naked. Perfect Zen.
I think so, actually. When I was reading the suttas yesturday, The Buddha does mention Brahma (or Brahman?) and our relations with it. I only knew True Nature when I practiced Zen. I thought in one way or another thats what Buddhism teaches. What is "under" the attachments.
There is no solid foundation.
Who were you before you were labeled?
What you call Carlita was born and will die.
The only foundation is change itself and it ain't solid.
Who is changing?
That means I can be you in 60 years and dont know it?
Saying our True Nature changes is saying that The Buddha can be enlightened one day, and ten years later, he can turn into me and be unenlightened. Then he can turn into a chair. Then to a force. Change "happens" to us. If we attach ourselves to change then we wont have a clear foundation of who we are (enligtenment). Your view of enlightenment will always be defined differently. One day it could be ones relationship with god. Another a relarionship with krishna.
We are not change. We do change. Unless we are animated characters or in the movies, Who is changing? If there is no answer, how can you find enlightenment?
EDITED: Right, having done some research, I came across this page.
The concept is mainly from the Mahayana Tradition, and Sanskrit in origin.
I'm afraid I personally do not subscribe to this concept, and it does not sit comfortably with my own thought process, currently.
Yeah. Its Mahayana. I learnd it practicing Zen. Nichiren Buddhism/Ten Tai has it too. To me, personaly, it just makes sense. I mean, saying I (my true nature) can change really takes away the person who is actualy being freed from suffering.
@federica Its in the suttas but its not expressed as buddhanature (which is kinda newish) or anything like that. It just means our enlightenment is not changing back and forth to unenlightenment rather the enlightenment itself is the foundation/our view so we can see change happening to us without being attach to it. So, I know that I am not who I was as a teen. Yet, I know that I am who I am still as a teen and as an adult. I didnt disapear. The teen is still a part of me just as me being a child. All of our world experiences makes up who we are as a whole.
This isnt how a Mahayana school would describe it. It just makes sense in general that we change but our nature (general definition of the term)-who we are-stays the same.
Think about it?
Am I talking to federica now or am I talking to John Smith now? What makes you, you to where I and maybe family and friends knows you are still the same person no matter how much you change?_
Federica is a just label. It's not even the name I normally go by. Moderator is a label. Woman, is a label. Familiarity makes people know me, but nobody says I don't change, not even I say that.
I don't see any part of me as unchanging.
Sorry.
I dont see that you understanding what Im saying.
Yes. You change. We all change.
My point: If your family does not recognize you after 30 years, you change yourself externaly, gradually you change internally, you become a different person.
Will your family believe you if you said who you are?
Why would thry believe you if you changed?
Are you considered their family member anymore?
What makes you, you to where your family knows you no matter your experiences, age, etc (colors)?
That is what I am saying.
--
I am not saying you dont change.
Change happens to us all.
Thats not my point.
Please read.
@federica I read what you said. I honestly dont think you read what I said. I get that impression because I said "we all change" and for some reasons your posts make it as if I said the opposite.
We all change.
This is a very brief example of my point. Please read.
Water is water. It changes to vapor, ice, and liquid. It is still water.
Folks, please read my posts in context.
I have read your posts in context.
I don't think we have Buddha nature. I think we have as much Mara Nature as Buddha nature.
It is not inherent. It is cultivated.
There is no original Buddha Nature. We learn it, adopt it, develop it, and pay it attention; it doesn't already exist.
No, it's not. Nobody is the same person they were when they were two. You don't look the same. You don't think the same. You don't act the same. Etc. While there's continuity involved in terms of identity and such, one doesn't stay the same, mentally or physically. Every seven years or so, you're physical body is almost entirely new, composed of new cells. And our personalities grow and change, as well. Some people even have different nicknames or decide to change their name to reflect the new them. One doesn't have to magically transform into James Bond for us to say that they've changed in some significant way over time.
From the Buddhist point of view (or at least the Theravadin POV), it's a mistake (an illusion really) to say that we don't change, that the aspects of our mind and body that make up who are (or think we are) are static, because they're not. The reason is that, through constant reflections, we begin to understand that our experience of the present is causally determined, and then start to reframe the way we relate to that experience (e.g., see SN 22.59, SN 12.12, etc.). Causality provides the basis for both continuity and inconstancy. Without out it, everything would either be completely chaotic (no semblance of order or continuity) or else completely static and unchanging (no arising, persisting, or ceasing), meaning no existence as we know it.
Just made me think. > @federica said:
We differ. Id think in my view mara nature would be the attachments. Adaption, develop, etc would be learning how to better our minds, get rid of attachments, and (in my view) see the nature within.
Seeint my nature as mara nature in my personal opinion makes me think Im originally bad. Takes the purppse put of my being a Buddha if Im originally not "set" to be one.
Anyway. Thats my view. I havent read all the suttas but mostly I read from the suttas I have and cross reference with the sutras. > @Jason said:
I was telling Federicka how I see it practicing from a Mahayana point of view.
Water is always water. Cant change that. It is what it is: thats its nature.
The characteristics of this nature changes: ice, vapor, liquid.
Fast forward people
A person is always a person. Cant change that. He is who he is.
The characteristics of that person can change: infant, child, adult; personality, experiences,etc
Yet, in both cases:
Water is still water (if not, what is it that turns to liquid, ice, and vapor)
A person is still a person (if not who ages and who is enlightened?)
I dont know the Theravada view by book. I read the suttas. This isnt my opinion. Just what some call developing oneself that "hasnt been developed yet" others say developing self "so we see who we are that has been developed".
Regardless.
Another example: Nouns and adjectives
Say you have a Red Car.
Mahayana will say, strip the word Red. Adjectives change constantly. The root word is car. Cant change the root word but no one would know it is a car if we keep dollying it up with decorations.
Theravada seems to lool at the adjectives. "We are adjectives" we change constantly. When we (the adjs) change, the car changes.
I think. Yeah, it changes style, color, looks...and its still a car.
The nature of what/who someone is doesnt change. What makes them "seem" changing ia the adjectives. In the True Nature point of view, if you take away the adjectives, you see the enlightened soul.
My point That is were personal development grows...taking off the adjectives (attachments/suffering) not changing them to make the car look better.
But even water isn't always water. Not only can it change forms through causal processes (liquid, solid, gas), it's a chemical compound whose constituent parts can become something entirely different when certain conditions are right (conditionality again). All such examples have their limitations, and it can be argued that nothing is ever eternally what it is, nor does said phenomenon remain the same for the time that it happens to abide as whatever it's conventionally abiding as (e.g., person, water, etc.). From the conventional point of view, it has an identity as water, but no abiding water-self who is created or destroyed when its constituent atoms bond and unbond. Ultimately, there's just inconstancy.
I suppose there may be some eternal water essence, some sort of self or ideal form of water a la Plato represented by the formula H2O; but I tend to view such forms as as more conceptual and linguistic universals/categories than inherently existing entities 'from their own side.'
Remove the dead pa> @Jason said:
I think youre making this too complicated.
Water is water until it changes there is a chemical added or subtracted to make it not water. No matter the form, it is H2O. I dont know chemistry and philosophy.
Im pretty simple.
If you change every minute. (I mean you, not your age, traits, personality, etc), then how do I know Im talking to the same person with the same conversation I had with you five minutes ago?
We change externally and internally, sure. But Who is the one changing? Who was once a teen and now an adult?
Sorry, you lost me. I have no clue as to how you got that from what I said.
Just because you are always changing doesn't mean you are not also always unique.
Your counter point makes no sense. Not even a little bit.
Your true nature does not change because your true nature is change.
Its alright to say "This is me" when I was a child, teen, adult,elder. Its a whole nother to mistake these stages as different people. They all one person. @Jason
Hm. I don't think so. I think it's quite simple, really. Water is a convention, not a self in the sense of some permanently existing thing that's not subject to conditionality. Our conceptions of identity and perceptions of continuity may give the appearance of such (water is water), but that appearance is like a mirage, without substance. And this realization into not-self and the dependently-arisen nature of phenomena is the gateway to non-attachment and awakening.
Conventionally speaking, yes. Ultimately speaking, no.
How do you mean? Im speaking literally. Are you three different people?
The water thing was a simple example. Im pretty simple. What you are saying is too complex for a simple analogy.
Nothing Im saying/my point is not metaphysical, metaphorical, or anything like that.
Im just saying: We change. We are not the change. If we are, who is changing.
I'm not sure how to say it any more simply than I did above, so I'll just leave it at that I suppose.
The water thing was just an example. I dont know chemistry and philosophy to convesate. The Buddha's teachings make sense because I see it and experiencenit in everyday life. People who havent seen me for almost twenty years and live in a totally different area (over a couple hours away) know me by face. They know its me even though I had different views then, experiences, was shorter, more hair..and so forth. Something about my identity stuck out and they recognized Who I am not What I am.
Likewize with my family. We know each other without having to know each other. Like "I havent seen you since you were a peep sqeek" and they still know its me no matter how I grown, what I talk like, and so forth. My identity is the same.
When I meditate, I try to accept things around me changes. The Buddha says we go through stages of aging, living, and dying. These are stages. These are not us. Change hapoens to us. We have dellusions. We are not dellusions. We have attachments we are not are attachments. And so forth...
My family are christian and they too have this "inheritedly bad" nature they feel everyone has. I think, wait, babies dont have that "until" they are influenced by others. Without those influences, there is no mara. Personal development is "keeping that nature" not trying to change it.
I dont know Theravada view on it though. I just read.
Ok, one last try. I'd agree that we go through stages of aging, living, and dying. I'd also agree that these are stages and that these stages aren't 'us.' And finally, I'd agree that change happens, period. There's no 'us' from the ultimately point of view (this is something that can be found in Mahayana as well, esp. Madhyamika). We cling to an 'I' and 'mine,' but that sense of self has as much substance as a glob of foam. Conventionally speaking, we have an identity (Jason, Carlita, etc.); but that identity isn't a self, i.e., it doesn't exist from its own side; it's not a thing, it's a concept; etc. As long as we don't cling to that identity, that sense of 'me,' there's no issue. But the problem is, we generally do. And seeing the inconstancy of what we cling to helps us weaken the hold that that self-identification view has upon us. Conventionally, we can say we exist. But ultimately, there's just arising and ceasing.
That is silly and illogical, and not at all what anyone has said. It's what you have said.
So you don't agree with Buddha. Now what?
FYI, I've always found Thanissaro Bhikkhu's approach helpful, especially his collections of talks, Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta. You may find it more useful than my ramblings.
Pronouns are used for convinence only. There are suttas and suttras for what Im saying. I just rather talk about it rather than conclude a statemate because we misunderstand each other. I hate that. Thats why we have discussions to understand each other.
My last post I said: Saying we change is saying you can change to James Bond or Obama"
In other words, change is turning from one thing to something completely different. If you can change to someone competely different, you could become anyone. (Not by choice)
Self development is a better word than change.
Here is something I found. I probably put it up on the study activity thread.
"The beautiful chariots of kings wear out,
The body too undergoes decay.
But the Dharma of the good does not decay
So the good proclaim along with the good"
SN 3:3;I 71 <163-64>
I post the whole thing. Its talking about Old Age, sickness, and death.
We are the Dharma. Good along with Good. We are the Law. The Dharma does not decay. It does not grow old, become sick,and die. In the Mahayan tradition, from those I practice, the Dharma is our True Nature. In this case (if you continue to read) this is from the suttas..so it general it implies the Dharma/Buddha's teachings do not decay. Zen looks at the Buddha's teachings as inherit in us. Thats why we practice Zazen. When we see change, we are like the Koan with the frog siting on a rock, I think it was. He sat perfectly still, relaxed, aware, and alert. Everything changed around him but he was intune with that change and thats why he can catch the flies etc. He was intune with it naturally. Beautiful Koan if I can find it.
Anyway.
I am still the child I was, the teen I was, the adult I am, and the elder I will be. Pronouns and nouns are for convenience. All my experiences etc makes up me. But they are not (from a Zen view) my identity (remember using words for easier convo). They are just the clothing. When I zazen then I dont atach myself to those experiences,me, you, i, whatever. I think some call it empitness (another conversation).
Change happens to people. We go through changes. But we dont change to a completely different person. I am still the child, teen, adult, and elder.
The difference is self development and maturity. We dont change. We mature.
How does the perception of self originate? I find a sense of self within my "here-ness." In other words, things come and go, but the same consciousness remains within me "here" wherever I am most of the time. My teacher used to say that actually we shouldn't use the word "I," but rather use the word "Here" instead —if only it would not sound so darned affected!
I think that speculating on existence per se is for realtors and stockbrokers —and not for spiritual aspirants. There really are no strong rock-fortresses forever abiding. We be only temporary bewildered vertices caught up in awe of the great immensities. Essentially, I think that If we look deeply enough we will not be able to find anything deep within ourselves except our hearts. And what are our hearts but the pacemakers of our heres?
And even though I am a "Conditioned Being" that continues to be further reconditioned, my heart remains the same if I keep faith. I think the Buddhist teaching of no truly abiding self is very sound. "I" am a "Here," not a "Suchness."
Wait. let me shorten this,
Mistaking the sense of self with identity is the cause of suffering.
The sense of self, in other words 'I AM' is dependent on arising conditions.
... dependent origination or dependent arising, states that all dharmas ("things") arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist." It is a pragmatic teaching, which is applied to dukkha (suffering) and the cessation of dukkha.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda
I feel others have explained this very well, whilst you insist you are not a chair.
there!
That is identity view. This the view "I am" the body that was born, ages, will grow sick and die. You didn't choose to be born, to grow old or die. This is what a body does. If you choose to be identify with that body then that is what is going to happen to "you".
The same goes for the other aggregates namely feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness. If you can break free from identifying with those aggregates, you are freed from death. That is the heart of Mahayana Buddhism imo.
Heart Sutra
Im using pronouns for convinence. There was a time when I think it was Shariputra was talking to the Buddha. The Buddha asked him a question and they both nodded without answering. Then the Buddha explained to his other disciples in analogy what that silence meant. Basically, it was Dharma without speaking the Dharma. It was like their true nature both clicked and understood. If their natures changed, they would not have been insync. Since there is one enlightenment, the found it at that split moment. When the Buddha founded, it stayed. It didnt change. He was not now able to accept change. Not cling to it. SN 22:7 III 15-18 (well, thats pretty much all the suttas).
When I read The Buddha's teachings about change, I am reading self development. How we mature. Things like that. The nature of something like a chair isnt really a chair just blocks of wood (for example) put together for siting. The emptiness and "we are here but not here" sounds very metaphysical and supernatural. The Buddha was pretty simple about things. Just his analogies and words throws me off completely. When I figure it out, I dont analyze it or philosophize. I see it in everyday life and in myself to where I dont even need to quote the sutras because after awhile, Im quoting me.
When we get to that point...there is no physical Dharma. Thats enlightenment (part of it).
I never studied Buddhism. I felt that was defeating the point of practice. I only started studying when I came into the Nichiren sect where study, faith, and practice are the key tenants. Now I cross reference the suttas that I have from with the Lotus and go from there. Its a heavy read and almost finished. I just dont know if many people on this forum take the Lotus seriously as they would the Pali Canon. Authenticity debates mess everything up.
Their true nature is "Buddha nature" or simply the knowing nature. What does the knowing nature know? All conditioned things (body, feeling, perception, thoughts and consciousness) are not self ie. they don't belong to anyone. They arise and cease according to conditions. That knowing or Buddha nature is apart from the conditions.
There is no difference between your, mine or others knowing nature. Why? Because the knowing nature is not male, female, young or old. It is always here and now. Never anywhere else. And it doesn't grow old. The contents of the knowing may differ ("you" female body on the sofa, "me" a male body on a chair etc). This "knower" is what I think is referred to as Buddha nature. Anyway, whatever you conceive you are, you are not that.
True. Thats what I mean by True Nature doesnt change. Is that what emptiness is, what you described?
Everything changes. Your personality is not the same as your childhood one. If it was, you would not be reading and writing in this forum. Your brain has changed. Your body has changed. "You" have changed. You many not have changed completely, which is why people recognize you, and why you feel like the same person, but you HAVE changed, and are not the same "you" as the child "you".
Lets use a non sectarian term. Knowing. The knowing nature has no identity. This knowing is separate from all the things that appear.
We are not the change ie. thoughts, feelings, sights, sounds etc.
The empty mind is the mind that doesn't grab onto the changing conditions and not longer take ownership of those things. That is why it is able to remain still, relaxed, aware, and alert while everything else is changing.
Can you explain that to the other guys. You say it better than I do, actually. How I say it is there is one empty mind/true nature and that nature doesnt grab to changing conditions (I call attachmets) too. Exactly. I was begining to think I was going nuts.
Change to me means, you we one thing and you turned into something completely different. (like turning from human to frog)
Self development and maturity (what the Buddha talked about) is when we grow from one stage of life to another. Buddhist terms aside, we are one person (not fifty) going through these stages or changes, if you like. I am still the child I was before and the elder I will be later. If not, how would I remember my experiences as a child if they are not my experiences anymore.
The empty mind doesn't grab onto a body or memories and thinks that "that is me or mine". Because it has no identity, it doesn't change.
The body and mind are seen merely as phenomena that belongs to nature. They arise and cease.
I know it doesnt change (which Ive been saying to the other guys for the longest). "We" do have memories, though. I dont mind seeing different colors even though the true view without colors doesnt change. The point isnot to attach to those colors as if they are the true view--colors being memories to anything else.
If you all keep on like this you'll wear your selves out...Hmm... maybe that's not a bad idea...Keep up the good work
What is left after those selves are worn out?
Non selves
Ay curumba. You really are a chair.
How can I put this kindly without laughing hysterically ....
Oṃ A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhīḥ
OK Manjushri get your sword, kill the ignorance. Thanks Buddha Wisdom Dude.
http://www.wildmind.org/mantras/figures/manjushri
... and now back to undefeated ignorance ...