|
Post by inavalan on Oct 15, 2020 14:36:56 GMT -5
I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts. I don't think you understood what I meant by 'YOU'. What you call 'YOU', I'd still call 'you'. I meant by YOU, your awareness when it is primarily focused in non-physical, the state before and after being primarily focused in physical, a.k.a. being "alive", the you.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 15, 2020 14:45:50 GMT -5
I don't think there is something that isn't a belief. It is like there is nothing that isn't changing. I don't see how these two statements are related. Can you elaborate? belief (per m-w): 1 : a feeling of being sure that a person or thing exists or is true or trustworthy belief in ghosts belief in democracy. 2 : religious faith. 3 : something believed It's my belief that our team really won. A belief is a momentary thing, as result of various factors. There is permanent change, from moment to moment, factors change, beliefs change. In my opinion everything is belief, no matter how sure you are. It is a matter of your limiting framework at any given moment, perception. This applies both while you, and YOU, likely while whatever beyond.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 15, 2020 14:47:41 GMT -5
From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen? I basically agree with this. Maybe I should clarify. By self here I don't mean a sense of self. What I mean is an identity, a story that is necessary to function in society, like a name, that identifies you as unique from others. If you don't have that, society doesn't know what to do with you. You can't be categorized, you don't fit in because you can't be assigned a place in society and so you cannot function in society. But sages can function very well in society, because they can remember their name and date of birth and vita when required, which means they can at least project a self when required, even though there may not be an actual sense of self the entire time. Let's say you fly to another country. On arrival, you are asked to fill out an arrival form with your name, date and place of birth, health condition, itinerary etc. You can do that easily. When they check your passport and ask you "So you are Bob from America?" you say "Yes, that's me." What you have done here is projecting a self. It's the only way you can get thru customs. If you wouldn't do that, they wouldn't know what to do with you and probably lock you away. That's what I mean by a self being required in order to function in society. Projecting a self is the most natural thing to do as adults (not so easy for little children though). And it's the only way to get along smoothly in a system of names and numbers. That doesn't mean though that there has to be a sense of actually being a name and a number, even though a lot of adults tend to identify as a name and a number at some point. Agree with all that, but as an interesting point, I actually tend to have more difficulty with that now, than I did as a child. At the age of 11, I went to America on my own to stay with friends, and didn't have a visa (my Mum didn't think I needed one). I was taken away to a room and questioned, and handled it all easily and calmly really. These days, I find questions about name and age etc quite 'alien', and I have to almost slightly 'reach' for the answers at times. Like I have to actually 'deliberately' project a self in order to do it. Even in unpressured situations. When someone asks my age, that answer I give feels almost a lie...even though, by 'consensus standards', I'm telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 15, 2020 15:46:44 GMT -5
I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts. I don't think you understood what I meant by 'YOU'. What you call 'YOU', I'd still call 'you'. I understand inavalan's YOU. But for me there is a YOU and a YOU and a you. YOU is potential, that when fulfilled, connects with YOU.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 15, 2020 16:00:12 GMT -5
YOU is Real I, YOU is essence, you is personality (seemingly SVP), which is in actuality an illusory, false sense of self.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2020 16:45:13 GMT -5
In my opinion everything is belief, no matter how sure you are. It is a matter of your limiting framework at any given moment, perception. This applies both while you, and YOU, likely while whatever beyond. What about the raw fact of conscious experience itself? Is that not completely undeniable? You could be in a dream, a simulation, maybe there's a "you" or maybe not, maybe there is no subject, no object, etc., ... but the fact that conscious experience is happening or said another way, the fact that awareness exists - is that a belief? Because that raw fact seems different from others, that's what made me think it is a doorway for contemplation. Nisargadatta talked about how you are only sure of "I am" so go there and be with that, search in that direction. I think he was talking about this same thing. I also though the "I Am that I Am" in the Bible may have been referring to the same thing. The undeniable raw fact of that something IS. Even though if you try to say what it is you start spinning wheels with unsatisfying word-thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 15, 2020 20:28:42 GMT -5
In my opinion everything is belief, no matter how sure you are. It is a matter of your limiting framework at any given moment, perception. This applies both while you, and YOU, likely while whatever beyond. What about the raw fact of conscious experience itself? Is that not completely undeniable? You could be in a dream, a simulation, maybe there's a "you" or maybe not, maybe there is no subject, no object, etc., ... but the fact that conscious experience is happening or said another way, the fact that awareness exists - is that a belief? Because that raw fact seems different from others, that's what made me think it is a doorway for contemplation. Nisargadatta talked about how you are only sure of "I am" so go there and be with that, search in that direction. I think he was talking about this same thing. I also though the "I Am that I Am" in the Bible may have been referring to the same thing. The undeniable raw fact of that something IS. Even though if you try to say what it is you start spinning wheels with unsatisfying word-thoughts. I stated how I see "truth" and "belief". Then, for me, it matters what I do with that. At this stage in my life, I can't imagine knowing for sure anything without reservations. To me, "I am" and other such set-phrases mean nothing, and I just feel a slight displeasure when I encounter most of them, because of what they indicate to me. I understand that people that subscribe to common beliefs use such set-phrases for easy communications. I use such set-phrases too, some borrowed, some adapted, some original. Sometimes this leads to miscommunication.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 18, 2020 14:41:08 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not,
or…
ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS.
If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese.
(Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2020 20:45:09 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not, or… ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS. If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese. (Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings). Okay, so basically you are just explaining your opinions on Buddhism here. Fair enough. When I think of Buddhism, I usually have Zen in mind. Now, on the surface, Zen may at times seem like a huge departure from the original teaching. Nevertheless, Zen does make a lot of references to the original teachings which can be seen in the commentaries of famous koan collections, like the Blue Cliff Record. Actually, I would say that some koans can only be understood fully if one knows what specific sutra is referred to. And that can be found in the commentaries. Unfortunately, only few people seem to know about these references. I think I'll do an extra thread on that some time in the future, and with my own translations, because what I've noticed is that most translations in English are less than ideal, sometimes debatable and in some rare cases just flat-out wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the source text. Most translations seem to rely on the Japanese text and Japanese commentaries which may have been corrupted. So it's worth going back to the Chinese original. I think the same can be said about other Buddhist texts. But I don't know Sanskrit yet), so I wouldn't know. That's why to me AW's input was very helpful. But you obviously see that differently. So yes, let's agree to disagree for now.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 18, 2020 21:18:40 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not, or… ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS. If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese. (Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings). I've read somewhere that the Buddhist sutras contain eleven times the number of words in the Bible, so I'm sure that any imaginable teachings can be found there. I'm familiar with several Buddhist traditions, and I was involved in the Zen tradition for more than a decade, so I've been exposed to a lot of different viewpoints and perspectives on Buddhism. The Zen tradition supposedly began as a result of the Buddha's sermon on Vulture Peak. 5000 people had gathered to hear him speak, but he began by silently holding up a lotus blossom. One of his main disciples, Mahakasyapa, smiled, and the Buddha, seeing him smile, said that he had transmitted the wordless teaching to Mahakasyapa because Mahakasyapa had understood his silent exposition. This later became the basis for several famous koans in Zen, to wit: 1. Why did the Buddha hold up the lotus blossom? 2. Why did Mahakasyapa smile? 3. What did Mahakasyapa understand? 4. How did the Buddha transmit the wordless (secret) teaching to Mahakasyapa? One could add: 1. How does THIS relate to what the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. Is there a contradiction between "there is only THIS" and anything else the Buddha taught? 3. If there is no thinking, what remains? 4. What does karma and rebirth have to do with THIS? It might be worth noticing that kamma and rebirth are ideas related to the future and to various causal consequences of various actions, but in the absence of thought what becomes totally clear?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2020 21:42:17 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not, or… ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS. If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese. (Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings). I've read somewhere that the Buddhist sutras contain eleven times the number of words in the Bible, so I'm sure that any imaginable teachings can be found there. I'm familiar with several Buddhist traditions, and I was involved in the Zen tradition for more than a decade, so I've been exposed to a lot of different viewpoints and perspectives on Buddhism. The Zen tradition supposedly began as a result of the Buddha's sermon on Vulture Peak. 5000 people had gathered to hear him speak, but he began by silently holding up a lotus blossom. One of his main disciples, Mahakasyapa, smiled, and the Buddha, seeing him smile, said that he had transmitted the wordless teaching to Mahakasyapa because Mahakasyapa had understood his silent exposition. This later became the basis for several famous koans in Zen, to wit: 1. Why did the Buddha hold up the lotus blossom? 2. Why did Mahakasyapa smile? 3. What did Mahakasyapa understand? 4. How did the Buddha transmit the wordless (secret) teaching to Mahakasyapa? One could add: 1. How does THIS relate to what the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. Is there a contradiction between "there is only THIS" and anything else the Buddha taught? 3. If there is no thinking, what remains? 4. What does karma and rebirth have to do with THIS? It might be worth noticing that kamma and rebirth are ideas related to the future and to various causal consequences of various actions, but in the absence of thought what becomes totally clear?Ha! I just posted a quote in the AW thread related to this.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 19, 2020 10:45:09 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not, or… ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS. If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese. (Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings). Okay, so basically you are just explaining your opinions on Buddhism here. Fair enough. When I think of Buddhism, I usually have Zen in mind. Now, on the surface, Zen may at times seem like a huge departure from the original teaching. Nevertheless, Zen does make a lot of references to the original teachings which can be seen in the commentaries of famous koan collections, like the Blue Cliff Record. Actually, I would say that some koans can only be understood fully if one knows what specific sutra is referred to. And that can be found in the commentaries. Unfortunately, only few people seem to know about these references. I think I'll do an extra thread on that some time in the future, and with my own translations, because what I've noticed is that most translations in English are less than ideal, sometimes debatable and in some rare cases just flat-out wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the source text. Most translations seem to rely on the Japanese text and Japanese commentaries which may have been corrupted. So it's worth going back to the Chinese original. I think the same can be said about other Buddhist texts. But I don't know Sanskrit yet), so I wouldn't know. That's why to me AW's input was very helpful. But you obviously see that differently. So yes, let's agree to disagree for now. I've become quite a big fan of Wattsy, and especially enjoyed going through the texts and video's you've been putting up on the thread. It's true I actually preferred the earlier 'non-buddhisty' stuff in the thread. I find his voice to be melodically hypnotic, he's incredibly insightful, and his ability to talk, and indeed to express himself generally is first rate. Quite marvellous. He comes up with some fantastic analogies to illustrate his points, some of them are really awesome. However, regarding his take on Buddhist doctrine, although some of it struck a chord, I found I actually didn't resonate with a large portion of it. Maybe due to a certain limitation in the insight behind it (fighting talk, I know), but if I'm honest, I also sensed his interpretation perhaps to be coloured by a need to justify his own lifestyle. At this point I'm also happy to agree to disagree on some of these issues, and am just pleased to be able to get into highlighting some of the discrepancies between the positions. At least the way I see it. I feel it can then be useful to have them in mind going forward. Personally I'm not particularly disposed toward Zen, and when I think of Buddhism, I usually have Theravada in mind. I've talked a little about that before. But to clarify, when I talk about interpretation, I tend to be talking about an interpretation of what the various source material really points to, (both 'compartmentally' and as a whole). Rather than what specific words were supposedly used in any given text. I mean obviously it's linked, and important to a degree, but the truth is, I put surprisingly little emphasis on that when reaching my conclusions. I guess what I mean is, a lot of it's down to the structure and the context of a given piece, but also the process I employ in order to glean the nature and scope of what's being pointed to. A process that is as broad as it is long, hehe. A pseudo-perennial philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 19, 2020 10:48:37 GMT -5
There is such thing as kamma and rebirth until such time as it's realised there is not, or… ultimately, there is no such thing as kamma and rebirth, there is only THIS. If I could be clear about one thing, it would be that either of those positions are absolutely NOT what the Buddha taught. And so if that is what nonduality teachings point to, then it's not merely a case of apples and oranges ... it's chalk and cheese. (Needless to say, that is based on my interpretation of, and insight into the teachings). I've read somewhere that the Buddhist sutras contain eleven times the number of words in the Bible, so I'm sure that any imaginable teachings can be found there. I'm familiar with several Buddhist traditions, and I was involved in the Zen tradition for more than a decade, so I've been exposed to a lot of different viewpoints and perspectives on Buddhism. The Zen tradition supposedly began as a result of the Buddha's sermon on Vulture Peak. 5000 people had gathered to hear him speak, but he began by silently holding up a lotus blossom. One of his main disciples, Mahakasyapa, smiled, and the Buddha, seeing him smile, said that he had transmitted the wordless teaching to Mahakasyapa because Mahakasyapa had understood his silent exposition. This later became the basis for several famous koans in Zen, to wit: 1. Why did the Buddha hold up the lotus blossom? 2. Why did Mahakasyapa smile? 3. What did Mahakasyapa understand? 4. How did the Buddha transmit the wordless (secret) teaching to Mahakasyapa? One could add: 1. How does THIS relate to what the Buddha transmitted to Mahakasyapa? 2. Is there a contradiction between "there is only THIS" and anything else the Buddha taught? 3. If there is no thinking, what remains? 4. What does karma and rebirth have to do with THIS? It might be worth noticing that kamma and rebirth are ideas related to the future and to various causal consequences of various actions, but in the absence of thought what becomes totally clear? Sure, there is only THIS, and words can't encapsulate THIS, or capture or convey the magnitude and the majesty of THIS. That can only be realised directly. But that's beside the point, because it's about pointing to the nature and quality of the current experience, which isn't somehow negated by all that. Rather, just approached from the vantage point of 3rd mountain.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2020 22:17:23 GMT -5
Okay, so basically you are just explaining your opinions on Buddhism here. Fair enough. When I think of Buddhism, I usually have Zen in mind. Now, on the surface, Zen may at times seem like a huge departure from the original teaching. Nevertheless, Zen does make a lot of references to the original teachings which can be seen in the commentaries of famous koan collections, like the Blue Cliff Record. Actually, I would say that some koans can only be understood fully if one knows what specific sutra is referred to. And that can be found in the commentaries. Unfortunately, only few people seem to know about these references. I think I'll do an extra thread on that some time in the future, and with my own translations, because what I've noticed is that most translations in English are less than ideal, sometimes debatable and in some rare cases just flat-out wrong. Maybe this has something to do with the source text. Most translations seem to rely on the Japanese text and Japanese commentaries which may have been corrupted. So it's worth going back to the Chinese original. I think the same can be said about other Buddhist texts. But I don't know Sanskrit yet), so I wouldn't know. That's why to me AW's input was very helpful. But you obviously see that differently. So yes, let's agree to disagree for now. I've become quite a big fan of Wattsy, and especially enjoyed going through the texts and video's you've been putting up on the thread. It's true I actually preferred the earlier 'non-buddhisty' stuff in the thread. I find his voice to be melodically hypnotic, he's incredibly insightful, and his ability to talk, and indeed to express himself generally is first rate. Quite marvellous. He comes up with some fantastic analogies to illustrate his points, some of them are really awesome. However, regarding his take on Buddhist doctrine, although some of it struck a chord, I found I actually didn't resonate with a large portion of it. Maybe due to a certain limitation in the insight behind it (fighting talk, I know), but if I'm honest, I also sensed his interpretation perhaps to be coloured by a need to justify his own lifestyle. At this point I'm also happy to agree to disagree on some of these issues, and am just pleased to be able to get into highlighting some of the discrepancies between the positions. At least the way I see it. I feel it can then be useful to have them in mind going forward. Personally I'm not particularly disposed toward Zen, and when I think of Buddhism, I usually have Theravada in mind. I've talked a little about that before. But to clarify, when I talk about interpretation, I tend to be talking about an interpretation of what the various source material really points to, (both 'compartmentally' and as a whole). Rather than what specific words were supposedly used in any given text. I mean obviously it's linked, and important to a degree, but the truth is, I put surprisingly little emphasis on that when reaching my conclusions. I guess what I mean is, a lot of it's down to the structure and the context of a given piece, but also the process I employ in order to glean the nature and scope of what's being pointed to. A process that is as broad as it is long, hehe. A pseudo-perennial philosophy. Can you apply this to yourself, as well? We all can intuit "wrong action" and "wrong speech", especially in the extreme, and, also, in retrospect. Those translate into "right action" and "right speech", but in practical terms, it's always possible to hypothesize, and even, encounter a grey area. From skimming this (which has an undeniable beauty to it, btw), the obvious low-hanging fruit is this: Are all city dweller's excluded from the path? The four kinds of people strike me as all a matter of degree. True enough that alcohol is an intoxicant, but, on the other hand, can't a rigid diet cross the same line as an ascetic who refuses a chair? As far as bloody occupations are concerned, can you name me one occupation that can't be characterized as somehow profiting off of the suffering of it's clientele? Now, I understand this is an extreme way of looking at things, and don't look at everything that way, myself, but I think it illustrates one of the problems inherent in proscribing a moral compass: judgement. Is it possible that your interpretation of the canon is such as to justify your own way of life?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Oct 20, 2020 6:52:16 GMT -5
I've become quite a big fan of Wattsy, and especially enjoyed going through the texts and video's you've been putting up on the thread. It's true I actually preferred the earlier 'non-buddhisty' stuff in the thread. I find his voice to be melodically hypnotic, he's incredibly insightful, and his ability to talk, and indeed to express himself generally is first rate. Quite marvellous. He comes up with some fantastic analogies to illustrate his points, some of them are really awesome. However, regarding his take on Buddhist doctrine, although some of it struck a chord, I found I actually didn't resonate with a large portion of it. Maybe due to a certain limitation in the insight behind it (fighting talk, I know), but if I'm honest, I also sensed his interpretation perhaps to be coloured by a need to justify his own lifestyle. At this point I'm also happy to agree to disagree on some of these issues, and am just pleased to be able to get into highlighting some of the discrepancies between the positions. At least the way I see it. I feel it can then be useful to have them in mind going forward. Personally I'm not particularly disposed toward Zen, and when I think of Buddhism, I usually have Theravada in mind. I've talked a little about that before. But to clarify, when I talk about interpretation, I tend to be talking about an interpretation of what the various source material really points to, (both 'compartmentally' and as a whole). Rather than what specific words were supposedly used in any given text. I mean obviously it's linked, and important to a degree, but the truth is, I put surprisingly little emphasis on that when reaching my conclusions. I guess what I mean is, a lot of it's down to the structure and the context of a given piece, but also the process I employ in order to glean the nature and scope of what's being pointed to. A process that is as broad as it is long, hehe. A pseudo-perennial philosophy. Can you apply this to yourself, as well? We all can intuit "wrong action" and "wrong speech", especially in the extreme, and, also, in retrospect. Those translate into "right action" and "right speech", but in practical terms, it's always possible to hypothesize, and even, encounter a grey area. From skimming this (which has an undeniable beauty to it, btw), the obvious low-hanging fruit is this: Probably to an extent … But I'm conscious of the fact that I split my time pretty evenly between what I want to do, and what with my better judgement I think I should be doing. So, classic split mind. What I don't do, for example, is look at the vinaya pitaka and find a way to dismiss it. I look at it, and deep down know I could be doing better. They're not excluded from the path, just the more advanced aspects of it. As far as occupations are concerned, some are more virtuous than others, and therefore result in the production of better kamma. For example, the healer being a more meritorious than the arms dealer as an occupation. But as you rightly point out the truth is, ultimately none are entirely exempt, and following that trajectory sails toward what it really means to say 'life is dukkha'. That the continued production of kamma (occupation) binds us to samsara. The city dweller can't escape this, and in order to do so, at some point he would need to leave it all behind. None of that justifies my own way of life, if anything the opposite. But then I'm not seeking to justify it, but rather am content to merely be conscious of the fact, for the time being.
|
|