Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gem
But you can see a chair is a composite of parts and there is no 'actual' chair.
In the same way you can see any sensation and know it is anatta.
You know there is experience and you know it is not-I.
I always mention the meditation because Buddhist philosophy is not apart from meditation. They explain that the first level of understanding is you hear the philosophy (dhamma) and it makes a bit of sense intellectually, so you investigate it in meditation and get direct insight into it.
Of course. They sit on the chair but without the delusion that there is any actuality to 'chair'.
Buddhist meditation (mindfulness) is to 'see it as it is'. You don't do anything such as fabricate a mantra or make anything happen. You cease all volition and observe what already happens to be.
When a meditator notices their thoughts going 'oh me my mine and I' they see it is delusional, fabrication, just thoughts, and the whole process and operation of it - and they suddenly realise 'this is what I have been doing my whole life'. That moment of recognition is called 'insight'. After one has the insight into it, it is thereafter easily recognised, and can no longer pass by unawares.
|
The parts of the chair would be more delusional parts that are identified as that. The non-self doesn't identify. All you are doing is creating an example of illustrating the chairs composition in different ways, when identification is absent there are no descriptive analogies to be made. This is what I am pointing out. The non identified, non self buddhist is bogus when engaging and interacting in this world.
The chanting buddhist sitting crossed legged that perhaps says they are unidentified would in my eyes be a false statement.
A non self, non identified individual would not be sitting, standing, chanting or speaking with an absence of identification.
The individual that is blissed out in a trance type of state that doesn't have a sense of their individual self, that doesn't entertain a thought of chanting or meditating or speaking of non self is what I would call unidentified, there is just awareness of this world but there is no central point of self observing, because self has no central point.
If the buddhists agree that non self only applies to the trance states then I would agree, so there would be no need to speak about delusional aspects of the chair that are comprised of this and that for these descriptors will be null and void.
Maybe you would believe a non identified buddhist who offered you tea to be unidentified, I certainly wouldn't because I know the difference between being able to identify and not..
x daz x