2 Questions for Matthieu Ricard, Tibetan monk

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

The "you" he refers to is a convenient shortcut to locate a process node in space and time. By 'process node' I mean an accumulation of some sorts, awareness, activity, etc.
It doesn't mean that that there is an object, "you", anywhere but only that there is something happening somewhere. This happening (accumulation) we call "you" in order to locate it and maybe explain its effect or characteristics.

A "process node"? We're truly splitting hairs now.

Whoever said that the "self" is an object. Don't we eschew any objectification of humanity in any literal or figurative sense. We intuitively know that we are not an object. This is abundantly self-evident.

I'm not referring to any self in terms of an object, but in terms of the unique individual stream-of-consciousness of which Ricard speaks of.

In causal speech it becomes clear that, on a fundamental level, we don't "locate" ourselves as or within our bodies, minds, personalities, etc. We say, "My mind", "your body", "her personality" and intuitively know that this is something that the self is possessing. I am not using the term "possessing" here in the usual sense, either. Possessing in the sense that it is clothing itself with them. It puts them on and takes them off. It associates and interacts with them, but is not limited to them, and therefore is not fundamentally them.

The "self" to which I am referring is clearly not an object and certainly couldn't be confused with one. I would say that the "self" is the unique individual stream-of-consciousness.

The self IS consciousness and that consciousness is a stream. Once again, this stream implies movement, flow, and process, and in that, I would agree with you that the self is a "happening."

Each life is an manifestation of that stream-of-consciousness. Each life is informed and melded, to a large extent, by the previous life.

Each moment (from the infinitesimally small "instant" to an entire lifetime) of this flowing stream-of-consciousness is caused (in terms of cause and effect) by a prior moment. But once again, the flow itself is uncaused.

[BlueSky]

I see it as I think there is this void that is best described as empty but in a way that is full of potential.
From there THIS arises and falls back to it.
This will go on forever and has no beginning.............period. Just a thought.
We can talk about such things but in the end you will only think you understand and then you will drop trying to understand and what will be left is THIS and its beauty regardless of if you understand how it came about.
James

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

I see it as I think there is this void that is best described as empty but in a way that is full of potential.
From there THIS arises and falls back to it.
This will go on forever and has no beginning.............period.

"This will go on forever and has no beginning.............period."

Agreed. This process itself, of arising from and falling into the "void", is uncaused.

This will go on forever............period. This process CANNOT be changed, because there is no other process than this. Therefore, it is permanent.

If it is permanent, unchanged, and uncaused then it becomes clear that "enlightenment" is just a illusion. It is a complete fantasy.

There is no altering the process, ending or beaking of the cycle of rising and falling (e.g., birth and death) and certainly no ultimate destination/goal (enlightenment).

Enlightenment is tantamount to a conceptual pun because true enlightenment is the realization that there is no need of altering/improving anything, and even the impossibility of truly altering/improving anything. If you ultimately can't improve anything, then you can't improve this stream-of-consciousness either.

In this respect, enlightenment is the realization that there is no such thing as enlightenment.

One can refer to the perennial question posed by Alan Watts, "Do you do it or does IT do you."

The answer? IT does you.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by LIFE

"This will go on forever and has no beginning.............period."

Agreed. This process itself, of arising from and falling into the "void", is uncaused.

This will go on forever............period. This process CANNOT be changed, because there is no other process than this. Therefore, it is permanent.

If it is permanent, unchanged, and uncaused then it becomes clear that "enlightenment" is just a illusion. It is a complete fantasy.

There is no altering the process, ending or beaking of the cycle of rising and falling (e.g., birth and death) and certainly no ultimate destination/goal (enlightenment).

Enlightenment is tantamount to a conceptual pun because true enlightenment is the realization that there is no need of altering/improving anything, and even the impossibility of truly altering/improving anything. If you ultimately can't improve anything, then you can't improve this stream-of-consciousness either.

In this respect, enlightenment is the realization that there is no such thing as enlightenment.

One can refer to the perennial question posed by Alan Watts, "Do you do it or does IT do you."

The answer? IT does you.

I see the process as permanent and ALWAYS changing…………
I see enlightenment as seeing the process more clearly apart from what we think……..
I see that it most certainly SEEMS like ‘we do it’ as opposed to ‘IT doing us’ and that is good enough for me.
I don’t NEED to know the answer (if there even is one) to Alan Watts question and that is my point.
That is peace………James

"I see the process as permanent and ALWAYS changing…………"

I would say that change is ALWAYS happening within the process, but the process itself doesn't change.

It gets a little abstract, but if you carefully analyze it you may see it.

An aspect of the process is change and yes, that ALWAYS occurs. But the process, which contains and drives ALL change, doesn't itself change. If it did, then it would be theoretically conceivable that change/transformation could end and a state of stasis would result.

If the constant and eternal flow of change/transformation truly ended, it could never start again because moving from a state of stasis (no-change) to flux (change) would in itself be an act of change.

Therefore, since change has no end, that which drives change is, itself, unchangeable.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by LIFE

"I see the process as permanent and ALWAYS changing…………"

I would say that change is ALWAYS happening within the process, but the process itself doesn't change.

It gets a little abstract, but if you carefully analyze it you may see it.

An aspect of the process is change and yes, that ALWAYS occurs. But the process, which contains and drives ALL change, doesn't itself change. If it did, then it would be theoretically conceivable that change/transformation could end and a state of stasis would result.

If the constant and eternal flow of change/transformation truly ended, it could never start again because moving from a state of stasis (no-change) to flux (change) would in itself be an act of change.

Therefore, since change has no end, that which drives change is, itself, unchangeable.

Yes, I tend to see it that way as well. I also tend not to have much faith in how I see things though. To me it doesn't really matter if I see that the process doesn't change and in fact, thinking I believe that I do, I find tends to flavor how I see the part that is changing and I'd rather just see it all as a child does.....
James

Originally Posted by LIFE

The "self" to which I am referring is clearly not an object and certainly couldn't be confused with one. I would say that the "self" is the unique individual stream-of-consciousness.

Each moment (from the infinitesimally small "instant" to an entire lifetime) of this flowing stream-of-consciousness is caused (in terms of cause and effect) by a prior moment. But once again, the flow itself is uncaused.

In a broad sense "the unique individual stream-of-consciousness" is an "object", something which has continuity. That is also the reason you talk about cause and effect. These are all superficial views.

When we go deeper there is no cause and effect, and no individual stream-of-consciousness.

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

In a broad sense "the unique individual stream-of-consciousness" is an "object", something which has continuity. That is also the reason you talk about cause and effect. These are all superficial views.

Why is there a continuity of experience for an "experiencer"? You don't experience what I experience and I don't experience what you do. So there are clearly individual perspectives of experience, if you will.

In your views, do these individual perspectives of experience eventually disintegrate completely into extinction/annihilation?

For instance, I wake up in the morning and my experience continues. What I call "my experience" real or not, will eventually end completely into eternal and irrevocable nothingness?

This would be analogous with materialistic reductionism, which is rampant in the western worldview.

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

When we go deeper there is no cause and effect, and no individual stream-of-consciousness.

This completely contradicts Tibetan Buddhism.

[Samana]

This great movement or process of the unfolding of cause-and-effect events/phenomena could indeed by thought of as an event or phenomenon itself. Indeed, it is an event that contains all events and a phenomenon within which all phenomena occur (or the greater unconditioned phenomenon of the appearing and disappearing of conditioned phenomena) and it is itself uncaused.

One could even say that if this process/movement/flow is uncaused, as it clearly is, then it is eternally unchanged and therefore permanent.

Such matters don't really concern me, because they don't help me address the cessation of dukkha in the here and now. My aim is to maintain mental peace, clarity and wisdom in the here and now, rather than get tied up in endless intellectual speculation .

with metta to all,

Samana

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

That is also the reason you talk about cause and effect. These are all superficial views. When we go deeper there is no cause and effect, and no individual stream-of-consciousness.

As, I said, this contradicts Tibetan Buddhism, and if you look again, you'll see that this is what I have been saying.

At the superficial level cause and effect events apparently occur, but ultimately all cause and effect events are within ONE event. All phenomena arise from and fall back into ONE phenomenon.

So, superficially you have the appearance of events and phenomena, but in absolute terms there are NO events/phenomena but rather only ONE process. One infinite, eternal, uncaused, permanent, and unchangeable process.

And here's the rub: "You" ARE that process.