Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 31-01-2019, 04:19 PM
ketzer
Posts: n/a
 
I am told that the Buddha cautioned against trying to grasp this concept intellectually and did not believe it could really be done. If true, then I suppose any attempt to do so will necessarily fall short to some degree. But perhaps one can show the fingers pointing to the moon even if one cannot show the moon. Especially if contrary to Einstein's objections, the moon really isn’t there unless one is looking at it.

I seem to see a good corollary to this debate in the nature of matter and mass. Matter being the experience of energy, and mass one of its properties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0

When one looks closely (very closely) at a table, there does not appear to be any “thing” there at all, yet bang one's head on in and we experience it nonetheless. Similarly, when one looks closely at the self, one cannot find any permanent thing there at all, yet we have an experience of self nonetheless. If I define self as that experience, I can say there is self. If I define self as that which is experiencing, I cannot find any thing to own the experience, and yet “I” am still doing the defining.

We can call into question whether or not there is really a difference between the experiencer and what is experienced. If we look closely at matter, we find only energy. Yet what is energy but a conceptual substance that we transform and move about through our mathematical equations? We have lots of information about energy, but we don’t really know what energy itself is. Does it have a fundamental nature, an existence, outside of the mathematics that we use to describe and manipulate it? Perhaps not, perhaps the information we have about energy is really all there is.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/th...ut-information

If information is fundamental to our universe, then the forms we experience are just that information given form by and presented within and to our own consciousness. Everything we experience is in fact ourselves, and there is no true dividing line between self and not self, it is all self, making the term itself redundant or meaningless. Of course we don’t have to ask Wheeler or Shannon, ask any neuropsychologist and they will tell us as much. Neurons from the senses fire or don’t fire (1 or 0), and based on that data the brain creates a universe within where we experience that which the brain formed from that information. The difference between the neuropsychologist and the physicists may be that the former still clings to an independent objective physical reality which the senses sense, while the latter may say there is no such thing, only information informing consciousness to create the forms within. If the physicists are right, then is not our own little universe within just a personalized set of the larger set of information from which we all form our realities within? Is then our own little personalized set of information just an arbitrarily drawn distinction between information we identify as self and the larger set of information? What happens if we decide such a distinction is not real and drop it? Can there be an experience without an experiencer? Is it possible, that much of what I claim as “my” experience is just experience that “I” was not really there for at the time, yet I am aware of it after and claim it as “my” experience after the fact as "I" cannot conceive otherwise? Can the experiencer ask if self exists or not without the experience of self? Does not the question presuppose the answer?

If the moon is only there when we are looking at it, perhaps the self is only there when we are looking for it, as long as we don’t look too closely and see that there is no thing there at all.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 31-01-2019, 05:38 PM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,529
  sky's Avatar
You cannot think up a ' No self ' because it's the self that's doing the thinking. It's a direct experience not a thought. Once you have had the unity with everything or oneness experience you know that what you thought was a self is truly Not Self...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 31-01-2019, 05:41 PM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,529
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Still_Waters
Now that you have identified the various theories, what have you actually realized?


That all great minds don't think alike best to work it out for yourself through life's experiences...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 31-01-2019, 06:16 PM
Rain95 Rain95 is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 901
 
On the topic of self or no self, impermanence.

Most identify with their content. The content created by the brain. Thought, belief, conditioning, all of that. It seems to be permanent, at least for a life time. We are called the same name by others, have the same past, relationships, memories, habits. We wake up and know ourselves to be the same person as yesterday.

So what is this ides of no self? It's really not about no self at all, the concepts from Buddhism. Like some have posted, it is about not self, not no self. It is the "Buddhist" realization of what you are not. All this temporary stuff generated by the brain you have mistakenly identified with as "you."

Once you have stopped identifying wholly with what you are not, you find what you are, and what you have always been. This is the "god" experience others have had, an experience of the "divine."

People who have had this profound realization and experience then say things like, "I am that," or "I am everything" or "I am you" The internal mechanism of separation is gone. Burned up in the realization of the true self.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 31-01-2019, 06:22 PM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,529
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain95
On the topic of self or no self, impermanence.

Most identify with their content. The content created by the brain. Thought, belief, conditioning, all of that. It seems to be permanent, at least for a life time. We are called the same name by others, have the same past, relationships, memories, habits. We wake up and know ourselves to be the same person as yesterday.

So what is this ides of no self? It's really not about no self at all, the concepts from Buddhism. Like some have posted, it is about not self, not no self. It is the "Buddhist" realization of what you are not. All this temporary stuff generated by the brain you have mistakenly identified with as "you."

Once you have stopped identifying wholly with what you are not, you find what you are, and what you have always been. This is the "god" experience others have had, an experience of the "divine."

People who have had this profound realization and experience then say things like, "I am that," or "I am everything" or "I am you" The internal mechanism of separation is gone. Burned up in the realization of the true self.



Exactly ....
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 31-01-2019, 07:17 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by God-Like
I haven't been speaking about non existence, I have been speaking of not self and non self in the ways as you have described.

Non self as you described is empty of identification, all I am saying is that if I spoke face to face with a supposed 'non self' I would know whether there is self identification had or not.

I can't for the life of me expect to hold a conversation with such a non self. For starters, there would be no acknowledgement of me being present speaking to them.

In order to relate to me speaking to them, they would have to firstly identify with themselves.

What is also apparent in my eyes is that to hold a theory about the nature of all things including oneself there has to be an identification with oneself. If one wants to conclude that the chair isn't really a chair or the identification of the chair is delusional then there has to be an identification to what you are that can be deluded or not. There has to be an identification that isn't deluded that can conclude a theory about self and no self.


But you can see a chair is a composite of parts and there is no 'actual' chair.


Quote:
The whole neti neti approach is riddled with identifications and knowings that are mindful that has to relate to what you think / know in regards to what you are.


In the same way you can see any sensation and know it is anatta.


Quote:
The neti neti chap says I am not this, but has to declare I AM that. That is an self identification. What is that, that can identify with themselves? Whatever they call that, will be a self reference.


You know there is experience and you know it is not-I.


Quote:
There really is no point for anyone to say I am not sitting down when they hold onto a theory of that, that derives through some mental gymnastic routine.


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.



Quote:
I find all this talk of non self, not self, very strange indeed in regards to experiencing this world, such individuals see a chair and go and sit on it. They don't go and sit on a ducks head instead. They know the difference because they are conditioned to know the difference, and one is conditioned to know what delusions are. One cannot understand these theories unless one is reflected within them.


Of course. They sit on the chair but without the delusion that there is any actuality to 'chair'.


Quote:
So non identified buddhists that sit cross legged saying some mantra day in and day out are doing so because of identification rather than not.


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.


Quote:
Perhaps they don't realize that when they identify with something they are identifying with themselves.

x daz x




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.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 31-01-2019, 07:30 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain95
On the topic of self or no self, impermanence.

Most identify with their content. The content created by the brain. Thought, belief, conditioning, all of that. It seems to be permanent, at least for a life time. We are called the same name by others, have the same past, relationships, memories, habits. We wake up and know ourselves to be the same person as yesterday.

So what is this ides of no self? It's really not about no self at all, the concepts from Buddhism. Like some have posted, it is about not self, not no self. It is the "Buddhist" realization of what you are not. All this temporary stuff generated by the brain you have mistakenly identified with as "you."

Once you have stopped identifying wholly with what you are not, you find what you are, and what you have always been. This is the "god" experience others have had, an experience of the "divine."

People who have had this profound realization and experience then say things like, "I am that," or "I am everything" or "I am you" The internal mechanism of separation is gone. Burned up in the realization of the true self.




Anatta has two basic contexts: Not-self as you describe, which is one aspect of it, and No-self in that there is no inherent identity to any thing. For example, you experience some sensation and it is not-self (not me my mine or I) and it is also no self or non self (empty of inherent identity).
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:59 AM
God-Like God-Like is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,874
  God-Like's Avatar
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
__________________
Everything under the sun is in tune,but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-02-2019, 08:43 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by God-Like
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.


It's an analogy which illustrates a meaning of anatta.


Quote:
This is what I am pointing out. The non identified, non self buddhist is bogus when engaging and interacting in this world.


The world is the interaction of aggregates (I explained a couple of posts back).


Quote:
The chanting




No chanting


Quote:
buddhist sitting crossed legged that perhaps says they are unidentified would in my eyes be a false statement.


Try the sitting meditation and within 30 minutes you see how your mind starts 'oh me, oh my, oh mine, oh I', and in time you will know this thinking is a fabrication that gives rise to a lot of suffering. Hence, anatta: not-me my mine and I and no self-theory.


Quote:
A non self, non identified individual would not be sitting, standing, chanting or speaking with an absence of identification.


Sitting standing are all experiences. Composites of aggregates, and dependently arising. In the meditation you will explore the finest details of the sensations, and see that very subtle feeling. You already know that feeling is not you, not yours - and you also know that feeling has nbo continuity. It's change (we call anicca). Impermanence.


Quote:
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.


That's right, you observe because not because you do, but because its true that you are aware of the experience as it is.


Quote:
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.


I'm merely explaining the meaning of anatta in Buddhist philosophy for the sake of the level of intellectual understanding. The chair is a good enough analogy, and I also explained it in other different ways such as the nature of sensation, the other aggregates, 'contact', etc.


Quote:
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..


It doesn't make sense to consider 'someone' as unidentified. It's a contradiction. A non identified Buddhist is a contradiction of terms. In my personal opinion, do enough meditation and you'll lose your religion. It will start to seem menial and irrelevant, but you might still follow the traditions anyway if you like living that way. I mean, you have live some way according to some sort of culture, after all.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:38 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,529
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by God-Like
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





See if this helps you understand what Buddha was explaining regarding ' Anatta '.
Everyone seems to be getting their info: from different places and trying to join them together which doesn't always work and can confuse others.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....059.nymo.html


I know that the experience of ' Anatta ' beats the written explanation but it does help to read Buddhas Teachings to understand Buddhism, imo anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums