Ego is not the same as the sense of individuality

[saurab]

Originally Posted by sky

When Buddha was asked point-blank by Vacchagotta whether or not there was a self, He refused to answer. When later asked by Ananda why He didn't answer He said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

This is because he was himself not sure whether there was a self or not. Why was he not sure ? Because as a human being living on the imperfect earth, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether there is a self or not. When the ego dies people think there is no self.

So, how do I claim to know whether there is a self ? First of all, I dont exactly "know". I "believe". What is the basis of my belief ? It is some of the sayings of Jesus, plus the teachings of a spirit through a human medium. These teachings, which are in the form of written transcripts of lectures are on this site: https://pathwork.org/lecture-categor...tures-1996-ed/

I would like to point out that Ramana Maharshi said that there is ONE SELF which is common to all beings. (not your self or my self but THE SELF). So how is it that two enlightened being have different views about this ? Because when the ego dies, people feel love and oneness with all beings, and so start thinking that there is no I (because they equate the I with the ego) but according to Ramana the ego is the I-thought not the real I.

So you can see that two enlightened beings have very different views on "I". So when I said that the BUddha made a mistake when he said that there is no self inherently existing independent of other causes and conditions, I was not judging him. It is a mistake that is easy to make because when the ego dies there is such intense oneness with others that it seems that there is no distinction between self and other.

Originally Posted by sky

The Nirvana Sutra states that all beings have Buddha Nature, which is 'Our True Self' according to The Buddha so why would He contradict Himself by saying there is 'No Self'.....

When the Buddha said that all beings have Buddha nature he was not refering to an ****inherently**** existing entity. He was simply saying that everyone can become enlightened like me. By inherently existing entity he meant that there is no self existing independent of causes and conditions.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by sky

If there is 'no self' what experiences the results of Karma and takes Rebirth ?

for this you can see the video I indicated.

[sky]

Originally Posted by saurab

So when I said that the BUddha made a mistake when he said that there is no self inherently existing independent of other causes and conditions

I would like to read the Sutras/Suttas (Teachings attributed to The Buddha) that show Buddha saying there is 'No self'..... but if you cannot point me in that direction I have to believe the multitude that I have studied which would contradict a 'No Self' teaching.

" All things are not-self — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification."
Dhammapada verse 179.

We can agree to differ and I will leave it at that......

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by saurab

do you think that the son of God and God are the same person ? ....

I understand the difference between , son,messenger and God very well . And I can see the source of your objection is your love and respect for God . So it does not really offend me . But if you see we still holding on to avatar doctrine , that also is because of our tremendous love for God . It's not to disrespect . In Hinduism too there are different levels of spirituals like sainthood , aachraya (spiritual teachers),rishi (benevolent scientists) , demi-Gods (People of Light) and God (avatar ). Divine mother etc is part such categorization . The premise of Avatar doctrine is that if God can create millions of Forms around the world why He can not create one for Himself . . The reason for having a human form of Avatar is psychological . For people to learn human form is more easy and quick to learn . So despite the fact that Hindus themselves forgetting all these centuries , progressive Hindus stick to Avatar doctrine due to its practical advantage if pursued with sincerity .

By this doctrine - progressive Hindus consider Buddha ,Jesus and Muahammad as 10th , 11th and 12th incarnation of God which is a respect not given by the people of respective faiths also .The way the incarnation is just a belief , the relationship with God (like son or messenger or enlightened one ) is just a belief . Nothing more . No logic ,no proof and no scientific evidence . Howsoever you try to convince , you can not convince one with mere arguments.

Also every faith has its share of rogue , ignorant ,fraudulent ,foolish people . Judging the other faith and its theology on the basis of such people and criticizing/deriding/mocking/ridiculing the other faith is a grave mistake which their own faith leaders (like Jesus ) do not like and approve .

[no1wakesup]

Originally Posted by saurab

Many enlightened masters especially from India have stated that with enlightenment the sense of individuality disappears. But that is not true because they mistakenly take the ego to be the sense of individuality (a mistake that is extremely easy to make).

Here is an article on this subject: http://spiritweb.in/teachings/pathwo...e-after-death/.

Subject-object is the primordial relationship or first duality which gives rise to the sense of separation. As a separate sense, before names, labels or a self identity in place, a sense of individuality is there. All of this happens before the thinking process takes on its chaotic grasp on an otherwise simple awareness. Once the personal story begins and the mind starts chasing its own tail of conditioning with future and past, the ego, as thinker and thought merge into one. So individuality is a stage or level leading up to a mind which will soon interpret everything as its own, as an experience happening to "me"....in this very moment ..as the ego

[Joe Mc]

No it doesn't disappear, it was never there in the first place, and not in the way we think of cancellation and negative zero etc.
it's there and it's not there, it was a mistake, a mistaken identity to begin with.

__________________________________________________ _________

[Molearner]

We are familiar with the words of Descartes…”I think therefore I am”. I am much more intrigued by the observation of Martin Buber….he asserted basically that the person says “I am” whereas the ego says “That is which I am”…..I see the wisdom in that….

[saurab]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

I understand the difference between , son,messenger and God very well . And I can see the source of your objection is your love and respect for God . So it does not really offend me . But if you see we still holding on to avatar doctrine , that also is because of our tremendous love for God

what exactly do you mean by an avatar ? a human incarnation of God? I ask because God has never been born on the earth.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by saurab

what exactly do you mean by an avatar ? a human incarnation of God? I ask because God has never been born on the earth.

Literal meaning of 'Avatar' is to 'come down or accept some lower position' . So God which is the sovereign ruler of this universe may of his own will and conviction want to
1. Feel the experience of his own creation
2. inspire/exhort/reward good people
3. fear/weaken/kill bad people
4. demonstrate earthly living for fellow beings

Now sovereign rulers are rulers who
1. can/may do anything
2. can/may not do anything
3. can/may do any other million things which we may not even think.

Nobody can question sovereign.

By this definition Satan is not sovereign but God is sovereign . Satan is subject to control of God even with Christian theology.

Now if God of his own will wants to take the form of human being and accept all limitations of earthly living on this planet , who we are to stop him . Restricting such incarnation a level of 'Son' or 'messenger' may really mean an insult to it. So progressive Hindus , keeping in view these considerations raise the level of Jesus and Muhammad Paygamber to the level of God and consider them to be 11th and 12th incarnation of God. Buddha was not the original 10th incarnation of God but was later recognized so about a millenium ago .

So if u see avatar doctrine of Hinduism , it is our tremendous love for God that we believe / respect His each and every wish and do not doubt it .

I understand many Hindus may not have known and explained this properly to others . That's the mistake on Hindus part . But when Hindus explain this properly, understanding and appreciating this falls squarely on others shoulders.

Further God would be very happy if we stop debating trivia issues and differences such as this and we engage in more creative and constructive actions .

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by saurab

Many enlightened masters especially from India have stated that with enlightenment the sense of individuality disappears.

Agree with you. Till we are in this evanescent world, individuality will remain.

Originally Posted by sky

He said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

:) Buddha was focused on elimination of sorrows. Other things did not matter to him, though he could easily explain them. He did not even answer the question whether God/Gods exist or not. He called such deliberations as useless and 'not smart' (akusal) and said that they are imponderables (acinteyyas).

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by sky

The idea of there being 'no self' does not fit well with other Buddha's teachings, such as the doctrine of
Karma and Rebirth (and many more) If there is 'no self' what experiences the results of Karma and takes Rebirth ?

A person in another forum explained it to me very beautifully. He said Karma and self are like the striker and billiard ball, once some one strikes the ball, it moves, after that the striker has no importance. The ball then may strike another ball which may strike a third ball. It is the karmas that roll.

So, the doer is not reborn. effect of Karmas continue and that affects any one who happens to encounters them.
The effect of what Hitler or Mahatma Gandhi did did not end with their death.
That is the clearest understanding of the Buddhist theory of karma ever explained to me.