Is there a Self, me and mine? The "ever turn around thread"

Samana Johann

(Not a member, just a guest)
Messages
124
Reaction score
18
Points
18
Location
(currently in) Cambodia
To get it spin around, maybe more aware, or to even stop it right after reading here:

http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/index_en.html said:
Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2011; 79pp./241KB)
Five talks on the topic of not-self (anattā), from a ten-day meditation retreat held in France.

"To be or not to be", to raise such a question is you choice that leads to stress immidiatly.
 
One Absolute. Separation from our first face before creation is the purpose of the Buddha Body you occupy. Without separation, no individuation. To be differentiated, you must be veiled from knowing your true self. Enlightenment is only half. The other half is gaining your strength to stand, again reflecting Aleph. Both sickness and medicine are in your hand. Using both ends polarization, allowing virtue to express mastery. Your first face is Love. Self is not the same as individuation. Selfless is again love, or realization of two made one. From a Hebrew perspective, Echad not Yachid. Yoga is union with your true higher nature, yet individual.

To get it spin around, maybe more aware, or to even stop it right after reading here:



"To be or not to be", to raise such a question is you choice that leads to stress immidiatly.
To get it spin around, maybe more aware, or to even stop it right after reading here:



"To be or not to be", to raise such a question is you choice that leads to stress immidiatly.
 
Namaste all,

thank you for the post.

within the normative Buddhist view the self exists in a contingent manner thus there is a relative self yet no self which is eternally existing, self sufficient from it's own side. the Buddha uses the idea of "the Two Truths" to teach about the relative and the Absolute which is helpful for us since it allows those worldlings of us to understand what is being talked about as we move towards an freedom of conception altogether.

metta,

~v
 
within the normative Buddhist view the self exists in a contingent manner thus there is a relative self yet no self which is eternally existing, self sufficient from it's own side.
Curiously, RC and Orthodox Christianity says the same.
 
there is'nt a self me or I. no soul no spirit
There is only One eternal entity--everyone's memories, in other words, Its everyone's heart
 
Welcome, fireball, to the forum!

What keeps anyone from claiming this entity as their own self, then?
 
Namaste all,

thank you for the post.

within the normative Buddhist view the self exists in a contingent manner thus there is a relative self yet no self which is eternally existing, self sufficient from it's own side. the Buddha uses the idea of "the Two Truths" to teach about the relative and the Absolute which is helpful for us since it allows those worldlings of us to understand what is being talked about as we move towards an freedom of conception altogether.

metta,

~v
Bump
 
Looking at @Vajradhara's comment, I'd say the same applies to Christianity, if one looks beyond the immediate pastoral teaching to the doctrine as such – another way is to say that apophatic and cataphatic practice is the equivalent to the Buddha's 'Two Truths'?

Apophatism leads towards freedom from concepts and @seattlegal's 'thicket of views'.

Meister Eckhart is probably the most well-known on this.

The contemporary theologian Denys Turner is another.
 
From the writings of C.S. Lewis:

"Two spiritual maxims were constantly present to the mind of Charles Williams: ‘This also is Thou’ and ‘Neither is this Thou’. Holding the first we see that every created thing is, in its degree, an image of God, and the ordinate and faithful appreciation of that thing a clue which, truly followed, will lead back to Him. Holding the second we see that every created thing, the highest devotion to moral duty, the purest conjugal love, the saint and the seraph, is no more than an image, that every one of them, followed for its own sake and isolated from its source, becomes an idol whose service is damnation.

The first maxim is the formula of the Romantic Way, the ‘affirmation of images’: the second is that of the Ascetic Way, the ‘rejection of images’. Every soul must in some sense follow both. The Ascetic must honour marriage and poetry and wine and the face of nature even while he rejects them; the Romantic must remember even in his Beatrician moment ‘Neither is this Thou’. But souls are none the less called to travel principally the one way or the other."
C. S. Lewis, Arthurian Torso (1948), 151.
 
A few quotes (as A.A.Milne once said - and I quote - "A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business")

First Thomas Merton, on the self (in his view false and true) The false he sees as a derivative of Descartes, that has infiltrated the modern "western" consciousness.

Descartes finds his basic intuition in the reflexive self-awareness of the individual thinking subject, standing, as it were, outside of and apart from other objects of knowledge. From the starting point of reflexive thought the subject takes the abstract concepts of itself and of its own being as objects —cogito ergo sum.

Merton argues that such a starting point will inevitable lead to the "death of God" - as he says:-

It is this kind of consciousness, exacerbated to an extreme, which has made inevitable the so called “death of God.” Cartesian thought began with an attempt to reach God as object by starting from the thinking self. But when God becomes object, he sooner or later “dies,” because God as object is ultimately unthinkable. God as object is not only a mere abstract concept, but one which contains so many internal contradictions that it becomes entirely nonnegotiable except when it is hardened into an idol that is maintained in existence by a sheer act of will.

Merton then speaks of a "truer" self:-

Meanwhile, let us remind ourselves that another, metaphysical, consciousness is still available to modern man. It starts not from the thinking and self-aware subject but from Being, ontologically seen to be beyond and prior to the subject-object division. Underlying the subjective experience of the individual self there is an immediate experience of Being. This is totally different from an experience of self-consciousness. It is completely nonobjective. It has in it none of the split and alienation that occurs when the subject becomes aware of itself as a quasi-object. The consciousness of Being (whether considered positively or negatively and apophatically as in Buddhism) is an immediate experience that goes beyond reflexive awareness. It is not “consciousness of” but pure consciousness, in which the subject as such “disappears.”

as the Oriental religions and Christian mysticism have stressed, this self-aware subject is not final or absolute; it is a provisional self-construction which exists, for practical purposes, only in a sphere of relativity. Its existence has meaning in so far as it does not become fixated or centered upon itself as ultimate, learns to function not as its own center but “from God” and “for others.”


(All of Mertons quotes taken from essays to be found in "Zen and the Birds of Appetite")

Then Dogen, who writes poetically, in a style all of its own, often needing commentary to unravel (if such it does!) Anyone reading an essay or two in various translations will see the problem)

......flowers fall even though we love them; weeds grow even though we dislike them. Conveying oneself toward all things to carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization....

To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be verified by all things. To be verified by all things is to let the body and mind of the self and the body and mind of others drop off. There is a trace of realization that cannot be grasped. We endlessly express this ungraspable trace of realization...

......if there are fish that would swim or birds that would fly only after investigating the entire ocean or sky, they would find neither path nor place. When we make this very place our own, our practice becomes the actualization of reality (genjōkōan). When we make this path our own, our activity naturally becomes actualized reality (genjōkōan). This path, this place, is neither big nor small, neither self nor others. It has not existed before this moment nor has it come into existence now. Therefore the reality of all things is thus.


(All from "Genjokoan" from Dogen's "Shobogenzo" - The Treasury of the True Dharma Eye)

Just throwing things into the mix.
 
Back
Top