What is the inner-self?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

vaj




No way – I have tested it to the limit! If you look for it you will see it, I think of the spirit between things as a reality [just because it is not made of energy, that doesn’t mean something is not real imho], just like what we are as spirits is too.

you've tested it, Z?

you have some evidence that you can present which supports your conclusions? i would be quite interested to read your study and it's evidence.

what is a "spirit" and how is that related to sentient beings?

how can a being evidence that they have a "spirit" or, as some may say, a "soul"?

Interesting… what upon itself do you mean?

well... you indicated that you thought that mind was "un-independent" to which i interpet that to mean, dependent. i'm trying to clarify if i'm understanding you correctly here

I would think it is simply a free agent – well spirit is anyway, yet is mind of spirit or vice versa? Or it’s simply ways of looking at the same thing? If we can say they are the same, then I would see it thus: ‘there is that which is bound and there is that which is not’! infinity is not, the quantum universe is.

i don't suppose that you have some evidence to support your conclusions concerning Quantum Mechanics, do you? moreover, i suspect that this would be dependent upon which view of QM which we hold, the Many Worlds or Copenhagen view... for my own part, i used to be a very strong Copenhagen proponent. my view has changed and it now seems that the Many Worlds view is a more complete description of what is experienced.

in particular, i disagree with the Copenhagen view concerning when the waveform collapses, since it can collapse without the presence of an observing consciousness. though, i do find the Schrodingers Cat thought experiment to be quite intriguing.

metta,

~v

 

[Zazen]

wheres your evidence of reincarnation, astral projection or bodhisattvas and buddhist dietys for that matter?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

wheres your evidence of reincarnation, astral projection or bodhisattvas and buddhist dietys for that matter?

why would i need any of that, especially as Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation "astral projection"? what would be projected? conditoned mental states dependent upon the aggregates?

Bodhisattvas? well.. there's Jesus though one is free to accept his existence or not.

Buddhist deities?

if one cannot accept those teachings of Buddha, then one does not have to.

recall the teaching to the Kalamaas, Zazen, we are told to test the teachings like a goldsmith tests gold to find it's impurities. only once we have confirmed it for ourselves are we supposed to adhere to it and live up to it.

of course, one is also then counciled to consider, carefully, the teachings from spiritually mature members of the Sangha.

metta,

~v

 

[Zazen]

for one jesus isnt a bodhisattva unless thats how YOU wish view him, the christians i can assure you do not consider jesus to be a bodhisattva or a prophet as the muslims do, and im well aware of what a bodhisattva is, but of course you can hold any oppinion u want, you obviously do a good job of stateing your oppinions as fact all over this forum.

and buddhist do believe in reincarnation, is that or is that not the dalai lamas whole deal. and regardless of him, buddhist do believe in reincarnation as i could easily quote you on this site as adhering to the belief of reincarnation. not to mention if i cared i could easily find many buddhist sutras to back up my claim

 

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara
so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v

Quahom1

No because, without the perceiver, there is definitely no perception. Without a person, there is no personal view.

v/r

Q

You never came back Vaj...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

for one jesus isnt a bodhisattva unless thats how YOU wish view him,

clearly

the christians i can assure you do not consider jesus to be a bodhisattva or a prophet as the muslims do,

without question. i have not put forth the idea that Christians consider Jesus to be a Bodhisattva. since they do not have this conception in their teachings, it would be fairly unusual for them to hold this view.

and im well aware of what a bodhisattva is, but of course you can hold any oppinion u want, you obviously do a good job of stateing your oppinions as fact all over this forum.

they are my views predicated on my understanding, which i clearly state as such. that i frequently disagree with your understanding and conceptions of the Buddhadharma does not, in any way, mean that those are not my views.

the interested reader is advised to investigate these things for themselves.

and buddhist do believe in reincarnation, is that or is that not the dalai lamas whole deal.

no, it is not.

Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation. though they may seem to be the same thing, they are not. one of these concepts relies upon an eternally existing self or soul to incarnate to begin with, since Buddhism rejects the idea of there being an eternally existing self or soul, there is nothing which is incarnated and thus nothing is re-incarnated.

this view is more characteristic of the Sanatana Dharma traditions.

and regardless of him, buddhist do believe in reincarnation as i could easily quote you on this site as adhering to the belief of reincarnation.

you are welcome to demonstrate that i hold the view of reincarnation rather than rebirth.

not to mention if i cared i could easily find many buddhist sutras to back up my claim

please, put your efforts into this and present your case.

nevertheless, you seem to have completely ignored my point, which the Buddha makes quite clear. we are called to test each teaching, for ourselves, before we accept it. if you cannot accept it, you are not obligated to adhere to it.

thus, if you find the idea of rebirth to be untenable, you do not have to accept that teaching. if you find the idea of Bodhisattvas unbelieveable, you also do not have to accept that teaching.

in point of fact, which you should well know, lay people have only 5 precepts which they are supposed to adhere to, and none of them have anything to do with rebirth.

please leave your animosity towards me at the viritual door when you come in, Zazen.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara
so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v


You never came back Vaj...

Namaste Quahom,

oh, sorry about that... didn't really think that there was much else to say about that... as i tend to agree with this view

hmm... perhaps i should adopt a new method in this regard as it can certainly seem as if i am ignoring a post....

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Namaste vaj.

You’ve tested it, Z?

Stop taking me so literally! I mean I have seen my dog on numerous occasions, go to the door when my wife is on her way home, then 5 minutes later she come through the door, and he wakes up as soon as I do and looks at me, that is what I call the oneness between things – by which we are joined.

Evidence to support your conclusions concerning Quantum Mechanics

I’ll put it in a test tube shall I! Lol

I get info from here and there, and then interpret it according to my own philosophical worldview. I am trying to go beyond the known – I like exploring.

For example:

The Many Worlds view is a more complete description of what is experienced.

Energy is conserved so where do you get the energy for other universes. Is one question that comes to mind, but more importantly is this – you cannot build to infinity!

Therefore you cannot have an infinite amount of anything especially universes.

Or is there a limited amount? If so then you don’t have the infinite potential needed for quantum theory.



But as I have said before – I am no scientist, I just try to link things together logically.

Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation. Though they may seem to be the same thing, they are not. One of these concepts relies upon an eternally existing self or soul to incarnate to begin with, since Buddhism rejects the idea of there being an eternally existing self or soul, there is nothing, which is incarnated, and thus nothing is re-incarnated.

Interesting. However I don’t see why the concept of rebirth relies upon an external soul!!!? It is surely the very ‘it’ that is you, which is the transmigrator! Everything else are overlaid upon this, e.g. the soul is the body that you [with spirit] obtain in Elysium, the underworld or the intermediate realms.



Rebirth or reincarnation, whatever we call it, it is the element of us that is the mirror of god that is ultimately real [or more real], it is that whom makes the journey!



Z

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a145/rleonard/sigalchemy1c4twc.jpg

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Quahom,

oh, sorry about that... didn't really think that there was much else to say about that... as i tend to agree with this view

hmm... perhaps i should adopt a new method in this regard as it can certainly seem as if i am ignoring a post....

metta,

~v

Not to worry V, I was teasing.

 

[Vajradhara]

Naamaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Interesting. However I don’t see why the concept of rebirth relies upon an external soul!!!?

rebirth doesn't, reincarnation does.

It is surely the very ‘it’ that is you, which is the transmigrator!

that teaching is, specifically, the sort of thing that Buddha Shakyamuni refuted.

Everything else are overlaid upon this, e.g. the soul is the body that you [with spirit] obtain in Elysium, the underworld or the intermediate realms.

interesting view.

Rebirth or reincarnation, whatever we call it, it is the element of us that is the mirror of god that is ultimately real [or more real], it is that whom makes the journey!



Z

interesting view.

metta,

~v

 

[Zazen]

lol, ok i see vajradhara, maybe you should start out your posts or your statements with IMO, because so much of what you write is ridiculously biased and untrue. its interesting how you seem to interpret things aswell..i could probably write a book about this kind of thing..lolo

 

[Vajradhara]

Zazen,

lol, ok i see vajradhara, maybe you should start out your posts or your statements with IMO

how long have you been a member of this forum? how many times must i state that my views are my views based on my understanding?

, because so much of what you write is ridiculously biased and untrue.

demonstrate it as so.

i'm getting rather tired of this, zazen.

if you cannot say things which are constructive and contribute to the discussion, you are free to participate in other areas of the forum.

its interesting how you seem to interpret things aswell..i could probably write a book about this kind of thing..lolo

zazen.

i would appreciate it if you would cease with the personal attacks on my character and my integrity. this is the second time that you've been asked to cease this sort of behavior.

if you feel that my views are so "ridiculous" you are free to present your case against me.

i'm sure you could write a book, Zazen. many people do. perhaps that would be a more productive use of your time.

metta,

~v

 

[earl]

Hi Zazen. As someone who tends to the unorthodox myself-perhaps at times taking a down-right syncretic approach to religion, I see nothing wrong with debating/discussing alternative interpretations (respectfully). That to me can be a very interesting thing. But it's important to do so with full understanding of what the reilgion you are debating actually teaches if you wish to debate those teachings. I've seen no one here who can expound so knowledgeably about Buddhist Dharma as V and his comments here are reflective of that -i.e., the man knows of what he speaks So as in all other subforums dealing with a particular religion's point of view, it's always a good idea to familiarize yourself to some degree with its teachings-or ask for /accept clarifications from those who know them-if you wish to dialogue about or critique them. Take care, earl

 

[Zazen]

vaj you need to calm down, no ones personally attacking you in anyway, least of all not me. i could really careless infact how you interpret my posts since you seem to warp everything else you talk about, why should i expect anything less from your perceptions of my writeing.

for one things, its one thing to state your oppinion, and other to say, oh buddhist doctrine says this, or this taoist text says this, or whatever. you do this often, when in reality if anyone even cared to do any research they would find out you are ridiculously wrong.

i mean, i really would like to know the difference between shakyamuni going through over 500 "rebirths" just so he could be enlightened, and how exactly that is not the exact same thing as "reincarnation" its still the same being being reborn or else why the number? not to mention this whole thing is based on your shallow understanding of the buddhist doctrine on self and non-self and how that relates to the subject, and its so obvious.

u can claim anything u want vaj i really dont care, but when you act like your right because you claim "buddhism doesnt teach this" or "buddhists dont do that" which is a reoccuring theme in your endless list of posts, you not only confuse people but simply suck them into your own ideas and personal philosohpy, which is obviously pretty far fetched even for buddhism.

 

[wil]

Namaste Zazen....alright deep breaths....

vaj you need to calm down, no ones personally attacking you in anyway, least of all not me.

if this is true, and I am sure it is, please review some of my suggestions for to create beneficial discussion/debate in the future...so as not to be thought of as making personal attacks.

when in reality if anyone even cared to do any research they would find out you are ridiculously wrong.

can I read this as 'while I currently don't have the time to post my references, this is where you and I respectfully disagree'

not to mention this whole thing is based on your shallow understanding of the buddhist doctrine on self and non-self and how that relates to the subject, and its so obvious.

may I be so bold as to suggest this may be misinterpretted as contrary to your opening statement and may be better revised to read, "Our understanding of the nature of this differs as I understand it (place item of substance here) whereas my understanding of what you are saying is (a quote would be nice). Can you see where we differ?"

Otherwise this discussion under the heading of 'Eastern Thought' contemplating the 'inner self' sounds oh so much like a typical 'western argument' - does to, does not, does to...or a trying to get a room and dinner through Basil Fawlty, quite entertaining....but neither will be well served.

Lastly I realize it takes two to tango...and am just discussing the last post/response for the purposes of brevity...it would be interesting to contemplate how one would respond to all if they were responding as if they were a bodhisattva.

 

[earl]

Realizing what the "nature of self" is, of course, another way of discussing what Dharma ia all about. "What" is reborn? Zazen you raise an interesting question, though-almost a koan-when you point out that Buddha had lived 500 previous lives in that my understanding of the story told of his awakening was that prior to full enlightenment he remembered 500 previous lives. But, V is also right, Dharma teaches rebirth not reincarnation and there is a difference-sometimes a very mysterious, interesting difference. For instance, in the tulku tradition of vajrayana Buddhism of which V would certainly be more knowledgeable than me (I've studied a bit in that tradition though I'm more of a Zennie) they speak of currently living tulkus sometimes as being "1 rebirthing 1 of many emanations of the mindstream of certain previous vajrayana masters;" i.e. rebirth in multiple current forms? that is you might have several currently living tulkus who are said to be emanations of the same deceased master. I'd certainly be interested in hearing V discuss the implications both of this tulku system of understanding of rebirth as well as more generally squaring the stories of Buddha's remembrance of past lives with the doctrine of rebirth. Take care, earl

 

[Quahom1]

vaj you need to calm down, no ones personally attacking you in anyway, least of all not me. i could really careless infact how you interpret my posts since you seem to warp everything else you talk about, why should i expect anything less from your perceptions of my writeing.

Z, you need to back up ten and punt. Your opinion is no more nor no less valid as anyone elses.

To tell someone you could care less what they think, and then "attack" them further personally with an opinion that can not be backed up (you can't prove Vaj warps anything), is rather an undesireable trait.

Furthermore, Vaj is a moderator, and as such is subject to certain respect. Just as you are accorded much respect as a member here.

I strongly suggest you watch your tone.

v/r

Quahom1

 

[Zazen]

yea, vaj is a moderator, and like most moderators they seem to think they have some higher place because its all of a sudden their forum instead of a community FORUM, what am i supposed to be perfect. i try hard not to insult, sure i may use words or phrases vajradhara doesnt like and the fact that vajradhara is counting off my so called "insults" in a 1,2,3 manner is quite obvious im in for something. as if vajradhara's sarcasm and "tone" is lost on me, yea ok.

rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing, if anyone can disprove that other then saying, its the same "matter" being reborn in the same way..the hell does that really mean. thats the same thing, everything is matter and energy that doesnt say anything. its these ridiculous little things that make me upset because theres no differentation there other then that which is made up in vajradharas or whomevers mind because they may or may not agree.

"V is also right, Dharma teaches rebirth not reincarnation and there is a difference-sometimes a very mysterious, interesting difference. For instance, in the tulku tradition of vajrayana Buddhism of which V would certainly be more knowledgeable than me (I've studied a bit in that tradition though I'm more of a Zennie) they speak of currently living tulkus sometimes as being "1 rebirthing 1 of many emanations of the mindstream of certain previous vajrayana masters;" i.e. rebirth in multiple current forms? that is you might have several currently living tulkus who are said to be emanations of the same deceased master."

and whatever man i could really careless in the end, because if u people dont understand how ridiculous this sounds i forefit this arguement, not even worth playing the lute to buffalo anyway.

 

[Quahom1]

yea, vaj is a moderator, and like most moderators they seem to think they have some higher place because its all of a sudden their forum instead of a community FORUM, what am i supposed to be perfect. i try hard not to insult, sure i may use words or phrases vajradhara doesnt like and the fact that vajradhara is counting off my so called "insults" in a 1,2,3 manner is quite obvious im in for something. as if vajradhara's sarcasm and "tone" is lost on me, yea ok.

rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing, if anyone can disprove that other then saying, its the same "matter" being reborn in the same way..the hell does that really mean. thats the same thing, everything is matter and energy that doesnt say anything. its these ridiculous little things that make me upset because theres no differentation there other then that which is made up in vajradharas or whomevers mind because they may or may not agree.

"V is also right, Dharma teaches rebirth not reincarnation and there is a difference-sometimes a very mysterious, interesting difference. For instance, in the tulku tradition of vajrayana Buddhism of which V would certainly be more knowledgeable than me (I've studied a bit in that tradition though I'm more of a Zennie) they speak of currently living tulkus sometimes as being "1 rebirthing 1 of many emanations of the mindstream of certain previous vajrayana masters;" i.e. rebirth in multiple current forms? that is you might have several currently living tulkus who are said to be emanations of the same deceased master."

and whatever man i could really careless in the end, because if u people dont understand how ridiculous this sounds i forefit this arguement, not even worth playing the lute to buffalo anyway.

that was a mistake...and so is disrespect...

 

[iBrian]

As this thread is on the Eastern Thought section, obviously there is more than one valid viewpoint, across different religious divides.

However, it would be great if individuals did not perceive difference of opinion to equal an attack, and act accordingly, because that's not really acceptable here.

The matter of that dispute is over and we'll see no more of it here.

Back to the question posted by _Z_ : "what is the inner self".