What if there really is no "You"
-
Had an interesting discussion with AndrewPKYap on the question of Karma and Rebirth and how it relates to 'Non-Self' (Anatta). For the discussion please see: http://chitchat.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=299019
I replied him from page 3 onwards. -
I think we feel we exist cos it's really real .
u pinch urself we get pain , we can c , we feel we exist .
act we exist due to some variables .
everyone is linked to a web of complex cause and effect .
ur existence is based on cause and condition just like candle cannot burn without a wick .
if that time for us to die comes , then u would die .
so ur existence is fleeting .
-
Gd gd... waiting for AndrewPKYap to come here
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Gd gd... waiting for AndrewPKYap to come here
-
How about I whack you and you tell me that there is no pain that ever existed?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Gd gd... waiting for AndrewPKYap to come here -
-
Good luck talking to a brick wallOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Gd gd... waiting for AndrewPKYap to come here 
-
Not again...Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:How about I whack you and you tell me that there is no pain that ever existed?
-
If a bomb exploded in a deserted area, and nobody is around to hear the bomb or even know that a bomb exploded, does the sound of the explosion still exist?
-
Talking about non-existenctism.Originally posted by cycle:Not again... -
ChingAlvin's analogy is better than mine.Originally posted by ChingAlvin:If a bomb exploded in a deserted area, and nobody is around to hear the bomb or even know that a bomb exploded, does the sound of the explosion still exist?
-
Whoever said that?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:How about I whack you and you tell me that there is no pain that ever existed? -
You cannot say yes, no, neither, or both. All these assumes that there is an entity or objective reality out there that can exist, not exist, both, or neither. But this dualistic worldview is fundamentally delusional.Originally posted by ChingAlvin:If a bomb exploded in a deserted area, and nobody is around to hear the bomb or even know that a bomb exploded, does the sound of the explosion still exist?
(BTW, the sound you are thinking of is produced when the vibrations hit the eardrums, producing what you then perceive as 'sound', which is the inseperability of hearing/sound.)
So: emptiness (the nature of reality) is empty of four extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence.
When reality is seen as it is -- it is seen to be non-dual, there being no perceiving subject (experiencer, doer, thinker, etc, i.e. a separate self/agent) separated from an objective world out there (something 'out there' that exists), i.e. the assumption that the 'objective world' and the 'sound of the explosions' truly have inherent existence.
So the problem with seeing in a dualistic perspective is that one thinks that there is a 'perceiver' in here, of 'sounds of exploding' out there, -- whereas in reality there is only the act/arising of sounds of exploding which is inseperability of hearing/sound. In hearing sound, it is simply sound heard. No sound out there, no hearer in here. As a Zen Master became enlightened and said,
“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”
And why do sound arise? When causes and conditions meet, sound arises. All are dependent arising, all are conditions. The universe 'gives its best' for this moment of arising to arise.
Whatever dualistic concepts we use cannot describe its ultimate nature, even though it is relatively useful. But we must not be confused by them.
I wrote this in another forum two weeks ago:
Emptiness does not deny that appearances continue to arise vividly therefore it is definitely not 'nothingness' or 'voidness'. However, Emptiness denies any imputation of inherently existing attributes, objective reality to what is seen and felt. For example, there is no flower that is inherently red, because a human sees red, a dog sees black and white, a reptile may see something else, etc. 'Redness' has no objective reality 'out there'... they arise due to Conditions, as Dependent Arising, and are mere Appearances. That is why it is called 'empty'.
In fact, there is no objective reality of a 'flower' at all... in modern science it's said reality is 99.99999% space. If somehow Buddha grant you quantum glasses all you will see is vast space and a few 'balls' moving about... then you might wonder where is this 'flower' that I thought existed? Yet whatever it is seen, it is empty and mere dependent arising. So whatever it is, it is no more real than the mirage of the moon in the water, or the flower in the mirror, merely dependent arising, conditions but no graspable objective reality.
Yet our sense organs produce a very vividly real image, appearance, of a seemingly existing 'flower'. And that is empty, too. So no states are purer than any others, all appearances are fundamentally unborn and pure. But we must not stress the aspect of emptiness and overlook that it is the luminous expression of our true nature. The sound of keyboard typing... texts appearing on the screen... not what words can describe. And what is that? Conditions. Dependent arising. And which is our pristine awareness. Reality is just this entire luminous display/appearance arising spontaneously moment to moment. As real as it can be... and gone.
p.s.. someone in another forum who had true experiences of what he's talking about wrote this... do contemplate --
....seeing colour
hearing sound
feeling feelings
smelling odours
tasting flavours
knowing/number/form/meaning
is instantaneous... is any 'gap' perceived between the 'event' and the perception of it...
any 'gap' is purely 'conceptual'...
seeing colours as simply 'colours seen'...
and hearing sounds as simply 'sounds heard'...
(and so for each of the senses and sensations)...
and knowing concepts as simply 'concepts known'...
this is like looking at a film and noticing the coloured patterns on the screen as simply 'coloured patterns'... without giving the images any meaning...
and knowing that the meaning attached to the images is purely conceptual... there are no 'people' or 'things' on the screen... it is just a play of light...
while the images are seen as being meaningfull themselves... it appears very difficult to see through the illusion...
but it is not difficult... it only appears to be difficult... Rolling Eyes... -
I'm still waiting for AndrewPKYap to reply goldevil on his topic
-
So basically, "you" is just something that is made up of our senses. thats all!
-
No, it is not 'you', because no separate, permanent, existing self can be found in a stream of sensory data that changes all the time and are all conditioned, dependently arising, dependently originated. Neither can you find a self apart from the stream of sensory perception, thoughts, etc. (the 5 skhandas) The nature of all conditioned aggregates are Anatta (non-self), and no self can be found within nor apart from these 5 aggregates (skhandas).Originally posted by ChingAlvin:So basically, "you" is just something that is made up of our senses. thats all!
But yes, the 'All'/'Totality' is the 18 dhatus in Buddhism, and there is nothing else apart from 18 dhatus, just as I was telling AndrewPKYap that there is no such thing as a universal consciousness or universal soul apart from manifestation (of the 18 dhatus/elements) --
The Sutra on Totality.
(From the Samyutta Nikaya)
Monks,
I will teach you
the totality of life.
Listen,
attend carefully to it
and I will speak.
What, monks,
is totality ?
It is just the eye
with the objects of sight,
the ear with the objects of hearing,
the nose with the objects of smell,
the tongue with the objects of taste,
the body with the objects of touch
and the mind with the objects of cognition.
This, monks,
is called totality.
Now, if anyone were to say,
“Aside from this
explanation of totality,
I will preach another totality,”
that person
would be speaking empty words,
and being questioned
would not be able to answer.
Why is this ?
Because that person
is talking about something
outside of all possible knowledge. -
Hint (something Thusness wrote about 3 years ago):Originally posted by goldevil:I think we feel we exist cos it's really real .
u pinch urself we get pain , we can c , we feel we exist .
act we exist due to some variables .
everyone is linked to a web of complex cause and effect .
ur existence is based on cause and condition just like candle cannot burn without a wick .
if that time for us to die comes , then u would die .
so ur existence is fleeting .
Life (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.
When the karmic and mental factors subsides, it is known as "The True and Only (and Inherently egoless) Conscious Light (Itself)".
- Thusness
Knowing this, existence is NOT fleeting. Why? Because there is no 'you' experiencing change, there is no 'you' that experiences time or 'fleeting time', and there is no 'you' that is born and die -- Birth arises -- only the act of birth, Death arises -- only the act of death, they are distinct, and there is no fixed self that is the perceiver of birth and death, there is no fixed self that is the SUBJECT of birth and death. No 'one' is born nor dies. Birth perceives itself, death perceives itself.
This is what Zen Master Dogen said in relation to Being-time, birth, and death -- in that now birth is no-birth because no ego-self is ever born: if no "I" is ever born then there is only the act of birth, but if there is only the act of birth then there is really no birth. Realising this, birth and death is Buddha Nature and Nirvana is none other than birth and death -- there is no "escape from", every arising appearance is already self-liberating in its own accord, only the correct insights are required.
Dogen:
Similarly, when human beings die, they cannot return to life; but in Buddhist teaching we never say life changes into death.... Likewise, death cannot change into life.... Life and death have absolute existence, like the relationship of winter and spring. But do not think of winter changing into spring or spring into summer. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
outside of all possible knowledge
[b]The Sutra on Totality.
(From the Samyutta Nikaya)
Monks,
I will teach you
the totality of life.
Listen,
attend carefully to it
and I will speak.
What, monks,
is totality ?
It is just the eye
with the objects of sight,
the ear with the objects of hearing,
the nose with the objects of smell,
the tongue with the objects of taste,
the body with the objects of touch
and the mind with the objects of cognition.
This, monks,
is called totality.
Now, if anyone were to say,
“Aside from this
explanation of totality,
I will preach another totality,”
that person
would be speaking empty words,
and being questioned
would not be able to answer.
Why is this ?
Because that person
is talking about something
outside of all possible knowledge.[/b]
Outside of all is eternal
Because that person is outside
therefore are empty words
Questioners of non-eternal
are recycle words
Why is eternal and non-eternal?
Thank you -
Originally posted by Ser~pent:
There is no 'outside of all' -- that would be an eternalistic concept and is not accepted in Buddhism. In Buddhism we teach that the nature of reality is emptiness empty of the four extremes, which also includes extremes of eternalism, nihilism, etc.
[b]outside of all possible knowledge
Outside of all is eternal
Because that person is outside
therefore are empty words
Questioners of non-eternal
are recycle words
Why is eternal and non-eternal?
Thank you
[/b]
Usually, it is the Thirtikas, Hindus, that sees in terms of the duality of eternalism and nihilism, Buddhism does not preach this doctrine.
Padmasambhava: The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of eternalism as against nihilism. (Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness) -
Due to be not being in any religion or whatsoever, this is just my personal thought, as i was asked almost the same question during my cognitive lesson.
For us to know somebody exist, we need all our 5 senses and our cognitive process.
Without them, we would just be like a puppet, unaware of anything.
For us to know that ourselves exist, we need our cognitive process, without them, we would just like a puppet.
Yet we exist, as a whole, with senses and (at least the minimal) ability to think.
So, without cognitive processes, we nothing would exist to the individual personally. Yet, to others, with the cognitive ability, he would understand that we exist, as a "puppet" or not.
So, its the co-existence of our mental ability, senses together with others with those ability that determines the existence of anything. -
If you feel the pain, then you must exist.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Whoever said that? -
Last time my dharma teacher asked a similar question, he said if no one is there, there is no sound. quite true, if there is no hearer, even if there is vibration of air molecule, it is not considered sound.Originally posted by ChingAlvin:If a bomb exploded in a deserted area, and nobody is around to hear the bomb or even know that a bomb exploded, does the sound of the explosion still exist?
Then if you are there sleeping, and a tree fall down, does the sound exist? -
Someone cut off my hand... I feel its real.. the pain is there... but i really know this is not real (Andrew's thought)
IM having sex with my gal.. the pleasure is there..oh so nice but i know its not real (Andrew's thought)
My mom gave birth to me and i grow up to become a man, but i know this is all not true cuz its not real (Andrew's thought)
Everything is not real cuz im not real (Andrew's Thought) ?
I wonder why is he so bother bout one's existence.. the same as he bother bout God's existence and he couldnt gave me straight answer Yes or No if God really exist.. Gosh.. someone help this guy.. -
A person need not be there when there is a sound. A sensor can be there and prove there is a sound.Originally posted by justdoit77:Last time my dharma teacher asked a similar question, he said if no one is there, there is no sound. quite true, if there is no hearer, even if there is vibration of air molecule, it is not considered sound.
Then if you are there sleeping, and a tree fall down, does the sound exist? -
This is a false assumption. The feeling and the pain 'feels itself' -- or rather -- when feeling pain, it is simply pain felt. There is no separate self or perceiver of pain. Pain simply arise, who says there must be an existing self? No such permanent, existing self can be found, only a momentary self.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If you feel the pain, then you must exist.
As AndrewPKYap wrote:
...This is the same as saying that the sun moves across the sky because you see it moving across the sky with your own eyes. In the same way, you think you exist because when you pinch yourself, you feel pain.
When you look at the evidence and think about it and study it, the sun does not move across the sky even though you see it with your own eyes; just as you do not exist, just because you pinch yourself and you feel pain...