What if there really is no "You"
-
You're describing relative truths, and in that domain it is true.Originally posted by ChingAlvin: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.
Relatively speaking, there are sentient beings, but in ultimate reality, sentient beings have no separate, permanent self to be found.
What there is is a momentary self made up of our karmic and mental factors --
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
Also see: What Is the "Me"?
----------------
BTW, in Buddhism, our practice is to be fully alive -- to sense aliveness all and everywhere, i.e. mindfulness/awareness. (Also see: Mindfulness (Sati))
This may sound contradictory to the teaching of 'non-self' but its the opposite -- it is because of non-self, there being no separate self-entity split off from manifestation, that we rest completely in moment to moment manifestation in bare, naked, awareness.
.....
It's not that "I" hear the birds, it's just hearing the birds. Let yourself be seeing, hearing, thinking. That is what sitting is. It is the false "I" that interrupts the wonder with the constant desire to think about "I." And all the while the wonder is occurring, the birds sing, the cars go by, the body sensations continue, the heart beating - life is a second-by-second miracle, but dreaming our I-dreams we miss it. So let's just sit with what may seem like confusion. Just feel it, be it, appreciate it. Then we may more often see through the false dream which obscures our life. And then, what is there?
.....
What does it mean to shatter our usual way of seeing our life? My ordinary experience of life is centered around myself. After all, I am experiencing these ongoing impressions - I can't have your experience of your life. I always have my own. And what inevitably happens is that I come to believe that there is an "I" central to my life, since the experiences of my life seem to be centered around "I". "I" see, "I" hear, "I" feel, "I" think, "I" have this opinion. We rarely question this "I." Now in the enlightened state there is no "I"; there is simply life itself, a pulsation of timeless energy whose very nature includes -or is - everything.
.....
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is I."
"Go away," God says...
Later...
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is Thou."
"Enter," replies God.
..................
I have been asked, "Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else." But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one that hears, there is just hearing. There is no one that sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. if we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty. At this point the observer (or witness) collapses. This is the final stage of practice, we don't need to worry about it. Why does the observer finally collapse? When nothing sees nothing, what do we have? Just the wonder of life. There is no one who is separated from anything. There is just life living itself: hearing, touching, seeing, smelling, thinking. That is the state of love or compassion: not "It is I," but "It is Thou."
~ Zen teacher, Charlotte Joko Beck, author of 'Everyday Zen' -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I am not a religious person, but what you typed made sense when i read it from a open minded perspective. really.
You're describing relative truths, and in that domain it is true.
Relatively speaking, there are sentient beings, but in ultimate reality, sentient beings have no separate, permanent self to be found.
What there is is a momentary self made up of our karmic and mental factors --
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
Also see: What Is the "Me"?
----------------
BTW, in Buddhism, our practice is to be fully alive -- to sense aliveness all and everywhere, i.e. mindfulness/awareness. (Also see: Mindfulness (Sati))
This may sound contradictory to the teaching of 'non-self' but its the opposite -- it is because of non-self, there being a non separate self-entity split off from manifestation, that we rest completely in moment to moment manifestation in bare, naked, awareness.
.....
It's not that "I" hear the birds, it's just hearing the birds. Let yourself be seeing, hearing, thinking. That is what sitting is. It is the false "I" that interrupts the wonder with the constant desire to think about "I." [b]And all the while the wonder is occurring, the birds sing, the cars go by, the body sensations continue, the heart beating - life is a second-by-second miracle, but dreaming our I-dreams we miss it. So let's just sit with what may seem like confusion. Just feel it, be it, appreciate it. Then we may more often see through the false dream which obscures our life. And then, what is there?
.....
What does it mean to shatter our usual way of seeing our life? My ordinary experience of life is centered around myself. After all, I am experiencing these ongoing impressions - I can't have your experience of your life. I always have my own. And what inevitably happens is that I come to believe that there is an "I" central to my life, since the experiences of my life seem to be centered around "I". "I" see, "I" hear, "I" feel, "I" think, "I" have this opinion. We rarely question this "I." Now in the enlightened state there is no "I"; there is simply life itself, a pulsation of timeless energy whose very nature includes -or is - everything.
.....
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is I."
"Go away," God says...
Later...
"Who is there?" asks God.
"It is Thou."
"Enter," replies God.
..................
I have been asked, "Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else." But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one that hears, there is just hearing. There is no one that sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. if we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty. At this point the observer (or witness) collapses. This is the final stage of practice, we don't need to worry about it. Why does the observer finally collapse? When nothing sees nothing, what do we have? Just the wonder of life. There is no one who is separated from anything. There is just life living itself: hearing, touching, seeing, smelling, thinking. That is the state of love or compassion: not "It is I," but "It is Thou."
~ Zen teacher, Charlotte Joko Beck, author of 'Everyday Zen'[/b] -
That's greatOriginally posted by ChingAlvin:I am not a religious person, but what you typed made sense when i read it from a open minded perspective. really.
Gd to have an open minded perspective.. in this way you can learn many good things from many people. It is unfortunate that some people's minds are like cups that are overflowing... unable to accept anything.
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?" -
A sensor cannot hear sound. It merely detects waves. It is not conscious of sensory perception as if it has 5 senses.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:A person need not be there when there is a sound. A sensor can be there and prove there is a sound.
When causes and conditions meet, sensor sets off an alarm. Sound is only produced when vibrations hit the eardrums and our cognitive sense detects it.
But when I said a sensor 'detects' airwaves, it sounds dualistic because it seems there is a 'sensor' (subject), that detects 'airwaves' (object)... Actually, its simply the meeting of causes and conditions producing 'detection' -- there is no detector apart from object, nor is there an object separated from the sensor. Both are empty of inherent existence. No subject-object duality, there is only one world, arising as that sound/detection/etc.
Just like the meeting of causes and conditions produce the sound of 'exploding' -- there is no hearer apart from 'sounds of explosions'. -
Here's a quick definition of the word "sound" in English:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:A sensor cannot hear sound. It merely detects waves. It is not conscious of sensory perception as if it has 5 senses.
When causes and conditions meet, sensor sets off an alarm. Sound is only produced when vibrations hit the eardrums and our cognitive sense detects it.
But when I said a sensor 'detects' airwaves, it sounds dualistic because it seems there is a 'sensor' (subject), that detects 'airwaves' (object)... Actually, its simply the meeting of causes and conditions producing 'detection' -- there is no detector apart from object, nor is there an object separated from the sensor. Both are empty of inherent existence. No subject-object duality, there is only one world, arising as that sound/detection/etc.
Just like the meeting of causes and conditions produce the sound of 'exploding' -- there is no hearer apart from 'sounds of explosions'.
Sound is generally known as vibrational transmission of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave.
So far, all I can see is AEN talking nonsense. His definition of sound does not fit normal English usage of the word. -
Please tell me what is the sound of one hand clapping and the sound of silence?
-
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Here's a quick definition of the word "sound" in English:
Sound is generally known as vibrational transmission of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave.
So far, all I can see is AEN talking nonsense. His definition of sound does not fit normal English usage of the word. -
dependent origination and middle wayOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:The author of this post (from another forum) has true experience/realisations of non-duality and emptiness. Do contemplate on this.
(first part snipped)
assuming “pretty darn close’ means that there are no ‘significant’ gaps in this description of ‘toombaru’s world view’…
to continue...
how is it that 'michael' can get 'inside' 'toombaru'... to see what 'he' sees... as 'he' sees it...
according to science... this is what is happening...
'light' is reflected from the surface of the computer and emitted from the screen in front of michael’s eyes (in the external world)... this 'light' is ‘electro-magnetic radiation'… 'pure energy'… without 'mass'...
from wikipedia: “Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a self-propagating wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation, and are in phase with each other. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave: these types include, in order of increasing frequency, radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays.
however... the 'light' itself is invisible... it is not possible to see 'light'... any more than it is possible to see 'radio waves'...
it is called ‘the visible spectrum’… or ‘light’… simply because it results in a ‘seeing response’ when incident on a healthy human eye connected to a healthy human brain…
when the 'light energy' hits the 'retina' at the back of each eye... it ceases to be 'light'...
instead… it is 'absorbed' by 'chemicals' in the ‘rods’ and ‘cones’ ('physical structures in the eye) and changed into a series of electro-chemical 'impulses'… the nature of these impulses depends upon the 'frequency' and 'intensity' of the light hitting the retina...
within the cones are three types of ‘colour sensitive pigments’… relating to ‘red’, ‘green’ and ‘blue’… however… these ‘pigments’ are not actual ‘colours’… they are called by these names simply because each ‘pigment’ responds to different wavelengths of light...
resulting in different 'electro-chemical impulses' inside the body... again... these 'impulses' are not 'colours'... they are just 'electro-chemical signals'...
these 'impulses' travel along the 'optic nerves' to the ‘optic chasm’ in the centre of the head, where the nerve fibres from the inside half of each retina cross to the other side of the brain, while the nerve fibres from the outside half of the retina stay on the same side of the brain...
once these ‘electro-chemical signals’ reach the visual cortex… they are said to be ‘interpreted’ as ‘colour’… but no 'scientist' knows what this means… or how it happens…
the problem is not ‘insufficient knowledge' (that will one day be rectified through further investigation)…
the problem is that ‘seeing colour’ cannot be reduced to anything else… it cannot be measured or quantified… any ‘quantitative description’ of ‘colour’… (in terms of ‘light frequencies’ or ‘pigments’ or ‘electro-chemical impulses’)… is not the ‘experience of seeing colour’…
like all sensations… ‘colours’ can only be experienced…
according to science… the first moment that ‘actual colours’ appear (are experienced)… is in the ‘visual cortex’… not in the ‘outside world’…
so… what started out as ‘invisible electro-magnetic radiation’ reflected from the computer and emitted from the screen… was changed into ‘electro-chemical impulses' in the retina…
these impulses then flowed along the optic nerves and into the visual cortex Â…
to this point... there is no awareness at all of the whole process… nor of any ‘colour’..
then… by some magic… inside the visual cortex… these 'impulses of electro-chemical energy’ are suddenly changed into these apparent ‘colours’…
even though, according to science... all that exists (in a 'real physical sense')... and all that is capable of 'scientific observation and measurement'... are the 'swirling atoms and electrons and energy fields' that make up the brain... all just following the 'laws of nature' in a 'mechanical' (though probabilistic) way...
it is only the 'subject' that can see colour directly...
the colours are not just seen as a 'patch of colours'... they are seen AS a ‘computer screen with words from toombaru on it'...
nor is this image perceived as 'an image in my head'... instead... it is seen AS 'the actual computer in the ‘outside world’… even though it is not...
all that is really seen is a 'coloured image'… having no substance or depth… exactly the same as any ‘dream image’…
according to science... this 'coloured image' appears onlyÂ… inside the visual cortexÂ… inside the headÂ…
the ‘actual computer' remains ‘unseen’… outside the head…
according to science... no 'colours' appear anywhere in the 'outside world'... the only place 'colours' appear is inside a 'healthy visual cortex'...
according to science... there is no ‘little you' inside the head… looking out along the optic nerves into the ‘real world’… nor is there any 'little you' looking at a 'screen' (inside the visual cortex) that shows an image of the world ‘outside’…
the image and the seeing of it are inseparableÂ…
in the moment it appears... 'you' are the image... and the seeing of it...
according to science... 'observer and observed are one'...
are we still together on this...?
Love
----------------------------
good... though as to the 'articulation'... that remains to be seen...
all sensations are the same as colour... they are 'qualia'... irreducible... they cannot be verified by anyone but the 'subject'...
who... according to science... is the 'sensing/sensations' that arise in the instant....
together...
seeing inseparable from colour
hearing inseparable from sound
tasting inseparable from flavour
smelling inseparable from odour
feeling inseparable from feelings
is 'awareness'...
according to science... this 'witness witnessing' is a function of 'brain activity'... arising in a moment... and in a moment gone... as 'brain activity' is altered... in 'deep sleep' for example... or if the brain is damaged... or upon death of the brain...
is there anything missing from this description of 'awareness'... as proposed by science?
Love -
merry xmas and a happy new year to YOU!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Albert Einstein once said; " Knowledge is experience; anything else is just information".
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.
Usually, it is the Thirtikas, Hindus, that sees in terms of the duality of eternalism and nihilism, Buddhism does not preach this doctrine.
Padmasambhava: [b]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)[/b]
-
"In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
~ The Buddha ~
After listening to this discourse, the mind of Bahiya was released right there and then, he attained noble Arhatship and soon passed into Nirvana. -
....Apparently you took it from a children's dictionary as that is not the best way to describe sound.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. -
www.dictionary.comOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:....Apparently you took it from a children's dictionary as that is not the best way to describe sound.