Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Dan, I'm not sure if Ramana's grooming was the reason that Jung did not meet him on his visit to India. I have a book from the collected works of CG Jung, called " Psychology and the East, " translation by RFC Hull, published by Princeton. In this book on page 176 this is what Jung states: " I do not know whether my friend (Zimmer) found it unforgivable or an imcomprehensible sin on my part that I had not sought out Shri Ramana...Perhaps I should have visited Shri Ramana. Yet I fear that if I journed to India a second time to make up for my omission, it would fare with me just the same: I simply could not despite the uniqueness of the occasion to bring myself to visit this undoubtedly distinguished man personally. For the fact is, I doubt his uniqueness; he is a type which always was and will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India. " Jung talks about this for nearly a chapter in the book. Jung was so charmed with " All-Oneness of Universal Being " that he was " absolutely certain that no one could ever get beyond this, least of all the Indian holy man himself; and should Shri Ramana say anything that did not chime in with this melody, or claim to know anything that trascended it, his illumination would assuredly be false. The holy man is right when he intones India's ancient chants, but wrong when he pipes any other tune. This effortless drone of argumentation, so suited to the heat of southern India, made me refrain, without regret, from a visit to Tiruvannamalai. " My personal comments: When I invite friends to local satsangs, Jung's explanation is incredible similar to what I hear from friends who have found their guru. They're content and don't seek any other guru. Perhaps Jung'd found his guru. Maybe it was Yoda? hur Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Yes, Carl Jung had a theory of the collective > unconscious. > > In this theory, patterns of meaning regulate energy > that manifests as human minds and human > cultures. He called these primordial > patterns " archetypes " and believed > they subsumed the instinctual energy > that Freud focused on, such that > instinctive energy could genuinely > transform in ways that support > the evolutionary aspect of consciousness, > individually and collectively. > > He found archetypes in all cultures, > and this theory gave him access to > the meanings found in Hinduism and Buddhism, > as well as Judaism, Christianity, and > medeival alchemy. > > The limitation of his theory, from advaita perspective, > is usually considered as his retention of the idea > that an individual mind or ego is necessary, > even if very translucent, in order to know and live. > He couldn't accept the idea he found in some Eastern > thought that dissolution of any individual self-center > whatsoever could be possible, let alone " desirable. " > > It's interesting as well that Jung > was put off by the fact that Ramana didn't look after > his own physical grooming, and didn't seem to care about > anything worldly. Jung thought it important to have > some focus on things of this world, such as earning a living, > grooming, taking care of day to day self-care. This was > the reason he gave for not meeting with Ramana when such > a meeting was offered, and also why he felt that at least > some translucent version of ego is necessary. > > -- Dan > > > Karl Jung, the psychologist contemporary with > > Sigmund Freud, called it collective subconscious. The feeling of > separation > > is an illusion, but with a definite purpose. > > > > The story which you presented was good in that it brought forth this > > discussion. Yes, we are self-aware. But the self, which we are > thinking we > > are may still be limited. For example if I think I am a man, I am an > > Indian, I am a Scientist, I am intelligent etc., I am still > limiting my > > awareness to that I. If we start pondering over that vital > question " Who am > > I? " we can certainly progress further. > > > > About Free will, I will post later, a nice conversation which Sri > Ramana > > Maharshi and his visitors had. I don't know whether that will be of > inteest > > to other members of this group. So let us have their reactions or > if this > > group is moderated, that of the moderator. If allowed, I will post > it here, > > else, I will send you separately. > > > > Best wishes. > > > > Swamy SV > > > > > > At 10:50 20/09/02 -0000, hur wrote: > > > > Message: 5 > > Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:57:11 -0000 > > " Hur Guler " <hurg> > > Re: Digest Number 625 > > > > swamy, thanks for taking the time to tackle the question. when i > > thought of this riddle, i didn't have a solution in mind. the > intent > > was to question the disturbing possibility that what > > if " consciousness " was an illusion or that what if some people > lacked > > self-awareness. for example one of the controversial concepts in > > eastern spirituality is that there is " no doer " and hence " no free > > will. " we could have also functioned without self-awareness, like > > machines. could we be like the cloned prof who knows a lot about > > consciousness but what if we are not really self-aware? then how > > could we know? > > > > by the way, i do believe that we're self aware. the question that > i > > raised is similar to...what if you were mentally ill. how would > you > > know? the answer is...others would tell you but what if this > > condition was widespread. yes, i know i have a lot of time in my > > hands...or mind. > > > > hur > > > > Well how does actually know that one is mentally ill? It is all > probably > > relative. In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man may be a king or > may be > > treated as insane. Think it over! - Swamy > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Hi Hur -- That's an interesting quote. One might suppose there is a hidden anxiety there, and a rationale for avoidance. At least, that's how some people interpreted Jung's stance. I can't tell you where I heard the other stuff about his unhappiness with Ramana's disinterest in self-care. But it seems to point to this: " I have my concept of guru and that is fine. " Whether with Ramana he would have met someone who's ego died with only Self remaining -- who's to say? This is the legend of Ramana, and is likely what Jung didn't want to find out about. Jung had the Self as an archetype, and he had his concept of holy men as archetypes. He also thought that archetypes were more powerful than the ego and could overwhelm the ego. Perhaps, he was avoiding being overwhelmed. I think it was Dirty Harry who said, " a man should know his limits. " Is there a step beyond the " all-Self " which Ramana proclaimed? Is there a Buddhist heaven, an interpenetrating no-thingness in which all relativity abides without being or not-being? Is there a land of neither gurus nor students, neither knowers nor known, neither archetypes nor egos, neither Self nor not-Self? Yoda smiles ... -- Dan Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <hurg> wrote: > Dan, I'm not sure if Ramana's grooming was the reason that Jung did > not meet him on his visit to India. I have a book from the collected > works of CG Jung, called " Psychology and the East, " translation by > RFC Hull, published by Princeton. > > In this book on page 176 this is what Jung states: > > " I do not know whether my friend (Zimmer) found it unforgivable or an > imcomprehensible sin on my part that I had not sought out Shri > Ramana...Perhaps I should have visited Shri Ramana. Yet I fear that > if I journed to India a second time to make up for my omission, it > would fare with me just the same: I simply could not despite the > uniqueness of the occasion to bring myself to visit this undoubtedly > distinguished man personally. For the fact is, I doubt his > uniqueness; he is a type which always was and will be. Therefore it > was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India. " > > Jung talks about this for nearly a chapter in the book. Jung was so > charmed with " All-Oneness of Universal Being " that he was " absolutely > certain that no one could ever get beyond this, least of all the > Indian holy man himself; and should Shri Ramana say anything that did > not chime in with this melody, or claim to know anything that > trascended it, his illumination would assuredly be false. The holy > man is right when he intones India's ancient chants, but wrong when > he pipes any other tune. This effortless drone of argumentation, so > suited to the heat of southern India, made me refrain, without > regret, from a visit to Tiruvannamalai. " > > My personal comments: When I invite friends to local satsangs, > Jung's explanation is incredible similar to what I hear from friends > who have found their guru. They're content and don't seek any other > guru. Perhaps Jung'd found his guru. Maybe it was Yoda? > > > hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 > > Is there a Buddhist heaven, > an interpenetrating no-thingness > in which all relativity abides > without being or not-being? > Hi Dan, The highest state a Buddhist can attain, even above nirvana (realization of the nameless whole) is nirodh (Extinction). Legend has it the Buddha promised to postpone his extinction till all beings were saved. Big of Him! What other choice is there, if there are no individual selves? Only total extinction is possible. The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh to happen. We appear together, we disappear together. Meanwhile we idle the time away at the custom ball. Happy Fat Tuesday, Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > > Is there a Buddhist heaven, > > an interpenetrating no-thingness > > in which all relativity abides > > without being or not-being? > > > > Hi Dan, > > The highest state a Buddhist can attain, even above > nirvana (realization of the nameless whole) is nirodh > (Extinction). If I'm not mistaken, the word " Nirvana " means something along the lines of " blowing out " , as in the blowing out of a flame (extinction). In the present life, this refers to the presence of clinging for the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, intention & consciousness), whereas after death it refers to their total annihilation. There are a few discourses of Buddha and/or his disciples where he makes it clear that Nirvana is the extinction (nirodh) or being (bhava). > Legend has it the Buddha promised to > postpone his extinction till all beings were saved. > Big > of Him! This wasn't a legend present in the earliest texts. In those texts, he blipped out, never to return. > What other choice is there, if there are no > individual selves? Only total extinction is possible. > The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh to > happen. We appear together, we disappear together. > Meanwhile we idle the time away at the custom ball. > Since the Self never suffers, what does it matter if the world remains or passes away? > Happy Fat Tuesday, > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > > Is there a Buddhist heaven, > > an interpenetrating no-thingness > > in which all relativity abides > > without being or not-being? Hi Pete -- > The highest state a Buddhist can attain, even above > nirvana (realization of the nameless whole) Nirvana is " blowing out " -- the end of the continuity of the flame. In the original Buddhist teachings, as far as I know, there is no mention made of realizing a nameless whole, because the emphasis was on not declaring truth affirmatively (although as you say, legends began abounding -- no average person will long tolerate such an austere and nonaffirmative way of looking into things). So the emphasis was on no abiding self, no separably originating thing, no intrinsic nature, and the suffering involved in trying to cling to affirmatives. There is the Middle Way, co-dependent origination, and noninvestment on either side of a dichotomy, in which there is no continuing self-nature. > is nirodh > (Extinction). What about when you're not in a state? Only someone who is not a Buddhist would know about this. And, not being in a state, what has not come into existence can't achieve some kind of extinction. > Legend has it the Buddha promised to > postpone his extinction till all beings were saved. > Big > of Him! Yes, legends are creation-stories in one form or another ... > What other choice is there, if there are no > > individual selves? There is no affirmation or negation, except that the process called " human mind " makes it seem so. For example, unless some idea about an " individual self " has been affirmed, it wouldn't be possible to negate it by saying " there are no individual selves. " In order to negate something, you have to affirm, and in order to affirm, something was and will be negated. > Only total extinction is possible. Something would have to exist in order to become extinct. If you have no affirmative category " existence " you have no negative category " extinction. " And vice versa. > The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh to > happen. Which sect of Buddhism teaches that -- is it Tibetan? Yes -- manifestation can only be a whole activity, and coming in implies going out. Yet, we are still left with manifestation and the unmanifest. In reality, there is no such distinction to be applied. " You " can only be there if " you " have manifested, along with a knowing process, and something to know ... " You " can't be there if there is total extinction, nor can you know about it -- anything said about it is an affirmation of some sort. If manifestation is only as whole, then nothing manifests, because no " you " can separate to see what manifested. If nothing manifests, nothing is extinguished. So, manifestation is a card trick. It depends on pretending something could separate, to know something as having manifested. The Middle Way teaching is that manifestation and nonmanifestation are a card trick. There is nothing to attain, not being, not extinction. > We appear together, we disappear together. > Meanwhile we idle the time away at the custom ball. The card trick is quite amazing. It depends on an interaction of cognition, sensation, memory, relationship and perception -- none of which can really separate to interact. Yet when experiencing " I hurt awfully bad, " no one is realizing that such perception never really quite exists. The cognition of hurting, along with the sensation and memory, the perceptual picture formed of " me hurting " ... make a very convincing and apparent reality at that moment ... The pain of it gives it a sense of reality, as long as that lasts... So, " friction " is the mother of all things and experiences ... :-) What you are calling " extinction " might be interpreted (by me, who's not a Buddhist) as not annhilation of anything, just the end of any frictioning ... Happy Stuff, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 > Is there a land of neither gurus > nor students, neither knowers > nor known, neither archetypes > nor egos, neither Self nor not-Self? Hmmmm. I wonder where such a land might be? -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:31 AM Nisargadatta Re: Dan, why Jung didn't meet Ramana Hi Hur -- That's an interesting quote. One might suppose there is a hidden anxiety there, and a rationale for avoidance. At least, that's how some people interpreted Jung's stance. I can't tell you where I heard the other stuff about his unhappiness with Ramana's disinterest in self-care. But it seems to point to this: " I have my concept of guru and that is fine. " Whether with Ramana he would have met someone who's ego died with only Self remaining -- who's to say? This is the legend of Ramana, and is likely what Jung didn't want to find out about. Jung had the Self as an archetype, and he had his concept of holy men as archetypes. He also thought that archetypes were more powerful than the ego and could overwhelm the ego. Perhaps, he was avoiding being overwhelmed. I think it was Dirty Harry who said, " a man should know his limits. " Is there a step beyond the " all-Self " which Ramana proclaimed? Is there a Buddhist heaven, an interpenetrating no-thingness in which all relativity abides without being or not-being? Is there a land of neither gurus nor students, neither knowers nor known, neither archetypes nor egos, neither Self nor not-Self? Yoda smiles ... -- Dan Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <hurg> wrote: > Dan, I'm not sure if Ramana's grooming was the reason that Jung did > not meet him on his visit to India. I have a book from the collected > works of CG Jung, called " Psychology and the East, " translation by > RFC Hull, published by Princeton. > > In this book on page 176 this is what Jung states: > > " I do not know whether my friend (Zimmer) found it unforgivable or an > imcomprehensible sin on my part that I had not sought out Shri > Ramana...Perhaps I should have visited Shri Ramana. Yet I fear that > if I journed to India a second time to make up for my omission, it > would fare with me just the same: I simply could not despite the > uniqueness of the occasion to bring myself to visit this undoubtedly > distinguished man personally. For the fact is, I doubt his > uniqueness; he is a type which always was and will be. Therefore it > was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India. " > > Jung talks about this for nearly a chapter in the book. Jung was so > charmed with " All-Oneness of Universal Being " that he was " absolutely > certain that no one could ever get beyond this, least of all the > Indian holy man himself; and should Shri Ramana say anything that did > not chime in with this melody, or claim to know anything that > trascended it, his illumination would assuredly be false. The holy > man is right when he intones India's ancient chants, but wrong when > he pipes any other tune. This effortless drone of argumentation, so > suited to the heat of southern India, made me refrain, without > regret, from a visit to Tiruvannamalai. " > > My personal comments: When I invite friends to local satsangs, > Jung's explanation is incredible similar to what I hear from friends > who have found their guru. They're content and don't seek any other > guru. Perhaps Jung'd found his guru. Maybe it was Yoda? > > > hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Hi Takdjc - Nisargadatta, " takdjc " <yeshuabizon@l...> wrote: > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there a Buddhist heaven, > > > an interpenetrating no-thingness > > > in which all relativity abides > > > without being or not-being? > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > The highest state a Buddhist can attain, even above > > nirvana (realization of the nameless whole) is nirodh > > (Extinction). > > > If I'm not mistaken, the word " Nirvana " means something along the > lines of " blowing out " , as in the blowing out of a flame > (extinction). Yes -- although I would see it as blowing out the flame of perceived continuity -- which is neither extinction nor existence. > In the present life, this refers to the presence of > clinging for the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, intention & > consciousness), whereas after death it refers to their total > annihilation. Are you alive or dead? Why do you try to predict what you will be dealing with when dead? That can only be an activity in the imagination of a living being. > There are a few discourses of Buddha and/or his disciples where he > makes it clear that Nirvana is the extinction (nirodh) or being > (bhava). The teachers of Buddhism I had didn't see it this way, and I admit I'm not familiar with how such extinction would be understood as a Buddhist. The only extinction I ever covered as Buddhist was extinction of false ideas of self. Which sect of Buddhism teaches extinction of being? By the way, although I studied some Buddhism, I don't at all consider myself a Buddhist. It isn't at all clear to me how any teaching about extinction of being follows the Middle Way, which neither supports ongoing continuity (essential nature or intrinsic identity, permanance), nor total annhilation (nihilism). > This wasn't a legend present in the earliest texts. In those texts, > he blipped out, never to return. The texts I studied said he simply refused to comment on his status after the body died. In fact, his refusal to comment on these kinds of questions was considered instructive. What blipped out was any imbalanced sense of a continuing self-nature. > Since the Self never suffers, what does it matter if the world > remains or passes away? If you're citing Buddhist texts, then why switch to affirming a Self that never suffers? There can be no such Self unless intrinsic identity is being affirmed. With no intrinsic or essential identity, and no annhilation, what Self or not-Self is there to know or be concerned about? The world existing or passing away depends on an observer being there to know about it. If no observation ever occurs, where and how would such events be established? As there is no Self that needs to be known about, just understanding what is involved when you attempt to establish a reality as observer is quite enough :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Is there a land of neither gurus > > nor students, neither knowers > > nor known, neither archetypes > > nor egos, neither Self nor not-Self? > > Hmmmm. I wonder where such a land might > be? > > -Bill Me, too. " Where oh where can the pure land be, oh where oh where can it be? " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 > > Is there a Buddhist heaven, > > an interpenetrating no-thingness > > in which all relativity abides > > without being or not-being? Dan, What a tangle! With a question such as the above how could there not be? I think the sub-thread responding to that question is an example of the manifestion process itself. You raise a quirky question, a complexity of response arises (manifestion), then you in your responses to responses attempt to calm the flames of complexity, returning to quiessence (extinction). Just my impression. -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:01 AM Nisargadatta Re: Dan, why Jung didn't meet Ramana Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > Hi Pete -- > The highest state a Buddhist can attain, even above > nirvana (realization of the nameless whole) Nirvana is " blowing out " -- the end of the continuity of the flame. In the original Buddhist teachings, as far as I know, there is no mention made of realizing a nameless whole, because the emphasis was on not declaring truth affirmatively (although as you say, legends began abounding -- no average person will long tolerate such an austere and nonaffirmative way of looking into things). So the emphasis was on no abiding self, no separably originating thing, no intrinsic nature, and the suffering involved in trying to cling to affirmatives. There is the Middle Way, co-dependent origination, and noninvestment on either side of a dichotomy, in which there is no continuing self-nature. > is nirodh > (Extinction). What about when you're not in a state? Only someone who is not a Buddhist would know about this. And, not being in a state, what has not come into existence can't achieve some kind of extinction. > Legend has it the Buddha promised to > postpone his extinction till all beings were saved. > Big > of Him! Yes, legends are creation-stories in one form or another ... > What other choice is there, if there are no > > individual selves? There is no affirmation or negation, except that the process called " human mind " makes it seem so. For example, unless some idea about an " individual self " has been affirmed, it wouldn't be possible to negate it by saying " there are no individual selves. " In order to negate something, you have to affirm, and in order to affirm, something was and will be negated. > Only total extinction is possible. Something would have to exist in order to become extinct. If you have no affirmative category " existence " you have no negative category " extinction. " And vice versa. > The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh to > happen. Which sect of Buddhism teaches that -- is it Tibetan? Yes -- manifestation can only be a whole activity, and coming in implies going out. Yet, we are still left with manifestation and the unmanifest. In reality, there is no such distinction to be applied. " You " can only be there if " you " have manifested, along with a knowing process, and something to know ... " You " can't be there if there is total extinction, nor can you know about it -- anything said about it is an affirmation of some sort. If manifestation is only as whole, then nothing manifests, because no " you " can separate to see what manifested. If nothing manifests, nothing is extinguished. So, manifestation is a card trick. It depends on pretending something could separate, to know something as having manifested. The Middle Way teaching is that manifestation and nonmanifestation are a card trick. There is nothing to attain, not being, not extinction. > We appear together, we disappear together. > Meanwhile we idle the time away at the custom ball. The card trick is quite amazing. It depends on an interaction of cognition, sensation, memory, relationship and perception -- none of which can really separate to interact. Yet when experiencing " I hurt awfully bad, " no one is realizing that such perception never really quite exists. The cognition of hurting, along with the sensation and memory, the perceptual picture formed of " me hurting " ... make a very convincing and apparent reality at that moment ... The pain of it gives it a sense of reality, as long as that lasts... So, " friction " is the mother of all things and experiences ... :-) What you are calling " extinction " might be interpreted (by me, who's not a Buddhist) as not annhilation of anything, just the end of any frictioning ... Happy Stuff, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Takdjc - > Hello. > > In the present life, this refers to the presence of > > clinging for the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, intention & > > consciousness), whereas after death it refers to their total > > annihilation. > > Are you alive or dead? > Alive. > Why do you try to predict what you > will be dealing with when dead? > I don't. Just reporting on what I read in Buddha's discourses. > That can only be an activity in > the imagination of a living being. > Ok,. > > There are a few discourses of Buddha and/or his disciples where he > > makes it clear that Nirvana is the extinction (nirodh) or being > > (bhava). > > The teachers of Buddhism I had didn't see it this way, and > I admit I'm not familiar with how such extinction > would be understood as a Buddhist. The only > extinction I ever covered as Buddhist was extinction of > false ideas of self. Which > sect of Buddhism teaches extinction of being? > Buddhism isn't a unified school of thought. There's many sects with many differing perspectives and practices. Ch'an Buddhism in China, for instance, is pretty much in accord with Advaita Vedanta whereas Burmese Theravada is diametrically opposed. So, depending on what school the teacher follows, that's the vision of Buddhism you'll get. I'm referring to the earliest discourses recorded in the Pali Canon. In them, it is very clear that the " liberated state " of a Sage (Arahant) is, in the present life, a life devoid of any form of clinging and, after death, devoid of any form of being or existence - no consciousness, no perception, no feeling, no intentions, no form. This may sound like annihilation, but it isn't because these are merely processes, there being no self in them, apart from them, or as them (sic). " Self " here being an agent of control. When clinging is gone, there's no basis for their further arising, and they blip out. > By the way, although I studied some Buddhism, > I don't at all consider myself a Buddhist. > Me either. > It isn't at all clear to me how any teaching > about extinction of being follows the Middle Way, > which neither supports ongoing continuity (essential > nature or intrinsic identity, permanance), > nor total annhilation (nihilism). " On being depends birth " - in order to end birth, one must end being. If there's nothing to " be " - no consciousness, feeling, intention, perception or form - there's no birth, no suffering. The difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, here, is that Hinduism asserts an Atman beyond the components of the person, whereas Buddha did not. I agree with Hinduism here, Advaita Vedanta in particular. > > > This wasn't a legend present in the earliest texts. In those texts, > > he blipped out, never to return. > > The texts I studied said he simply refused to comment > on his status after the body died. > He didn't. Doesn't mean he said he would come back. He said, " Last birth for me. " So, whatever he was, it would never take birth again. And, so there's no mistake, he made a point in at least 2 places that there was no Buddha outside of the aggregates (components of existence) to live on after death. > In fact, his refusal to comment on these kinds of questions > was considered instructive. > " Last birth for me. " - Dhammapada > What blipped out was any imbalanced sense of a continuing > self-nature. > According to the Itivutaka, these 5 things were totally destroyed when Buddha (or any Liberated Being) died: Consciousness, Feeling, Perception, Intention, Form (body). They might have exploded, faded, or a mixture of the two, but I always thought of it as " blipping " out. > > Since the Self never suffers, what does it matter if the world > > remains or passes away? > > If you're citing Buddhist texts, then why switch to affirming > a Self that never suffers? I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't agree with (many of) them. Since this is a Nisargadatta board I figured people'd be a little more charitable to the term " Self " . Ch'an Buddhism I can go along with, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 > I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't agree with (many of) them. Since > this is a Nisargadatta board I figured people'd be a little more > charitable to the term " Self " . If the term self needs charity, then let it have the charity it needs. Any term defines a boundary. No system of terminology resolves the question of boundary, only " I " can resolve that. The lamp unto itself. > Ch'an Buddhism I can go along with, though. Does Ch'an Buddhism go along with you? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Ch'an Buddhism I can go along with, though. > > Does Ch'an Buddhism go along with you? > Only on Fridays. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 > > is nirodh > > (Extinction). > > What about when you're not in a state? Pete: Have you experience this no-state yourself? > Only someone who is not a Buddhist would know about > this. Pete:I don't know what you mean by that? > And, not being in a state, what has not come into > existence can't achieve some kind of extinction. Pete: Cute!There you go again.A philosophical contortionist tying meaning into knots. > > There is no affirmation > or negation, except that > the process called " human mind " > makes it seem so. Pete: Cute again. Where else but in a human mind could anything we can discuss arise? > For example, unless some idea about > an " individual self " has been affirmed, > it wouldn't be possible to negate it > by saying " there are no individual selves. " > Pete: Really? That's new and exciting. > In order to negate something, you have to affirm, > and in order to affirm, something was > and will be negated. Pete:I haven't heard that one in a long time. I think it was High School. > > > Only total extinction is possible. > > Something would have to exist in order to > become extinct. Pete:sameol, sameol. > If you have no affirmative category " existence " > you have no negative category " extinction. " > And vice versa. Pete:Thanks, I didn't get the previous three times. > > The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh > to > > happen. > > Which sect of Buddhism teaches that -- is it > Tibetan? Pete:Nah, that's my own interpretation as the fifth reincarnation of HH Romp-A-Talcum High Lama of Below Lower Tibet. or BLT for short. > Yes -- manifestation can only be a whole activity, > and coming in implies going out. > > Yet, we are still left with manifestation and the > unmanifest. > > In reality, there is no such distinction to be > applied. > > " You " can only be there if " you " have manifested, > along with a knowing process, and something to > know ... PEte: Your fascination with the obvious is must endearing. > Yet when experiencing " I hurt awfully bad, " > no one is realizing that such perception > never really quite exists. The cognition > of hurting, along with the sensation > and memory, the perceptual picture formed > of " me hurting " ... make a very convincing > and apparent reality at that moment ... Appearance is reality, my friend. All we can't know is appearances. All these juggling of words is mere entertainment and you are the best performer in this high flying circus. Applause, applause, Clown Pete. New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Hi Pete -- Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > is nirodh > > > (Extinction). > > > > What about when you're not in a state? > > > Pete: Have you experience this no-state yourself? D: I can't get out of it, to experience it. > > > Only someone who is not a Buddhist would know about > > this. > > Pete:I don't know what you mean by that? Glad not to hear it. > > > And, not being in a state, what has not come into > > existence can't achieve some kind of extinction. > > Pete: Cute!There you go again.A philosophical > contortionist tying meaning into knots. D: Or, just not in a state, and not coming in and out of existence. Pretty simple -- not requiring any special philosophy. > > There is no affirmation > > or negation, except that > > the process called " human mind " > > makes it seem so. > > Pete: Cute again. Where else but in a human mind > could > anything we can discuss arise? Right. And if the fallacy of a center for knowing, being, and doing -- or for providing sarcastic points of view, drops from that mind -- Peace, Dan > > > For example, unless some idea about > > an " individual self " has been affirmed, > > it wouldn't be possible to negate it > > by saying " there are no individual selves. " > > > > Pete: Really? That's new and exciting. > > > In order to negate something, you have to affirm, > > and in order to affirm, something was > > and will be negated. > > Pete:I haven't heard that one in a long time. I think > it was High School. > > > > > > Only total extinction is possible. > > > > Something would have to exist in order to > > become extinct. > > Pete:sameol, sameol. > > > If you have no affirmative category " existence " > > you have no negative category " extinction. " > > > And vice versa. > > Pete:Thanks, I didn't get the previous three times. > > > > > The whole manifestation must dissapear for nirodh > > to > > > happen. > > > > Which sect of Buddhism teaches that -- is it > > Tibetan? > > Pete:Nah, that's my own interpretation as the fifth > reincarnation of HH Romp-A-Talcum High Lama of Below > Lower Tibet. or BLT for short. > > > Yes -- manifestation can only be a whole activity, > > and coming in implies going out. > > > > Yet, we are still left with manifestation and the > > unmanifest. > > > > In reality, there is no such distinction to be > > applied. > > > > " You " can only be there if " you " have manifested, > > along with a knowing process, and something to > > know ... > > PEte: Your fascination with the obvious is must > endearing. > > > > Yet when experiencing " I hurt awfully bad, " > > no one is realizing that such perception > > never really quite exists. The cognition > > of hurting, along with the sensation > > and memory, the perceptual picture formed > > of " me hurting " ... make a very convincing > > and apparent reality at that moment ... > > > Appearance is reality, my friend. All we can't > know is appearances. All these juggling of words > is mere entertainment and you are the best performer > in this high flying circus. > > Applause, applause, > > Clown Pete. > > > > > > > > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & > http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.