The absence of self (was Re: The case against Buddhism)
Tang Huyen
Dave K wrote:
> The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
the above is a blatant untruth. It is one thing to say that
the recorded sayings of the Buddha should be
*interpreted* as not denying the self (at the level of
interpretation), but it is something else to say as you do
often: "The Buddha never said there was no self", which
is *factually untrue*. You're violating right speech there,
dear. Below is a sampling of his sayings on the topic.
"‘The self, the self (atma atmeti),’ monks, [thinks] the
foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
anupatito). But *there is no self and what belongs to
self there* (na catrasty atma natmiyam va). This
suffering, arising, arises, this suffering, ceasing, ceases.
Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease (samskara
utpadyamana utpadyante, nirudhyamana nirudhyante)."
MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356, Zitate, 210,
Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 259b1-3,
312c5-6.
The Buddha says in the Scripture on the Ultimate
Emptiness (Paramartha-sunyata-sutra), SA, 335, 92c,
Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 255b1,
332c7-9, 333a17, Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 295a4:
"The eye, when it arises, does not come from
anywhere, and when it ceases, does not go anywhere.
Thus the eye, having not become, becomes, and
having once become, disappears. There is deed, there
is return (of deed), but there cannot be obtained
(nopalabhyate) the doer, who throws away these
aggregates and takes up other aggregates, except for
a linguistic-convention on things, namely, this being,
that is, this arising, that arises, this not being, that is
not, this not arising, that does not arise, etc. (asti
karmasti vipakah karakas tu nopalabhyate ya imams
ca skandhan niksipaty anyams ca skandhan
pratisamdadhaty anyatra dharma-samketat, tatrayam
dharma-samketo yad utasmim satidam bhavaty
asyotpadad idam utpadyate, asminn asati idam na
bhavati, asya nirodhad idam nirudhyate)."
The Buddha says: "Dependent on the eye and form,
the eye consciousness arises. The three meeting
together is contact, and with contact go together
feeling, notion,and volitions. These four formless
aggregates [feeling, notion, volitions and
consciousness] and the eye-organ which is form,
these things (dharma) are called humanity
(manusyatva). With regard to these things (dharma),
one forms the notion ‘man,’ ‘being,’ ‘person,’ [etc.],
and furthermore one says thus: ‘my eye sees form,’
up to ‘my mind cognises things (dharma).’ One
poses such talk: ‘this venerable has this name, this
birth, this clan, this food, he experience this pleasure
and pain, has this longevity, this lasting, this limit to
his life.’
Monks, these are mere notions, mere appellations,
mere speech (samjña-matraka, pratijña-matraka,
vyavahara-matraka). These things (dharma) are all
impermanent (anitya), composed (samskrta), mentated
(cetayita), dependently arisen (pratitya-samutpanna).
If they are impermanent, composed, mentated,
dependently arisen, they are all suffering. Further that
suffering [arising] arises, [staying] stays, [ceasing]
ceases, that suffering arises in multiplication, all are
suffering. If that suffering is ended without remainder,
completely renounced, with no continuation, this is
peaceful, this is excellent, that is, the giving up of all
appositions (upadhi), the ending of all craving, the
dispassion, cessation, blowing-out." SA, 306, 87c-88a,
Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 277b7-10.
Sanskrit in Zitate, 127, 411, 505, Sanghabhedavastu, I,
158.
<<If the monk with regard to the four formless places
contemplates them with wisdom as they are, he does not
accomplish them, does not move into them. He therefore
neither composes nor wills out/mentates (n‘eva
abhisankharoti nabhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava)
or un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought
(maññita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti)
is a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor
not be" is a thought, "I will be with form" is a thought, "I
will be without form" is a thought, "I will be with notion"
is a thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I
will be neither with notion nor without notion" is a
thought; the monk thinks: "If there is none of these
thoughts, agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced." The Pali
says: "when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is
said to be at peace" (sabba-maññitanam tveva
samatikkama muni santo ti vuccati).>> Chinese
Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
"The compositions are suffering (duhkhah samskarah),
blowing-out is peaceful (santam nirvanam). When the
cause arises suffering arises, and when the cause
ceases suffering ceases. The circling is cut off and does
not turn onward (chinnam vartma na pravartate). Not
linking up [to a re-becoming], the circling ceases
(a-pratisandhi niruddhyate). This is the end of suffering
(esa evanto duhkhasya). There, monks, who blows out
(tatra bhiksavah kah parinirvrto)? It is not other than
the fact that what is suffering ceases, is pacified, has
become cool (nanyatra duhkham tan niruddham tad
vyupasantam, tac chitibhutam). Peaceful is that state
(santam idam padam), to wit the giving up of all
appositions (upadhi), the ending of craving, dispassion,
cessation, blowing-out." Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 159,
Waldschmidt, Bruchstücke, 135, Turfanfunde, II, 38,
MA, 62, 498b, SA, 293, 83c, Nidana-samyukta,
139-140, Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646,
369a10-13.
Tang Huyen
Dave K
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> the above is a blatant untruth. It is one thing to say that
> the recorded sayings of the Buddha should be
> *interpreted* as not denying the self (at the level of
> interpretation), but it is something else to say as you do
> often: "The Buddha never said there was no self", which
> is *factually untrue*. You're violating right speech there,
> dear. Below is a sampling of his sayings on the topic.
>
> "'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
> foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
> anupatito). But *there is no self and what belongs to
> self there* (na catrasty atma natmiyam va). This
> suffering, arising, arises, this suffering, ceasing, ceases.
> Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease (samskara
> utpadyamana utpadyante, nirudhyamana nirudhyante)."
> MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356, Zitate, 210,
> Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 259b1-3,
> 312c5-6.
"There is no self there" is not the same as "there is no self." If I
am not in your house it doesn't mean I don't exist. Neither does it
mean I do exist.
The subject of existence or non-existence of anything is not a
Buddhist topic. I can quote scripture right back at you but I'm sure
you can find it.
Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
to do that if you don't exist.
And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
-DaveK
Tang Huyen
Monkey Mind wrote:
> Self - we certainly have a self. Buddhism just teaches that this self
> is not at all how it would like to be. The self is not invincible,
> eternal, unchanging, in control of the things it wants to identify
> with. Instead, the self is subject to change, elusive, undependable.
> From its (self's) vain attempt to stem the tide of change, to hold
> onto what is quickly vanishing without return, come all manner of
> unpleasasnt results.
There is no question that we deludeds have a sense of
self. The Buddha acknowledges that fact.
“If the recluses and brahmans see the self, all see it in
relation to the five aggregates of grasping. The recluses
and brahmans see form [and the other aggregates] as
the self, form as different from self, self in form, form
in self.” SA, 45, 11b.
“The foolish common person sees form [and the other
aggregates] as self. This seeing is a composition (yaa
kho pana saa samanupassanaa sa.nkhaaro so, Skt. yaa
saa samanupa'syanaa sa.mskaaraas te).” SA, 57, 14a14,
SN, III, 96 (22, 81), Dietz, Dharma-skandha, 53.
Even as that empirical sense of self is acknowledged, it
is taken to be impermanent, made up, composed, and
made up and composed by mind, more specifically by
the fourth aggregate, the compositions. Suffering is
caused by desire, and desire kicks up mentation (of
which the compositions are a major part, the balance
being the third aggregate, the ideas, notions, concepts)
as the means for its gratification (the gratification of
desire). Desire makes up the self or "I" as the centre of
convergence for the coordination of the activites that
would gratify desire. But the self or "I" is not "in itself",
does not exist on its own side, and is subject to
impermanence and suffering.
The compositions (sa.nkhaara, the fourth aggregate) are
impermanent and suffering. All thing-events (dhamma,
including Nirvana) are devoid of self.
The three marks (lak.sa.na, lakkha.na), the three or four
seals (dharma-mudraa), the four summaries of the Law
(dharmoddaana) are listed at Lamotte, Vimalakirti, 165,
n. 51.
1. "All the compositions are impermanent" (Sanskrit
anityaa.h sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe sa.nkhaaraa
aniccaa).
2. "All the compositions are suffering" (Sanskrit du.hkhaa.h
sarva-sa.mskaaraa.h, Pali sabbe sa.nkhaaraa dukkhaa).
3. "All the thing-events are no-self" (Sanskrit
anaatmaanaa.h sarva-dharmaa.h, Pali sabbe dhammaa
anattaa). <Notice the switch from the compositions to
thing-events>
4. "Nirvana is peaceful" (nirvaa.na.m 'saantam, 'saanta.m
nirvaa.nam, both in Sanskrit) is the third or fourth,
depending on sources (not in Pali). <It happens in this
life>
The Chinese Conjoined Agama (Samyukta-Agama) has
four: all compositions are impermanent, all compositions
are suffering, all thing-events are without self, Nirvana is
peaceful. 66b14, 66c7 and 66c21.
Most Great Vehiclistic sources have the four. The Tibetans
tend to follow All-Exists, Root-All-Exists, and Great
Vehiclistic sources, and therefore mention four.
"Monks, if a monk perceives six advantages, it is enough
to establish, without reserve, the idea of no-self in all
thing-events (sabba-dhammesu anodhi.m karitvaa
an-atta-sañña.m upa.t.thaapetu.m). What six?
Then in any world I shall become no part of it (sabba loke
ca atammayo bhavissaami, in all worlds I shall not be
made of any of them, in all worlds I shall not identify with
any of them), the I-making shall be checked (aha.mkaaraa
ca me uparujjhissanti), the mine-making shall be checked
(mama.mkaaraa ca me uparujjhissanti), I shall become
possessed of the unshared wisdom (asaadhaara.nena ca
ñaa.nena samannaagato bhavissaami), the cause shall be
well seen by me and the causally arisen thing-events too
(hetu ca me sudi.t.tho bhavissati, hetu-samuppannaa ca
dhammaa)." AN, III, 444 (VI, X, 104), GS,III, 308.
The word a-tam-mayo "not made of that" also shows up
in another discourse:
"But a good man reflects thus, monks:
'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of
not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither
notion nor not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed
One; for what and what (yena yena) they think it (maññanti
tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m hoti aññathaa ti).' ... By
passing quite beyond the place of neither notion nor
not-notion, a good man enters and dwells in the felt
cessation of notion. And having seen by means of wisdom,
his cankers are caused to be destroyed. This monk does
not think that he is anything, does not think that he is
anywhere, does not think that he is in anything (Ayam pi
bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññati)." MN, III, 44-45 (113).
The part: "This monk does not think that he is anything,
does not think that he is anywhere, does not think that he
is in anything" is an excellent illustration of
non-identification (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of
not-being-made-up-with-that). The liberated person drops
the Law (Dhamma) that has liberated him, otherwise it
would still be bondage to him.
That said, Nirvana, which is peaceful and happy, is not the
unconditioned, but the *umcomposed*, the state in which
all compositions (including the volitions) are quiesced whilst
one still is fully aware of what happens. The Buddha
defines it as the calming of all the compositions
(sabba-sankhara-samatho). When all the compositions are
quiesced, no more suffering occurs and happiness and joy
occur, and that state is Nibbana. Even it is devoid of self.
In the calming of all the compositions, one no longer makes
up a self or "I" to coordinate the activites that would gratify
desire, because the self or "I" is itself a composition.
Thus the person experiencing Nirvana is just like us, still
lives in the same world as we do, but just does not
compose the compositions (including the volitions). He
has not changed the world -- has not escaped into another
world which would be unconditioned -- but has simply
calmed himself down all the way, and quiesced his
compositions (including the volitions).
Tang Huyen
small tortoiseshell
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> the above is a blatant untruth.
probably not.
> the recorded sayings of the Buddha should be
> *interpreted* as not denying the self (at the level of
> interpretation), but it is something else to say as you do
> often: "The Buddha never said there was no self", which
> is *factually untrue*. You're violating right speech there,
> dear. Below is a sampling of his sayings on the topic.
>
> "'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
> foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
> anupatito). But *there is no self and what belongs to
> self there*
self as a composite might not be there, as such,
but when concousness is un bound from the compositions
it has densified into,
it still is as it is being neither less nor more of what it is,
because,
in the un binding, conciousness does not withdraw from itself,
it withdraws from its identification with "other" then self, that is,
it withdraws from the "false" self, teh composite self, in order to
become itself, so to speak,
and thusly traverses the apparant "gap" between the (false) self and
the "no self", seen from a false selfs view ( the no self i mean)
This process is commonly known in the west as " the dark night of the
soul" i dare say. Anyhow,
the "empty" concousness in speak,
is the conciousness of the relative self,
the composite self, the bound self, the separate. Or at least the
apparantly so. That is the non existing self in speak as eye see it.
And when it returns to it self, as it has always been, always is and
always will be, withdrawing its outpouring, it returns to its true
nature, you ignorant dog (pun). And that is your true self. Really
if only you understood what you quote.
Lawson English
[...]
> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
> to do that if you don't exist.
>
> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
>
> -DaveK
>
>
TM...
L1: We ordinarily think my self as this age; this color of hair; these
hobbies . . . my experience is that my Self is a lot larger than that.
It s immeasurably vast. . . on a physical level. It is not just
restricted to this physical environment
L2: It s the "I am-ness." It's my Being. There s just a channel
underneath that's just underlying everything. It s my essence there and
it just doesn't stop where I stop. . . by "I," I mean this 5 ft. 2
person that moves around here and there
L3: I look out and see this beautiful divine Intelligence. . . you could
say in the sky, in the tree, but really being expressed through these
things. . . and these are my Self
L3: I experience myself as being without edges or content. . . beyond
the universe. . . all-pervading, and being absolutely thrilled,
absolutely delighted with every motion that my body makes. With
everything that my eyes see, my ears hear, my nose smells. There's a
delight in the sense that I am able to penetrate that. My consciousness,
my intelligence pervades everything I see, feel and think
L5: When I say "I" that s the Self. There s a quality that is so
pervasive about the Self that I m quite sure that the "I" is the same
"I" as everyone else s "I." Not in terms of what follows right after. I
am tall, I am short, I am fat, I am this, I am that. But the "I" part.
The "I am" part is the same "I am" for you and me
Hollywood Lee
> Dave K wrote:
> [...]
>> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
>> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
>> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
>> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
>> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
>> to do that if you don't exist.
>>
>> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
>> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
> TM...
>
<delete standard Hindu fare>
Popeye...
I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.
buddhapest
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f02uv4$lpf$1...@news.datemas.de...
"what i am is what i am
are you what you are or what?"
>edie brickell & the new bohemians
Julian
news:J%6Vh.79592$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga...
Do you bombard the Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, etc.
boards with you occult mumbo jumo too?
Lawson English
Those were spontaneous responses to the question" "describe your 'self'"
by long-term TMers claiming "witnessing" during the waking state.
There was a strong correlation between the claim of witnessing and
specific physiological EEG traits compared to non-witnessing controls
(meditating and non-meditating).
The study that those statements come from looked at three groups of 17
people: non-TMers, "non-witnessing" TMers with an average of 7 years
meditation experience, & TMers reporting witnessing (self separate from
activity) during waking, dreaming and sleeping and asked each subject
the question: 'describe your "self."'
Their responses fell into three main categories:
Group 1: I am my beliefs, actions, desires... ( 17 non-TMers, 3
non-witnessing TMers, 0 witnessing TMers);
Group 2: I am the doer/holder of my beliefs, actions, desires (0
non-TMers, 14 non-witnessing TMers, 0 witnessing TMers);
Group 3: I am independent of/beyond actions, desires, beliefs (0
non-TMers, 0 non-witnessing TMers, 17 witnessing TMers).
In a different study of the same people, the EEG of each of those three
groups was different in several parameters, with the witnessing TMers
showing the most difference from the non-TMers and the non-Witnessing
TMers lying somewhere in the middle.
Interestingly enough, a NEW study that compared 33 non-meditating,
non-top-10 finalist athletes with 33 olympic and world gold medalists,
found that the gold medalists were closer in EEG measures to the
witnessing TMers than the non-champion athletes were.
Champion athletes, of course, are the ones most likely to report "the
flow," where the action does itself without interference from, or even
existence of, a "self."
Hollywood Lee
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> Lawson English wrote:
>>> Dave K wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
>>>> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
>>>> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
>>>> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
>>>> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
>>>> to do that if you don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
>>>> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
>>
>>> TM...
>>>
>> <delete standard Hindu fare>
>
> Those were spontaneous responses to the question" "describe your 'self'"
> by long-term TMers claiming "witnessing" during the waking state.
And they are the sort of answers I would expect from a Hindu tradition.
dt
Whuuuut?
DT
Paul
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> the above is a blatant untruth.
It looks like the Pali canon is just as open to different readings as
the Old Testament. Why do people rely on old books full of mythical
encrustations, his own distorted through being repeated by many monks?
is there a work of significant Buddhist philosophy less than 300 years
old that can match the grandeur of Kant? Why isn't the Pali canon as
readable and coherent as Plato (I read through most of Plato's
dialogues recently, but gave up with the Long discourses of the Buddha
after reading about a third the book).
> You're violating right speech there,
> dear.
He's violating your idea of right speech, but (I think) pursuing his
right to his own right speech. That's the liberal, democratic way. We
are all equal at the level of discourse. Forget the Buddha, put his
arguments in your own, modern words if you are to have any impact on
modern philosophical discourse.
> "'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
> foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
> anupatito).
Just using English would help cross-cultural discourse. If you can't
say what you mean in English then do you really have anything to say?
Note, Plato and Kant have reached the stage of being translated into
good philosophical English without the text being littered with words
in the original languages. When's Buddhism going to get to that
state?
Paul
> TM...
>
> L1: We ordinarily think my self as this age; this color of hair; these
> hobbies . . . my experience is that my Self is a lot larger than that.
> It s immeasurably vast. . . on a physical level. It is not just
> restricted to this physical environment
So we can get to Mars before NASA get their act together? If our
physical Self is that big physically then why not! Suggest you read
Hume's Treatise of Human Nature to see (what's fairly obvious) that
the self cannot be thought of as existing in physical space.
Lawson English
Peer-reviewed articles in mainstream physiology and psychology journals
on falsifiable physiological states are hardly "occult mumbo jumbo" by
definition.
Interesting that you think that they are.
Lawson English
Or from Zen monks, or from atheletes describing "the flow."
Lawson English
If you hold that you are your beliefs and actions and a body and
sensations, then you are necessarily bounded by the physical space
bounded by your physical body. That isn't a "thought," but the way in
which you describe your self:
I am 5'10" 300 lbs, blond haired, blue eyed, etc.
Hume can analyze all he wants, but that isn't how most people
spontaneously answer the question.
Julian
Dispatched my starter pack yet? http://tinyurl.com/39mlmv
Julian
> Paul wrote:
>>> TM...
>>>
>>> L1: We ordinarily think my self as this age; this color of hair; these
>>> hobbies . . . my experience is that my Self is a lot larger than that.
>>> It s immeasurably vast. . . on a physical level. It is not just
>>> restricted to this physical environment
>>
>> So we can get to Mars before NASA get their act together? If our
>> physical Self is that big physically then why not! Suggest you read
>> Hume's Treatise of Human Nature to see (what's fairly obvious) that
>> the self cannot be thought of as existing in physical space.
>
> If you hold that you are your beliefs and actions and a body and
> sensations, then you are necessarily bounded by the physical space bounded
> by your physical body. That isn't a "thought," but the way in which you
> describe your self:
>
> I am 5'10" 300 lbs, blond haired, blue eyed, etc.
Genetic, ill or piggy?
Julian
news:r_8Vh.518364$BK1.1...@newsfe13.lga...
Things determined by most voices
are not the greatest truths
but noises.
Hollywood Lee
Not necessarily. For example, Hinduism comes with certain ontological
commitments that those interested in Zen or Csikszentmihalyi's flow
concepts may not share. Thus, ideas such as a capitalized "Being," a
"channel underneath that's just underlying everything," and "essence
there and it just doesn't stop where I stop," a "beautiful divine
Intelligence," an "all-pervading" self, and on, have a specific meaning
and orientation in most Hindu traditions that are either absent from or
directly contradictory to most Buddhist traditions. And as I recall
Csikszentmihalyi's book, he is all about experience and makes none of
the claims made for TM beyond the purely health related claims.
That hasn't stopped various Hindu traditions from trying to slice and
dice later ideas like Buddha Nature into a more Hindu orientation, but
what can you do, eh?
Lawson English
But are still the things determined by most voices...
Lawson English
Various philosophical traditions will interpret the same experience
differently for sure, but the core element should remeain:
I am my beliefs and actions
I am director of my beliefs and actions.
I am beyond/unattached to my beliefs and actions (or there is no "I"
--same difference).
Hollywood Lee
I'm not sure why they "should" remain anything consistent at all. But
that aside, it is in the interpretation where the fun begins - for it is
how some people can remain content with the experiential level without
layering on a pile of ideas while others take the apparently same
experience and begin arguing for ideas like yogic flying and the
Maharishi effect.
Lawson English
Eh, I don't argue for things like Yogic Flying and the ME. I practice
Yogic Flying because I learned it on the outside chance that it might be
useful and everyone noted drastic changes in my behavior when I returned
from the course, so I continued the practice.
People STILL note drastic changes if I don't continue the practice
(including me), so I'm still continuing.
Charles E Hardwidge
> > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> the above is a blatant untruth.
I read through the Maya (?) text someone provided and its reasoning for
everything being an illusion. It strikes me as being a little absurd. It's
clever and appeals to dogma but a denial of a (soft) self is a bit of a leap
to denying the (hard) self.
>Note, Plato and Kant have reached the stage of being translated into good
>philosophical English without the text being littered with words in the
>original languages. When's Buddhism going to get to that state?
Jargon can be useful but its practical impact can be unhelpful. Many of the
concepts carried in the original text have their English equivalent or can
be transliterated, so their continued use is dubious. At a push, one might
suggest it is a hand wavy vanity.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Hollywood Lee
So if google your name and the maharishi effect I won't find you citing
to studies or letters in support of this so-called effect?
Lee Rudolph
>"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
>news:r_8Vh.518364$BK1.1...@newsfe13.lga...
...
>> I am 5'10" 300 lbs, blond haired, blue eyed, etc.
>
>Genetic, ill or piggy?
20 years' worth of unejaculated semen.
Lee Rudolph
Julian
Less prevarication if you don't mind.
I want my Insulated TuMbler with Drip-LessT Straw Seal pronto tonto.
http://tinyurl.com/39mlmv
Julian
news:f03e7i$2ni$1...@panix2.panix.com...
A genetic cul-de-sac... :-)
Lee Rudolph
Julian
Dead end.
Lawson English
> Lawson English wrote:
>> Eh, I don't argue for things like Yogic Flying and the ME.
>
> So if google your name and the maharishi effect I won't find you citing
> to studies or letters in support of this so-called effect?
Eh, you'll find me citing the studies to support the existence of the
studies and explain why people are willing to move to Fairfield, IA (*I*
don't live there BTW) in order to practice in large groups.
Lawson English
Eh, my daughter is doing well in college, or so I hear, and my
20-year-old son just got a job as a TV writer for a TV show in Canada...
Charles E Hardwidge
>>>>
>>>>Genetic, ill or piggy?
>>>
>>> 20 years' worth of unejaculated semen.
>>
>>A genetic cul-de-sac... :-)
>
> Cul-de-sac? Sac de queue? Je m'en fiche.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jPUsAD_bz0
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Dave K
> On 17 Apr, 12:58, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave K wrote:
> > > The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> > > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> > You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> > the above is a blatant untruth.
>
> It looks like the Pali canon is just as open to different readings as
> the Old Testament.
The Buddha's teachings are often open to interpretation but they are
fairly direct and not-symbolic. The Old Testament is a collection of
stories taken from other mythologies that is weaved together in an
attempt at a consistent narrative.
> Why do people rely on old books full of mythical
> encrustations, his own distorted through being repeated by many monks?
If they rely on them then they are missing the point of the teaching.
The teachings were offered for us as something to study, put into
practice, and check the results.
Tang knows as well as I do that it doesn't matter which of us have it
right.
> is there a work of significant Buddhist philosophy less than 300 years
> old that can match the grandeur of Kant? Why isn't the Pali canon as
> readable and coherent as Plato (I read through most of Plato's
> dialogues recently, but gave up with the Long discourses of the Buddha
> after reading about a third the book).
>
> > You're violating right speech there,
> > dear.
>
> He's violating your idea of right speech, but (I think) pursuing his
> right to his own right speech. That's the liberal, democratic way. We
> are all equal at the level of discourse. Forget the Buddha, put his
> arguments in your own, modern words if you are to have any impact on
> modern philosophical discourse.
I don't know if Tang was being ironic or what, but Right Speech as
defined in Buddhism is telling a deliberate lie, which is usually
considered a greedy sort of act. I've spoken the truth as I know it,
which I always admit could be wrong.
> > "'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
> > foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
> > anupatito).
>
> Just using English would help cross-cultural discourse. If you can't
> say what you mean in English then do you really have anything to say?
There are quite a few of us here who appreciate the subtle nuances
that can be grasped through picking up some of the original
terminology, since not all of it is directly translateable.
> Note, Plato and Kant have reached the stage of being translated into
> good philosophical English without the text being littered with words
> in the original languages. When's Buddhism going to get to that
> state?
There are those who would insist that if you want to really understand
any of the above, you would learn the original language they were
written in. This goes for Kant especially as he had a lot of
technical terminology.
Secondly, I don't think you are appreciating the difficulty of
translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
something like German or greek.
-DaveK
Charles E Hardwidge
> studies and explain why people are willing to move to Fairfield, IA (*I*
> don't live there BTW) in order to practice in large groups.
This, in a country that spawns Trekkies and Jedi's?
Just another consumerised walled garden.
Welcome to the attention economy.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
It's amazing what can be done with test tubes these days....
You're daughter isn't called Dolly perchance?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/dolly/index.asp
Charles E Hardwidge
translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
something like German or greek.
Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to English
than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't unique. I
blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately grasp
this but it's gaining traction.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lawson English
Blink.
English is a Germanic language.
And Japanese is pretty much unique, linguistically.
Julian
news:MKbVh.3161$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities
between Japan and England in the sense that they are both
densely populated small islands of the coast of superficially
similar landmasses/populations.
ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
Lawson English
England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
Julian
Except for the Latin, Hindi and just about whatever else takes our fancy.
English is probably best described as Mongrel.
Lawson English
Linguistically, it's germanic,or so my books say.
Julian
Japan wasn't a target of invasions?
They were just jammy.
Lawson English
The language was isolated for a very long time, unlike English. And I
believe that the language of the oldest inhabitants of the Japanese
Islands is pretty much lost now.
Julian
Can't shake off your fascination with TRB huh?
Lawson English
TRB?
English is a burrowing language, just as Japanese is. I'd be willing to
bet that most of the 10,000+ non-kanji loan-words in Japanese are
English-derived, but that doesn't make it mongrelized English language.
The fact that the writing system is derived from Chinese and that much
of the kanji-based vocabulary is Chinese in origin doesn't make it
mongrelized Chinese either.
Charles E Hardwidge
>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>
>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>
>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated small
>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>
>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>
> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And there's
times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
The American outlook, architecture, and diet is superficially similar but
has strong underlying differences. After pointing out the light switches, it
gave a friend issues when watching an American TV show.
Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake of
English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
Who are you? Ooo, ooo. Ooo, ooo.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
> Julian wrote:
>> "Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
>> news:s3cVh.79647$mJ1...@newsfe22.lga...
>>> Julian wrote:
>>>> "Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
>>>> news:iYbVh.79645$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga...
>>>>> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>>>>> Secondly, I don't think you are appreciating the difficulty of
>>>>>> translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
>>>>>> something like German or greek.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts"
>>>>>> aren't unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer
>>>>>> to Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't
>>>>>> immediately grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blink.
>>>>>
>>>>> English is a Germanic language.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the Latin, Hindi and just about whatever else takes our
>>>> fancy.
>>>>
>>>> English is probably best described as Mongrel.
>>>
>>> Linguistically, it's germanic,or so my books say.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can't shake off your fascination with TRB huh?
>>
>
> TRB?
Actually...
talk.religion.buddhism,uk.religion.buddhist,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
have you hook, line and sinkered.
Charles E Hardwidge
> believe that the language of the oldest inhabitants of the Japanese
> Islands is pretty much lost now.
English and Japanese are similar. The only real difference is in verb
placement and a phonetic based writing system. Once you penetrate that
you're on a roll. Most of the fluff of new words and fluid grammar of
English is, really, just a product of its Lego like quality. There's no
reason to suppose Japanese can't develop like this.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>
>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>
> Blink.
>
> English is a Germanic language.
>
> And Japanese is pretty much unique, linguistically.
I'm English and speak both German and Japanese. Not terribly well but enough
to make the difference between starving and dying. The difference between
English and Japanese diet and language is superficial. The underlying
structure is identical. Indeed, on a more obvious level, they're closer to
each other than the German, French, and Spanish language group.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Holly
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
> > taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
> > lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>
> You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
> the recorded sayings of the Buddha should be
> *interpreted* as not denying the self (at the level of
> interpretation), but it is something else to say as you do
> often: "The Buddha never said there was no self", which
> is *factually untrue*. You're violating right speech there,
> dear. Below is a sampling of his sayings on the topic.
>
> "'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
> foolish common person who follows speech (prajñaptim
> self there* (na catrasty atma natmiyam va). This
> suffering, arising, arises, this suffering, ceasing, ceases.
> Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease (samskara
> utpadyamana utpadyante, nirudhyamana nirudhyante)."
> MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
> Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356, Zitate, 210,
> Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 259b1-3,
> 312c5-6.
>
> The Buddha says in the Scripture on the Ultimate
> Emptiness (Paramartha-sunyata-sutra), SA, 335, 92c,
> Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 255b1,
> 332c7-9, 333a17, Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 295a4:
> "The eye, when it arises, does not come from
> anywhere, and when it ceases, does not go anywhere.
> Thus the eye, having not become, becomes, and
> having once become, disappears. There is deed, there
> is return (of deed), but there cannot be obtained
> (nopalabhyate) the doer, who throws away these
> aggregates and takes up other aggregates, except for
> a linguistic-convention on things, namely, this being,
> that is, this arising, that arises, this not being, that is
> not, this not arising, that does not arise, etc. (asti
> karmasti vipakah karakas tu nopalabhyate ya imams
> ca skandhan niksipaty anyams ca skandhan
> pratisamdadhaty anyatra dharma-samketat, tatrayam
> dharma-samketo yad utasmim satidam bhavaty
> asyotpadad idam utpadyate, asminn asati idam na
> bhavati, asya nirodhad idam nirudhyate)."
>
> The Buddha says: "Dependent on the eye and form,
> the eye consciousness arises. The three meeting
> together is contact, and with contact go together
> feeling, notion,and volitions. These four formless
> aggregates [feeling, notion, volitions and
> consciousness] and the eye-organ which is form,
> these things (dharma) are called humanity
> (manusyatva). With regard to these things (dharma),
> one forms the notion 'man,' 'being,' 'person,' [etc.],
> and furthermore one says thus: 'my eye sees form,'
> up to 'my mind cognises things (dharma).' One
> poses such talk: 'this venerable has this name, this
> birth, this clan, this food, he experience this pleasure
> and pain, has this longevity, this lasting, this limit to
> his life.'
>
> Monks, these are mere notions, mere appellations,
> mere speech (samjña-matraka, pratijña-matraka,
> vyavahara-matraka). These things (dharma) are all
> impermanent (anitya), composed (samskrta), mentated
> (cetayita), dependently arisen (pratitya-samutpanna).
> If they are impermanent, composed, mentated,
> dependently arisen, they are all suffering. Further that
> suffering [arising] arises, [staying] stays, [ceasing]
> ceases, that suffering arises in multiplication, all are
> suffering. If that suffering is ended without remainder,
> completely renounced, with no continuation, this is
> peaceful, this is excellent, that is, the giving up of all
> appositions (upadhi), the ending of all craving, the
> dispassion, cessation, blowing-out." SA, 306, 87c-88a,
> Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 277b7-10.
> Sanskrit in Zitate, 127, 411, 505, Sanghabhedavastu, I,
> 158.
>
> <<If the monk with regard to the four formless places
> contemplates them with wisdom as they are, he does not
> accomplish them, does not move into them. He therefore
> neither composes nor wills out/mentates (n'eva
> abhisankharoti nabhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava)
> or un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought
> (maññita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti)
> is a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor
> not be" is a thought, "I will be with form" is a thought, "I
> will be without form" is a thought, "I will be with notion"
> is a thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I
> will be neither with notion nor without notion" is a
> thought; the monk thinks: "If there is none of these
> thoughts, agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced." The Pali
> says: "when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is
> said to be at peace" (sabba-maññitanam tveva
> samatikkama muni santo ti vuccati).>> Chinese
> Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
>
> "The compositions are suffering (duhkhah samskarah),
> blowing-out is peaceful (santam nirvanam). When the
> cause arises suffering arises, and when the cause
> ceases suffering ceases. The circling is cut off and does
> not turn onward (chinnam vartma na pravartate). Not
> linking up [to a re-becoming], the circling ceases
> (a-pratisandhi niruddhyate). This is the end of suffering
> (esa evanto duhkhasya). There, monks, who blows out
> (tatra bhiksavah kah parinirvrto)? It is not other than
> the fact that what is suffering ceases, is pacified, has
> become cool (nanyatra duhkham tan niruddham tad
> vyupasantam, tac chitibhutam). Peaceful is that state
> (santam idam padam), to wit the giving up of all
> appositions (upadhi), the ending of craving, dispassion,
> cessation, blowing-out." Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 159,
> Waldschmidt, Bruchstücke, 135, Turfanfunde, II, 38,
> MA, 62, 498b, SA, 293, 83c, Nidana-samyukta,
> 139-140, Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646,
> 369a10-13.
>
> Tang Huyen
Dear Tang Huyen,
I'm impulsively responding <bad idea> so maybe someone other than the
first four posters have pointed this out.
The concept of 'self' in Buddhist doctrine is not commiserate with the
western idea of 'self.' In fact, 'self' as a term is greatly debated
among the "western world philosophers."
Having said that, one of the most misunderstood ideas (so it seems to
me, having fallen to such misunderstanding) is that of who is doing
that which is willed and who is willing it. In other words, who is
the 'I' the center force who acts.
It is necessary to translate such concepts for a western intellect. I
will use the Freudian term 'ego' for convenience .... not because, as
some have noted, that I like Freud and hold his views in some
suspended state of admiration. I do not. I am merely trying to cut
to the chase.
In Buddhist teachings, one must have an ego <self>. It not only must
be recognized (the ego, the self [seen as two different modalities
actually]) but also it must be balanced and 'healthy.' The healthy
ego is the part of ourselves that can at some point in our lives
vanish when we are acting appropriately. So for example: your child
of two wants to cross a busy street without your assistance. You
simply, without conflict do what the situation calls for. Child
screaming, being dragged behind you ... but without conflict within
your mind.
Another: someone is suffering. You see it and you act. You do not
think "I am acting in this way or that." You do. Afterwards you may
think about it but when you are doing what is 'right' you and the act
are one. Therefore the misconcept that there is no self.
I hope I am not being redundant or preachy. It took me many years to
understand this with the help of several very fine, patient and
'selfless' teachers who had the most wonderful egos.
Holly
brian mitchell
> Lawson English wrote:
> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >> Lawson English wrote:
> >>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> >>>> Lawson English wrote:
> >>>> <delete standard Hindu fare>
> >>>
> >>> Those were spontaneous responses to the question" "describe your
> >>> 'self'" by long-term TMers claiming "witnessing" during the waking
> >>> state.
> >>
> >> And they are the sort of answers I would expect from a Hindu tradition.
> >
> > Or from Zen monks, or from atheletes describing "the flow."
> >
> Not necessarily. For example, Hinduism comes with certain ontological
> commitments that those interested in Zen or Csikszentmihalyi's flow
> concepts may not share. Thus, ideas such as a capitalized "Being," a
> "channel underneath that's just underlying everything," and "essence
> there and it just doesn't stop where I stop," a "beautiful divine
> Intelligence," an "all-pervading" self, and on, have a specific meaning
> and orientation in most Hindu traditions that are either absent from or
> directly contradictory to most Buddhist traditions...
This is an interesting point. The implication seems to be that people
following Hindu tradition and practices experience the states and
insights they are conditioned to expect. Is that what you mean? And are
you perhaps also claiming that those following Buddhist tradition and
practice are *not* so conditioned, and that their experienced states and
insights are necessarily purer or truer?
Lawson English
>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated small
>>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>>
>>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
>> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
>
> Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And there's
> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
>
The UK is comprised of several large islands and a few dozen smaller
ones. Japan is comprised of several large islands and hundreds of
smaller ones.
England is mostly low hills with few mountains. Japan is a quite
mountainous in places. England is generally cold compared to Japan.
English storms are mild. The Brits don't have any earthquake or tsunami
or typhoon/hurricane issues. All of Europe was feudal at one point.
You're the first person I've heard to suggest that the Brits and the
Japanese are similar in culture. Certainly, when the Brits and Japanese
first met each other, that thought didn't pass through their minds, or
so the history books suggest.
> The American outlook, architecture, and diet is superficially similar but
> has strong underlying differences. After pointing out the light switches, it
> gave a friend issues when watching an American TV show.
>
> Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
> British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake of
> English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
And India was a British Colony for how long?
Lawson English
LOL.
Which language has the phonetic-based writing system?
Lawson English
News to my Japanese teacher, who finds English quite difficult. And news
to all the world's linguists, who count English as a Western Germanic
language.
brian mitchell
> English is a burrowing language...
I can dig it.
But what about those Irish, who don't know their Erse from a hole in the
ground!
Lawson English
MY interpretation is that Buddhists have their OWN expectations about
such states. Certainly, describing "samadhi" as a principle state of
consciousness is a Vedic/Hindu thing. Whether or not it is a Buddhist
thing depends on the Buddhist, I guess.
Charles E Hardwidge
> talk.religion.buddhism,uk.religion.buddhist,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
>
> have you hook, line and sinkered.
Maybe, he likes the company?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcYUvIu1sIc
Maybe, he likes being skewered by a Zen arrow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Csgfn6QiDM
Maybe, it's just the excitement...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgU7qUE4WSU
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer
>>>>> to
>>>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>>>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated
>>>> small
>>>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>>>
>>>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>>> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
>>> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
>>
>> Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
>> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And
>> there's
>> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
>>
>
> The UK is comprised of several large islands and a few dozen smaller ones.
> Japan is comprised of several large islands and hundreds of smaller ones.
The British Isles number 6000.
Your economy with the actualite is becoming pervasive and wearisome.
Charles E Hardwidge
>> placement and a phonetic based writing system. Once you penetrate that
>> you're on a roll. Most of the fluff of new words and fluid grammar of
>> English is, really, just a product of its Lego like quality. There's no
>> reason to suppose Japanese can't develop like this.
>
> LOL.
>
> Which language has the phonetic-based writing system?
I meant phonemes, or mora. But you know this, so I'll take your comment as
meaning you're stupid, or a deliberate asshole.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lawson English
But only grade schoolers use hiragana for their main writing...
Tang Huyen
brian mitchell wrote:
> This is an interesting point. The implication seems to be that people
> following Hindu tradition and practices experience the states and
> insights they are conditioned to expect. Is that what you mean? And are
> you perhaps also claiming that those following Buddhist tradition and
> practice are *not* so conditioned, and that their experienced states and
> insights are necessarily purer or truer?
Lee can reply for himself, but to me, the Buddhist
awakened (I don't claim to be in their distinguished
company) merely drop and do not accumulate, so
their experienced states and insights are mere fluff
and not worth bothering about. They wouldn't even
bother to hold them for real or unreal. I don't own
them, but if I may say so, you may have them if
you want.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Monkey Mind wrote:
> By the way, you left out kamma (karma) from your list
> of interesting, difficult concepts :)
Deed (karman) and its return is a topic that the Buddha
could not avoid in his religious and philosophical milieu
of the Gangetic basin twenty-four centuries ago. Rebirth
is another one. Whatever view or absence of view he
held on them, he was going to be questioned on them
anyway, and if he merely wanted to tell his story straight,
like Krishnamurti, he probably would not have cared to
say much on them, but he wanted to leave an
establishment behind (which is good for us), and that
forced him to take a position, regardless whether he
wanted to or not.
Whatever view or absence of view that he propounded
on such topics, depends usually on what audience that
he addressed. This is not a clear-cut distinction, as there
is some overlap, but generally to the monks and nuns, he
tended to prohibit speculation on past lives and future
lives, and on deed and its return. This does not mean that
he denied past lives and future lives, and deed and its
return. It means only that mentating about such issues
does not conduce to liberation. For people serious about
ending their suffering, mentating about such issues
detracts from the focus necessary for the ending of
suffering, and therefore he prohibited such mentation. He
even prohibited mentation about the world, which
obviously does not mean that he negated the world, but
only that mentation about the world detracts from the
focus necessary for the ending of suffering, and
therefore he prohibited such mentation. He specifically
prohibited shamanistic protection, which ironically would
become the main means by which the Buddhist church
supports itself after his death. Overall it is not the case that
the Buddhist church practices Buddhism in the main and
shamanistic protection on the side, but that it practices
shamanistic protection in the main and therefore has a
chance to practice Buddhism on the side, as a fringe
benefit.
On deed, he specifically taught the ending of deed, which
puts the Buddhist liberated person beyond good and evil,
merit and demerit -- but the proviso here is that such
person *is* indeed liberated. People who are deluded and
who fool themselves into taking themselves for liberated
(there are some of those on these boards, like Fu and
Jigme [the fake DharmaTroll]), and they get wacked hard
by Mother Nature, whom they cannot fool.
In a general sense, especially in mental culture, one cannot
deny that our deed (karman) does bring its return. If we
cultivate Buddhism correctly, we can expect Buddhist
results. But the Buddha denied the self (atman) and the
person (pudgala), therefore he could accept deed and its
return, at least for the deluded, but his denial of the self and
the person throws a monkey wrench into that continuity, so
that he had to say that the person who does the deed is not
the same as, and is not different from, the person who
receives its return. The mechanism of deed and its return,
which works only for the deluded, works without any need
for any self. The awakened, who has ended deed, does not
produce new deed but can still receive the return from his
old deed. This may be literal, or can be metaphorical, in that
the deluded tend to hang on to what happens to them
(including what they do, their own deed), dwell on it, and so
will take some return from that, whereas the awakened tend
to drop what happens to them (including what they do, their
own deed) and so will not take any return from that -- poof
and it's gone. At a lesser level of attainment, the people who
cultivate their mind and make it big (as in the Four Divine
Abodes, in which one expands one's mind to the size of the
universe in friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and
equanimity) receive a return that tends to be trifling, for a
deed that could stagger or clobber people who have not
cultivated their mind. This may be literal, or can be
metaphorical, in that people who cultivate their mind expand
both its containing capacity and its flexibility, so that a
stimulus that can knock out people who have not cultivated
their mind will scarcely even register. One well-known
example on these boards is mere words on the screen, which
get the people who have not cultivated their mind to fly off
the handle in a flash, but which only entertain the people
who have cultivated their mind. It's mere fluff to the latter.
But don't bother. It's all made up, it's all fluff, better just relax
and be serene.
Tang Huyen
Charles E Hardwidge
>> enough to make the difference between starving and dying. The difference
>> between English and Japanese diet and language is superficial. The
>> underlying structure is identical. Indeed, on a more obvious level,
>> they're closer to each other than the German, French, and Spanish
>> language group.
>
> News to my Japanese teacher, who finds English quite difficult. And news
> to all the world's linguists, who count English as a Western Germanic
> language.
We're heading into the sun shines out of MMY's ass territory again. How
people perceive and categorise things is their choice. I'm just looking at
my own experience and what practical reality is telling me. If you doubt my
position, it's independently verifiable. If it doesn't work, throw it away.
Simple.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Julian
Lawson may be more amenable to...
If it doesn't work, sell it on.
Charles E Hardwidge
My local councillor is argumentative, like you, and the guy is facing
electoral meltdown. He didn't listen, and if you want to be similarly
stupid, I expect you'll get a similarly stupid outcome. *shrug* Not my
problem.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
small tortoiseshell
>
> And India was a British Colony for how long?
actually its the other way around. Brits are indian spies.
Bill Pfeifer
>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated small
>>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>>
>>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
>> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
>
> Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And there's
> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
Similar diet???????
Like the British fry-or-boil-until-there-is-no-taste diet and the Japanese
leave-things-natural-if-not-raw diet?
I can't stand British food, but I love Japanese food.
> The American outlook, architecture, and diet is superficially similar but
> has strong underlying differences. After pointing out the light switches, it
> gave a friend issues when watching an American TV show.
>
> Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
> British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake of
> English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
I found that the Indian mindset most of the time, if not always, revolves
around spirituality (I'm hesitant to call it religion), while the British
most of the time, if not always, are very "practical." To me, that's a
humongous difference.
Unfortunately, that's changing right now. The Indians are in the process
of throwing away their mindset and exchanging it for the Western (British?)
But that process is by no means complete, especially in the villages, which
are really the heart of Indian culture. If you've only been to Indian
cities and met only citified people, I can see where you got that misunderstanding.
But spend some time in a small Indian village, and you get a very different
picture.
Charles E Hardwidge
>> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And
>> there's
>> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
>
> Similar diet???????
Yup. Food tends to be prepared and served seperately, while mainland Europe
and Chnia tend to mix their food. This isn't especially obvious but has a
key influence on ingredients, cooking, and serving.
>> Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
>> British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake
>> of
>> English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
>
> I found that the Indian mindset most of the time, if not always, revolves
> around spirituality (I'm hesitant to call it religion), while the British
> most of the time, if not always, are very "practical." To me, that's a
> humongous difference.
The British fitted in very well in India due to the strong compatibility
between their class structures and modes of thought. The British and Indian
Civil service is the most obvious outcome of this cooperation.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
brian mitchell
You might justifiably claim that for states of mind or being as narrowly
defined in the arcana, but if Buddhism is not based on insight then on
what?
small tortoiseshell
compassion... he is asking for help.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
Bill Pfeifer
>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated small
>>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>>
>>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
>> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
>
> Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And there's
> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
Just have to comment on "similar language". My native language is German,
and I found learning English a lot easier than learning Japanese. There are
really two Japanese languages - the spoken and the written. Japanese is
probably the only language where learning the spoken does not help much in
learning the written, and vice versa. Japanese has only 45 basic syllables
(or 125 if you count combinations/variations) Any foreign word has to be
forced into that set. So you get things like ra-syu-wa-wa for "rushhour"
Even purely Japanese words often sound so identical, that Japanese, when
conversing, have to occasionally trace the kanji on their palm to indicate
which word they mean.
In German and Japanese, if you don't follow the very precise language rules
set by the education ministry, you are just wrong. In Germany, they had
a political battle when the education ministry decided to adjust some of
the rules (Rechtschreibungsreform). In Japan, the Monbusho has similar
authority over the language.
In English, especially Merkin English, there is no authority at all.
Webster's simply documents the use of the language, but does not dictate it.
The rules are flexible, agreed to by consensus. You can pretty much
butcher the language and still have no problem getting the meaning across.
If anything, I would argue that German and Japanese are more similar, and English
is the outlier.
Charles E Hardwidge
> rules set by the education ministry, you are just wrong. In Germany, they
> had a political battle when the education ministry decided to adjust some
> of the rules (Rechtschreibungsreform). In Japan, the Monbusho has similar
> authority over the language.
Poor teaching of grammar in English over recent years has led to problems in
terms of language use, critical thinking, and behavior, as the underpinnings
of discipline have fallen away. There is some move to address this, as well
as reintroduce more music and better classroom conduct.
In a broader sense, Britain is less economically disciplined than Germany or
Japan. This comes with advantages and disadvantages on both sides. I think,
there is considerable scope for exchanging experiences and developing better
policies at home and mutual rewarding success internationally.
> If anything, I would argue that German and Japanese are more similar, and
> English is the outlier.
Just as long as you don't put your to-wa-ru on the ba-ee-chu-o first. ;-P
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Bill Pfeifer
>>> Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet, language, and feudal
>>> structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And
>>> there's
>>> times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
>> Similar diet???????
>
> Yup. Food tends to be prepared and served seperately, while mainland Europe
> and Chnia tend to mix their food. This isn't especially obvious but has a
> key influence on ingredients, cooking, and serving.
Well, the Germans have stews, and so to the British, and the Japanese have their
sukiyaki. I China, they also have stew-like foods as well as single-ingredient
ones, and they are kept separate on the plate. It's the Indians that mash
everything together on the plate.
And preparing food separately or mixing it is such a minor aspect of the diet,
I just can't see how you can come to your blanket assertion.
>>> Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
>>> British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake
>>> of
>>> English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
>> I found that the Indian mindset most of the time, if not always, revolves
>> around spirituality (I'm hesitant to call it religion), while the British
>> most of the time, if not always, are very "practical." To me, that's a
>> humongous difference.
>
> The British fitted in very well in India due to the strong compatibility
> between their class structures and modes of thought. The British and Indian
> Civil service is the most obvious outcome of this cooperation.
That's all surface stuff. What matters is the deep inner direction, which is
very different, if not opposite, between the British and the Indians.
British are oriented solely toward the worldly. Indians feel somewhat
compelled to follow along that mode, but very reluctantly. They are far more
oriented toward the inner, spiritual.
The uptake of English has a different reason. There are 21 recognized languages
in India, many with their own separate alphabet, and uncountable dialects.
A norther Hindi speaker has no chance understanding Telugu in the south.
English is understood everywhere.
Side Note: The south Indians insist that they are the original Indians,
while the northerners are foreign invaders (6000 years ago, but oh, well...)
I saw a picture of a bank in Chennai with its name in Tamil, Hindi and English.
A protester had splashed paint on the Hindi, not on the English. Some people
in the south told me with pride that they did NOT speak Hindi.
Once I took a tour with an Indian friend of Ramoji film studio near Hyderabad.
He was from the north and did not speak any of the southern languages.
When I asked him what the tour guide was saying, he replied that
the guide spoke 4 different languages, but he understood none of them.
small tortoiseshell
> You can pretty much
> butcher the language and still have no problem getting the meaning across.
crumbled letters
in the flowerbed
like seeds thrown
in the morning light
Hollywood Lee
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> Lawson English wrote:
>>> Eh, I don't argue for things like Yogic Flying and the ME.
>>
>> So if google your name and the maharishi effect I won't find you
>> citing to studies or letters in support of this so-called effect?
>
> Eh, you'll find me citing the studies to support the existence of the
> studies and explain why people are willing to move to Fairfield, IA (*I*
> don't live there BTW) in order to practice in large groups.
Hey! Did you hear about the Penis Growth Hormone. Don't know if it
works. But I started out only 6 inches and am now a whopping 12 after
taking it for only 4 months. Not saying it works, but it only costs
$2,500 for the 4 month supply. Don't want you to think I'm trying to
sell this product, but all the women I meet don't complain.
Hollywood Lee
No, I am not claiming that.
Hollywood Lee
Yeah, that I can agree with. The purer or truer stuff is just more built
up thingies that make little sense in my view.
Keynes
>Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> Lawson English wrote:
>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>> Lawson English wrote:
>>>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>>>> Lawson English wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave K wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them
>>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>>>> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
>>>>>>>> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
>>>>>>>> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
>>>>>>>> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of
>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>> to do that if you don't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TM...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <delete standard Hindu fare>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were spontaneous responses to the question" "describe your
>>>>> 'self'" by long-term TMers claiming "witnessing" during the waking
>>>>> state.
>>>>
>>>> And they are the sort of answers I would expect from a Hindu tradition.
>>>
>>> Or from Zen monks, or from atheletes describing "the flow."
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. For example, Hinduism comes with certain ontological
>> commitments that those interested in Zen or Csikszentmihalyi's flow
>> concepts may not share. Thus, ideas such as a capitalized "Being," a
>> "channel underneath that's just underlying everything," and "essence
>> there and it just doesn't stop where I stop," a "beautiful divine
>> Intelligence," an "all-pervading" self, and on, have a specific meaning
>> and orientation in most Hindu traditions that are either absent from or
>> directly contradictory to most Buddhist traditions. And as I recall
>> Csikszentmihalyi's book, he is all about experience and makes none of
>> the claims made for TM beyond the purely health related claims.
>>
>> That hasn't stopped various Hindu traditions from trying to slice and
>> dice later ideas like Buddha Nature into a more Hindu orientation, but
>> what can you do, eh?
>
>
>Various philosophical traditions will interpret the same experience
>differently for sure, but the core element should remeain:
>
>I am my beliefs and actions
>
>I am director of my beliefs and actions.
>
>I am beyond/unattached to my beliefs and actions (or there is no "I"
>--same difference).
>
Is there an "I" that doesn't think?
And not thinking still acts with volition?
Without thought or volition, where is any 'self'?
Apparently the notion of self is tied up with 'mental
experiences'. A materialist such as yourself must
reason that every sensation that comes to mind
has an external cause -- sights, sounds, the world,
and the brain. Where is the person responsible for
all that?
People think that they think, that it is a deliberate
action. But meditation (of the mindfulness type,
and even the trivial trance states) prove that the
mind is not under anyone's control. The mind
does what it does and not what we wish it to do.
A person may decide to think about something.
But who made that decision to make a decision?
Contrary to popular notion, All thoughts arise
spontaneously and not according to anyone's volition.
If it were otherwise one would need to decide to
decide before deciding, and to think before thinking,
and that would be an impossible infinite regression.
(And would require information before the input
even appears.)
So where is this powerful "I" who does things
according to thought, and thinks according to
things? There is no such creature and never
has been. 'Self' is just a painful identification
with 'mental experiences' over which not a
soul has ever had any control at all.
"The good that I would I do not,
but the evil that I hate - that I do."
-- St. Paul
Keynes
wrote:
>Secondly, I don't think you are appreciating the difficulty of
>translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
>something like German or greek.
>
>Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to English
>than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't unique. I
>blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>
>Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately grasp
>this but it's gaining traction.
England was conquered by waves of germans in the last
2000 years. The angles, the saxons, the jutes, the danes,
and the viking-(french-speaking)-normans. The natives
were driven into wales, scotland and ireland.
England even had a saxon-german king and dynasty
that continues to this day. The english language is a
german dialect.
Japan was native to the caucasian ainu people who
only exist on the northern island now. Japan was
colonized by koreans (although they deny it).
Oriental culture is quite different from western
probably due to social tradition and a poverty
of descriptive language. Easterners are indirect
and allusive by necessity compared to indo-european
language groups.
Robert McNeil (of PBS fame) had an excellent TV
series on the english language. It has borrowed and
stolen from all possible sources rather than trying to
maintain a french purity. That's why we have so many
names for the same nouns, verbs and so on, each with
varying shades of meaning. (Which change over the
years, as 'nice' used to mean small and petty, but
now it means 'agreeable and pleasant'.)
It's OK to talk sexy in latin, but the same things in
old anglo saxon are considered vulgar and offensive.
Copulate but don't ever fuck.
Victorians had famous divorce cases where sexual
infidelity was called 'criminal conversation'.
I'm glad that we've had this intercourse.
Was it good for you?
Julian
news:4e3b23h2onqv5k026...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:28 GMT, "Charles E Hardwidge"
> <nos...@nospam.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Secondly, I don't think you are appreciating the difficulty of
>>translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
>>something like German or greek.
>>
>>Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>English
>>than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't unique. I
>>blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>
>>Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>grasp
>>this but it's gaining traction.
>
> England was conquered by waves of germans in the last
> 2000 years. The angles, the saxons, the jutes, the danes,
> and the viking-(french-speaking)-normans. The natives
> were driven into wales, scotland and ireland.
>
> England even had a saxon-german king and dynasty
> that continues to this day.
There have been many breaks in the succession so it's not
correct to claim a saxon-german dynasty continues to this day.
Noel Friesen
"Charles E Hardwidge" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MKbVh.3161$Ro3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Secondly, I don't think you are appreciating the difficulty of
> translating something like Pali or Chinese or Japanese as opposed to
> something like German or greek.
>
> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>
> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>
> Charles E Hardwidge
>
Makes sense to me, on a number of levels. Britain and Japan being very
hierarchical and class-oriented.
Noel Friesen
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
Well, even a lot of kanji are used phonetically.
Keynes
wrote:
>>>> Japanese is easier than German. At least, I find Japanese closer to
>>>> English than German. In any case, a lot of the "novel concepts" aren't
>>>> unique. I blame laziness and vanity more than anything.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, America is closer to Gernman culture, and England is closer to
>>>> Japanese culture on a number of levels. Most people don't immediately
>>>> grasp this but it's gaining traction.
>>>
>>> In a sort of geographical sense there are distinct similarities between
>>> Japan and England in the sense that they are both densely populated small
>>> islands of the coast of superficially similar landmasses/populations.
>>>
>>> ie. Japan/China... England/Europe.
>>
>> England was the target of countless invasions over the centuries. Japan
>> remained isolated for centuries, if not millennia.
>
>Britain and Japan have a similar geography, diet,
Into that sushi are you?
>language,
Get serious. English is the largest and most
expressive language there ever has been, even
exceeding the other still existing indo-european
language groups.
Oriental languages are sparse and open to
great ambiguities. This is both a strength and
a weakness, depending on the subject at hand.
>and feudal
Sure. And the honor of saving face and family
is also an english trait. That's why we have so
many ritual suicides in London.
Commercial interests have dropped the best of feudalism
(the general care for vassals) in favor of the worst
( the capitalist class structure). A feudal lord who
did not preserve his assets (the vassals) became
poor and vulnerable. But today's commercialism
makes a virtue of cutting the throats of the poor.
Japan used to have employment for life as a
feudal carry-over. But commerce has made such
a luxury impossible. They are getting with the
program of 'people as disposable commodities'.
I consider the trends of today a descent into
a new cruel and violent barbarism. Society
reflects the commercial realities and predictably
the peasants will rebel in ones and twos until
the general consensus makes a new french
revolution.
>structure. Similar situations tend to evolve similar solutions. And there's
>times when I can't tell the difference between the two.
>
Maybe you need to read a book or something.
>The American outlook, architecture, and diet is superficially similar but
>has strong underlying differences. After pointing out the light switches, it
>gave a friend issues when watching an American TV show.
>
The colonies were all settled by the unsettled, not by
stay at home settlers. Ambition is built into the colonies
and is even reinforced (as the generations become
complacent) by new restless go-getters from other
countries than england.
>Another interesting one is the strong similarity between the Indian and
>British mindsets. They're very compatible and is a factor in the uptake of
>English, and Indians academic, military, and business success.
>
>Who are you? Ooo, ooo. Ooo, ooo.
Indo-european language speakers (all of europe) got
their language precision from india in the first place.
The descriptive power of one's language has a great
effect on the precision of one's thinking. (So who
can rightly claim credit or blame?)
English is becoming the world-wide language of travel
and commerce among diverse peoples, just as british english
made the many languages of india mutually comprehensible.
(As latin and french have done in europe before.)
Keynes
After the regicide weren't a king and queen imported from Saxony?
Robert Epstein
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
>> Lawson English wrote:
>>
>>> Dave K wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
>>>> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
>>>> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
>>>> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
>>>> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
>>>> to do that if you don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
>>>> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
>>
>>
>>> TM...
>>>
>> <delete standard Hindu fare>
>
>
> Those were spontaneous responses to the question" "describe your 'self'"
> by long-term TMers claiming "witnessing" during the waking state.
>
> There was a strong correlation between the claim of witnessing and
> specific physiological EEG traits compared to non-witnessing controls
> (meditating and non-meditating).
>
> The study that those statements come from looked at three groups of 17
> people: non-TMers, "non-witnessing" TMers with an average of 7 years
> meditation experience, & TMers reporting witnessing (self separate from
> activity) during waking, dreaming and sleeping and asked each subject
> the question: 'describe your "self."'
>
> Their responses fell into three main categories:
>
> Group 1: I am my beliefs, actions, desires... ( 17 non-TMers, 3
> non-witnessing TMers, 0 witnessing TMers);
>
> Group 2: I am the doer/holder of my beliefs, actions, desires (0
> non-TMers, 14 non-witnessing TMers, 0 witnessing TMers);
>
> Group 3: I am independent of/beyond actions, desires, beliefs (0
> non-TMers, 0 non-witnessing TMers, 17 witnessing TMers).
>
> In a different study of the same people, the EEG of each of those three
> groups was different in several parameters, with the witnessing TMers
> showing the most difference from the non-TMers and the non-Witnessing
> TMers lying somewhere in the middle.
>
>
> Interestingly enough, a NEW study that compared 33 non-meditating,
> non-top-10 finalist athletes with 33 olympic and world gold medalists,
> found that the gold medalists were closer in EEG measures to the
> witnessing TMers than the non-champion athletes were.
>
> Champion athletes, of course, are the ones most likely to report "the
> flow," where the action does itself without interference from, or even
> existence of, a "self."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
of course the TMers are far, far lazier than the champion athletes.
Other than that, they are exactly the same!
Robert
= = = = = = =
Charles E Hardwidge
> language. It has borrowed and stolen from all possible sources rather
> than trying to maintain a french purity.
The basic linguistic structure of the earliest known English is that it's
composed of lego blocks like Japanese. Other influences came later and are
the fluff that's on top. Also, like Japanese, it doesn't have the burden of
gender that French, German, and Spanish do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_English
I haven't watched Robert McNeil's series but Melvin Bragg's 'The Adventure
of English' was quite thorough, and I've got my own personal experience and
knowledge to go on as well. My position may be novel but it's not without
foundation or practical use.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
> Julian wrote:
>
>> "Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
>> news:J%6Vh.79592$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>>> Dave K wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Right, so either concept (self or no-self) is a dud. Drop them both.
>>>> That's my point. Cling to neither self nor no-self. Cling to
>>>> nothing. If the Buddha really taught there was no-self (ultimately)
>>>> it would be very hard for his disciples to practice. "He trains
>>>> himself" appears 29 times in the anapanasati sutta. It's kind of hard
>>>> to do that if you don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> And the teachings you quote above would be difficult to grasp for one
>>>> who clings to his own existence. So what are you gonna do?
>>>>
>>>> -DaveK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TM...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> L1: We ordinarily think my self as this age; this color of hair;
>>> these hobbies . . . my experience is that my Self is a lot larger
>>> than that. It s immeasurably vast. . . on a physical level. It is not
>>> just restricted to this physical environment
>>> L2: It s the "I am-ness." It's my Being. There s just a channel
>>> underneath that's just underlying everything. It s my essence there
>>> and it just doesn't stop where I stop. . . by "I," I mean this 5 ft.
>>> 2 person that moves around here and there
>>> L3: I look out and see this beautiful divine Intelligence. . . you
>>> could say in the sky, in the tree, but really being expressed through
>>> these things. . . and these are my Self
>>> L3: I experience myself as being without edges or content. . . beyond
>>> the universe. . . all-pervading, and being absolutely thrilled,
>>> absolutely delighted with every motion that my body makes. With
>>> everything that my eyes see, my ears hear, my nose smells. There's a
>>> delight in the sense that I am able to penetrate that. My
>>> consciousness, my intelligence pervades everything I see, feel and think
>>> L5: When I say "I" that s the Self. There s a quality that is so
>>> pervasive about the Self that I m quite sure that the "I" is the same
>>> "I" as everyone else s "I." Not in terms of what follows right after.
>>> I am tall, I am short, I am fat, I am this, I am that. But the "I"
>>> part. The "I am" part is the same "I am" for you and me
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you bombard the Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, etc.
>> boards with you occult mumbo jumo too?
>
>
>
> Peer-reviewed articles in mainstream physiology and psychology journals
> on falsifiable physiological states are hardly "occult mumbo jumbo" by
> definition.
>
> Interesting that you think that they are.
Interesting....fascinating....and meaningless...
robert
= = = =
Lawson English
So you're saying that the average educated Japanese uses hiragana for
everything?
Lawson English
Use it all the time, eh?
As I said, I don't live in Fairfield, IA, and haven't done a gorup
meditation in quite a few months, and for years before that.
Charles E Hardwidge
> than that, they are exactly the same!
Flow exists in everything: economics, game design. and writing books...
Don't see yours flying off the shelve's buddy.
Oh, wait. You've got to finish it!
Anne Coulter finishes hers...
*thrrrrrp*
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lawson English
For those who call Pure consciousness" an "I" of some kind. sure.
> And not thinking still acts with volition?
The field of the gunas is the field of activity. Self is beyond the
field of the gunas---straight out of the Bhagavad Gita.
> Without thought or volition, where is any 'self'?
>
Tomato/tomahto. "He who holds that the Self is the doer is deluded" or
somesuch, quote Lord Krishna in the BG.
> Apparently the notion of self is tied up with 'mental
> experiences'. A materialist such as yourself must
> reason that every sensation that comes to mind
> has an external cause -- sights, sounds, the world,
> and the brain. Where is the person responsible for
> all that?
/shrug. Define "person."
>
> People think that they think, that it is a deliberate
> action. But meditation (of the mindfulness type,
> and even the trivial trance states) prove that the
> mind is not under anyone's control. The mind
> does what it does and not what we wish it to do.
>
Quite so.
> A person may decide to think about something.
> But who made that decision to make a decision?
>
> Contrary to popular notion, All thoughts arise
> spontaneously and not according to anyone's volition.
Yep.
> If it were otherwise one would need to decide to
> decide before deciding, and to think before thinking,
> and that would be an impossible infinite regression.
> (And would require information before the input
> even appears.)
>
> So where is this powerful "I" who does things
> according to thought, and thinks according to
> things? There is no such creature and never
> has been. 'Self' is just a painful identification
> with 'mental experiences' over which not a
> soul has ever had any control at all.
>
Quite so. It's maya.
Charles E Hardwidge
> everything?
You here -------> Door there
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lawson English
Sure, but the phonetic component is always derived from Chinese, as far
as I know, save in the case of invented Japanese words like ta-ba-ko
(burnt stick).
Lawson English
Eh, few TMers are champion athletes, if that is what you mean. The point
isn't about Tmers becoming champion athletes but about the similarity in
brain state between enlightened people, and extremely sucessful athletes
(who presumably aren't taking lots of performance drugs these days due
to the testing).
buddhapest
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:132aoqo...@news.supernews.com...
> But don't bother. It's all made up, it's all fluff, better just relax
> and be serene.
>
> Tang Huyen
once there is an acceptance of a universal
perspective, or a sort of unity consciousness,
and i know it's sounds corny but it's that
'all is one' perspective, or even as
science likes to call it, a quantum hologram,
you lose the need to take anything
personal and in most psyches this is
definitely a major leap forward, but
then something even deeper can occur
and that's the notion that even though
all is one, you can see how you have
absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
Robert Epstein
> On Apr 17, 6:58 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave K wrote:
>>
>>>The Buddha never said there was no self. The people who believed he
>>>taught this are usually very confused about how to practice and ask a
>>>lot of dumb questions instead of just getting on with it.
>>
>>You talk a lot of right speech, so should observe it, but
>>the above is a blatant untruth. It is one thing to say that
>>the recorded sayings of the Buddha should be
>>*interpreted* as not denying the self (at the level of
>>interpretation), but it is something else to say as you do
>>often: "The Buddha never said there was no self", which
>>is *factually untrue*. You're violating right speech there,
>>dear. Below is a sampling of his sayings on the topic.
>>
>>"'The self, the self (atma atmeti),' monks, [thinks] the
>>foolish common person who follows speech (prajńaptim
>>anupatito). But *there is no self and what belongs to
>>self there* (na catrasty atma natmiyam va). This
>>suffering, arising, arises, this suffering, ceasing, ceases.
>>Compositions, arising, arise, ceasing, cease (samskara
>>utpadyamana utpadyante, nirudhyamana nirudhyante)."
>>MA, 62, 498b, Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 158,
>>Waldschmidt, Catusparisatsutra, 354-356, Zitate, 210,
>>Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 259b1-3,
>>312c5-6.
>>
>>The Buddha says in the Scripture on the Ultimate
>>Emptiness (Paramartha-sunyata-sutra), SA, 335, 92c,
>>Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 255b1,
>>332c7-9, 333a17, Dŕ zhě dů lůn, T, 25, 1509, 295a4:
>>"The eye, when it arises, does not come from
>>anywhere, and when it ceases, does not go anywhere.
>>Thus the eye, having not become, becomes, and
>>having once become, disappears. There is deed, there
>>is return (of deed), but there cannot be obtained
>>(nopalabhyate) the doer, who throws away these
>>aggregates and takes up other aggregates, except for
>>a linguistic-convention on things, namely, this being,
>>that is, this arising, that arises, this not being, that is
>>not, this not arising, that does not arise, etc. (asti
>>karmasti vipakah karakas tu nopalabhyate ya imams
>>ca skandhan niksipaty anyams ca skandhan
>>pratisamdadhaty anyatra dharma-samketat, tatrayam
>>dharma-samketo yad utasmim satidam bhavaty
>>asyotpadad idam utpadyate, asminn asati idam na
>>bhavati, asya nirodhad idam nirudhyate)."
>>
>>The Buddha says: "Dependent on the eye and form,
>>the eye consciousness arises. The three meeting
>>together is contact, and with contact go together
>>feeling, notion,and volitions. These four formless
>>aggregates [feeling, notion, volitions and
>>consciousness] and the eye-organ which is form,
>>these things (dharma) are called humanity
>>(manusyatva). With regard to these things (dharma),
>>one forms the notion 'man,' 'being,' 'person,' [etc.],
>>and furthermore one says thus: 'my eye sees form,'
>>up to 'my mind cognises things (dharma).' One
>>poses such talk: 'this venerable has this name, this
>>birth, this clan, this food, he experience this pleasure
>>and pain, has this longevity, this lasting, this limit to
>>his life.'
>>
>>Monks, these are mere notions, mere appellations,
>>mere speech (samjńa-matraka, pratijńa-matraka,
>>vyavahara-matraka). These things (dharma) are all
>>impermanent (anitya), composed (samskrta), mentated
>>(cetayita), dependently arisen (pratitya-samutpanna).
>>If they are impermanent, composed, mentated,
>>dependently arisen, they are all suffering. Further that
>>suffering [arising] arises, [staying] stays, [ceasing]
>>ceases, that suffering arises in multiplication, all are
>>suffering. If that suffering is ended without remainder,
>>completely renounced, with no continuation, this is
>>peaceful, this is excellent, that is, the giving up of all
>>appositions (upadhi), the ending of all craving, the
>>dispassion, cessation, blowing-out." SA, 306, 87c-88a,
>>Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 277b7-10.
>>Sanskrit in Zitate, 127, 411, 505, Sanghabhedavastu, I,
>>158.
>>
>><<If the monk with regard to the four formless places
>>contemplates them with wisdom as they are, he does not
>>accomplish them, does not move into them. He therefore
>>neither composes nor wills out/mentates (n'eva
>>abhisankharoti nabhisańcetayati) for becoming (bhava)
>>or un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought
>>(mańńita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti)
>>is a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor
>>not be" is a thought, "I will be with form" is a thought, "I
>>will be without form" is a thought, "I will be with notion"
>>is a thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I
>>will be neither with notion nor without notion" is a
>>thought; the monk thinks: "If there is none of these
>>thoughts, agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced." The Pali
>>says: "when he is gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is
>>said to be at peace" (sabba-mańńitanam tveva
>>samatikkama muni santo ti vuccati).>> Chinese
>>Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
>>
>>"The compositions are suffering (duhkhah samskarah),
>>blowing-out is peaceful (santam nirvanam). When the
>>cause arises suffering arises, and when the cause
>>ceases suffering ceases. The circling is cut off and does
>>not turn onward (chinnam vartma na pravartate). Not
>>linking up [to a re-becoming], the circling ceases
>>(a-pratisandhi niruddhyate). This is the end of suffering
>>(esa evanto duhkhasya). There, monks, who blows out
>>(tatra bhiksavah kah parinirvrto)? It is not other than
>>the fact that what is suffering ceases, is pacified, has
>>become cool (nanyatra duhkham tan niruddham tad
>>vyupasantam, tac chitibhutam). Peaceful is that state
>>(santam idam padam), to wit the giving up of all
>>appositions (upadhi), the ending of craving, dispassion,
>>cessation, blowing-out." Sangha-bheda-vastu, I, 159,
>>Waldschmidt, Bruchstücke, 135, Turfanfunde, II, 38,
>>MA, 62, 498b, SA, 293, 83c, Nidana-samyukta,
>>139-140, Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646,
>>369a10-13.
>>
>>Tang Huyen
>
>
> Dear Tang Huyen,
> I'm impulsively responding <bad idea> so maybe someone other than the
> first four posters have pointed this out.
>
> The concept of 'self' in Buddhist doctrine is not commiserate with the
> western idea of 'self.' In fact, 'self' as a term is greatly debated
> among the "western world philosophers."
>
> Having said that, one of the most misunderstood ideas (so it seems to
> me, having fallen to such misunderstanding) is that of who is doing
> that which is willed and who is willing it. In other words, who is
> the 'I' the center force who acts.
>
> It is necessary to translate such concepts for a western intellect. I
> will use the Freudian term 'ego' for convenience .... not because, as
> some have noted, that I like Freud and hold his views in some
> suspended state of admiration. I do not. I am merely trying to cut
> to the chase.
>
> In Buddhist teachings, one must have an ego <self>. It not only must
> be recognized (the ego, the self [seen as two different modalities
> actually]) but also it must be balanced and 'healthy.' The healthy
> ego is the part of ourselves that can at some point in our lives
> vanish when we are acting appropriately. So for example: your child
> of two wants to cross a busy street without your assistance. You
> simply, without conflict do what the situation calls for. Child
> screaming, being dragged behind you ... but without conflict within
> your mind.
>
> Another: someone is suffering. You see it and you act. You do not
> think "I am acting in this way or that." You do. Afterwards you may
> think about it but when you are doing what is 'right' you and the act
> are one. Therefore the misconcept that there is no self.
>
> I hope I am not being redundant or preachy. It took me many years to
> understand this with the help of several very fine, patient and
> 'selfless' teachers who had the most wonderful egos.
> Holly
>
Hi Holly.
I think you are confusing the term "self" with a functional person being
able to do things. In Buddhist terms, when you are being spontaneous
and doing what "is right," as you put it, there is no self present. In
fact it is this ability to act instinctively from perception directly to
an impulse to action that allows the self-concept to dissolve. You say
that the self vanishes when acting appropriately and spontaneously. Why
do you then reassert that this demonstrates that the self is there?
Everything in your argument works fine except the conclusion is the
opposite one you would logically draw from what you demonstrate.
Noel Friesen
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
I don't know if we mean the same thing. The chinese will use kanji as
ideograms while the japanese will sometimes use different symbols with the
same sound interchangeably without much regard for the meaning of the
characters. Japanese poetry can be very interesting because of the play
between using a character ideogramatically or phonetically. Most words can
be spelled several different ways using different ideograms to colour the
meaning.
Lawson English
That is mostly for names, I believe.
And, speaking only as a beginning student here, while there are phonetic
clues found in many kanji as to how to pronounce them, they are mostly
(I believe) for "On" (Chinese pronunciation) readings, and not for
"Kun" (Japanese) readings. Of course, since Chinese has 5 or 7 (more or
less) pitch-patterns per syllable, while Japanese has, at most, 2, an
awful lot of On readings end up sounding absolutely the same in Japanese
even though they are completely different to the Chinese.
At the other extreme are kanji that can have 20+ variations of Kun
pronunciation, even though many of them are minor variations (like "gu"
vs "ku").