Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:16 pm
@vajrasattva,
How is it an illusion? You are real, made of skin and bones, who told you any different, pray tell?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 03:46 pm
@vajrasattva,
vajrasattva;91425 wrote:
There is no duality there can not be this is not something i have intelectualized it is somthing that my being just knows. The rock is real. It is also and illusion why because all things are non dual.


You left out the teaching and all things are NOT non-dual. Don't forget this or you fall into the mind trap of nothingness which is contrary to the Buddha's teaching. Remember, emptiness is also form.

vajrasattva;91425 wrote:

Now Because the self is an illusion no self exists but because illusion and untimate reality (samasara and nirvana) are one and the same the illusion is reality. Hence the illusion of the rock made the illusion of your death by the reality of your bloody head.


This isn't completely accurate. The Buddha never said there is no self. He said there is no self that is a permanent entity. There is a self, it just constantly changes. He called it illusory because it changes constantly how can you label something that constantly changes?

vajrasattva;91425 wrote:

There is no mind and there is no rock and there is no death because there is no you. And all of these concepts are truely real in every sense because of the fact that all the universe and every phenomena in it is non-dual illusory-ultimate reality. So you can argue with me that the rock is unreal or you can accept that your bloody head is bilss and pain which do you choose.


Once again, not entirely accurate. The rock does exist, however it does not remain a rock for ever, this is why it is called non-existent. I know that sounds confusing but things exist, things also do not exist, but they also at the same time do not not exist.

A cup is only a cup until you break it. The cup was once some clay. The clay was once some plant matter. The plant matter was once some minerals in the soil. The minerals in the soil were once smaller particles. Those smaller particles were once non-particles. How far do you need to go before the cup ceases being a cup?

All things are like this.
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 04:27 pm
@vajrasattva,
I think you need a super duper lense/really powerful microscope, Krumple to see into nothing. Just like the opposite to see the universe, it would be nice to do that don't you think?
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
vajrasattva
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:22 pm
@vajrasattva,
i agree with you krumple that is what i was attemting to say but the expression of that was rather difficult.

Thanks Vajrasattva
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 03:30 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;91498 wrote:
This isn't completely accurate. The Buddha never said there is no self. He said there is no self that is a permanent entity. There is a self, it just constantly changes. He called it illusory because it changes constantly how can you label something that constantly changes?


Just wanted to elaborate on this a bit.

Essentially, from my understanding, the self only exists due to the existence of the five aggregates, but it does not exist beyond that, as you have said, because it is of course impermanent.

What the Buddha said was,

"Consciousness may exist having matter as its means, matter as its object, matter as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means...or perception as its means...or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its object, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.

Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception, and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist."


(Samyutta-Nikaya III)

So, there is no permanent 'Self'. As interpreted by Buddhaghosa,

"Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found"
0 Replies
 
vajrasattva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 03:26 pm
@vajrasattva,
The teaching of no self is a teaching of skillfull means just as is every teaching of the buddhas. The ideas expressed in the buddhas teachings are all terms used to teach the way to enlightenment. None of them are wholely accurate in describing the ultimate reality. Because the ultimate reality is beyond concept and so beyond all sentient means of communication. All of the teachings of the buddha take form in concept because we are beings who live and work in the realm concepts. We need concepts to gain knowledge of that which is beyond concept. So none of the teachings that occur in the relative world (all of the ones that we know) are accurate in the ultimate world. Because ultimate truth and reality can not be verbalized much less taught. It can only be realized. Buddhas way is the path toward the realization of the ultimate. That is why it is called the buddha way not the buddha truth. If it was the buddhas truth there would be no practice because in hearing the teachings all of us would be perfectly enlightend instantly and would no longer have need of the practice or teachings. Once again all of the buddhas teachings are skillful means of teaching the path to enlightenment. They are tools to be used to realize the truth not the truth itself.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 09:03 pm
@vajrasattva,
Thank you for a wonderful account. It is my understanding.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Buddhism
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/17/2018 at 12:02:18