Is there anything that is not Buddhism?

Perhaps. Sometimes what only took a second to experience can easily take hours to explain afterwards.

William James once said that upon leaving his house one fresh morning he was immersed in the experience of wet grass (and much else, of course), and when he later tried to reproduce ("describe") the sensual experience he could not, at least not to any satisfying degree.

Words and sensations are inherently different. I see my life as consisting of a flowing of immediate sensations on the one hand and abstractions on the other. The former are more complete: they stand by themselves. The latter must point to something or a class of somethings else. Language (abstractions) gives a kind of consensual (cultural) structure to experience (while fundamentally violating it). I do not go along completely with the Whorf-Sapir thesis (and I'm probably overstating it) that we think with words. No doubt language influences thought and experience but it does not mirror them with any completeness. My experiences are inherently aesthetic (i.e., complete in their immediacy) despite their ambiguity. My thoughts struggle toward clarity and precision but are inherently "other worldly" in the sense of not referring to life as I experience it, (James' grass) only, derivatively, as I think about it.
When I meditate I rest within or remain immersed in my concrete immediate life (characterized by an almost complete ignorance which I embrace and appreciate). When thoughts arise (and they must, that's what the brain does) they do so as aesthetic sensations, no more.

I remember reading quite a while back something Krishnamurti said regarding our communication with each other. I think it's very similar in terms of experience vs descriptions as mentioned here. It was along the lines of, we never deal directly with other people but instead deal with images of both ourselves and others and it is these images, built up of memory and opinion, which are offended. This makes me wonder about how you might bring that experiential, immediate and more complete aspect of life which is word-less to conversations and general dealings with others (which are word-full). As opposed to how the mind works over time regarding our image and how best we should present it or our perceptions of other people, that are so static and arbitrary, and how they channel and restrict our very movements in conversation etc.

I guess if our own image can be dissolved, the images of others follow suit but I've always felt it would be easier to drop our own image if everyone else, at the exact same time, stopped acting like these images were important and true representations of the people we deal with. So when I figure out how to convince everyone to do that, I'm golden!

Good points. Ashers. Let's see if I can work with them. I think that when we deal "meaningfully" with the world we must do so in terms of culturally constituted (i.e., shared) representations we make to ourselves about that world. This is where language is essential (as well as art, I suppose).
Each of our self-concepts are, of course, central representations. We could not live in societies without them. My True Self, if I can use that phrase, the actual flowing sensations that make up my concrete phenomenal/existential (immediate personal) reality is very difficult if not impossible to describe to someone else; I can't even do so to myself. It is too much a matter of "becoming" to be represented in the form of "being." This is perhaps a major deficiency of language; it cannot capture the reality of process/change; it captures only relationships between fictional "things".
Immediately after having "prereflective" sensations I (we) turn them into "sensible" language-shaped "experience." These representations of experience I CAN talk about. Our unprocessed private, thus "real" and "empty" Self (not the social identity or ego-self which are necessary but fictional constructions) is inherently private.

I have never "dissolved" my ego-self (except in meditation when I tend to forget it) because, frankly, it is essential to my cognitive and social life. What I HAVE tried to do is to see it for what it is, to see through it.

My memory's fuzzy, but isn't there a story of the buddha holding up a lotus flower, and as a result someone was enlightened?

I am thinking of the alternative to communicating with words. This form of communication is so dominating in our lives that we see all other means to communicate as supplements to this main method.

Do you see it as communicating when you interact with dogs or cats, or any other domestic animal? I am always very conscious of the communication going on, even if I don't always understand it.

Humans communicate without words all the time. My girlfriend didn't say anything to make me irritated, it was just how she delivered the words, the slightly too long pause, the obvious lack of enthusiasm in her face.
So perhaps words are the supplements.She didn't even say she was bored, but she communicated to me an impression of boredom and frustration that would take me quite a few pages to recreate in words...

You're referring to the Flower Sermon, that is generally associated with the Chan/Zen Schools. As the Buddha lay dying his disciples gathered around to hear his final Teachings. Someone asked, "Is there anything that you want to emphasize that's essential?" The Buddha held up a flower, and died. The flower wasn't specified. The Lotus became a Buddhist symbol with the development of Mahayana some hundreds of years later. The Lotus is pure yet it is rooted in mud and floats on still water. During the Buddha's lifetime Buddhist iconography was very, very limited. The Eight-Spoked Wheel symbolizing the Eight-Fold Path was just about the only symbol used.

I know this auto mechanic in Colorado, one day he was changing the oil in my car as I sat on the curb drinking a cup coffee. He was yanking about about this and that and then turned to me and said; "you know Dys, there's two things in life to work toward, (1) is learning about yourself and (2) is sharing what you learn with others that are also learning about themselves.

For what it's worth, my intuitive response to the flower sermon is that the Buddha could have held up anything to SHOW us that the door to enlightenment exists in any and every experience we have. The experience of the flower (and everything else) does not happen TO me (as an object to a subject); it IS me. The spiritual dissolution of dualism is the unification of all (or the realization of the unity of all).

OR he was advocating the study of botany.

Or trying to shift the student's focus from dying teacher to "living" teachings... As a dying master he must have known that his influence might survive him and be wielded by others who saw less clearly....

I like the fact that these sermons and koans have this openness about them that allows for individual, intuitive responses with the reaction to a koan or sermon itself being key.

Cyracuz, it seems interesting that people often talk about the simplistic, complete companionship that they have with their pets and the ease with which people, often very estranged with those around them, can share space with animals instead. I grew up looking after cats myself and enjoy their company very much, I also think I can "see" intricacies in them which others don't but who can say. Although it's also funny to see people talk of pets and personality traits, oddities and mannerisms too, I guess it's just a case of organising that stream of data into relatable chunks, without wanting to complicate it too much.

JLN, that seemed very well stated to me and therefore helpful to say the least, especially the "becoming" and "being". In terms of the image, I think there is more of an automatic, self evident sense of self which is used for daily life and essential to it but it seems to me there is also something else, more than just the recognition of self to interact but the over grasping to it, the attachment and gradual memory based build up of who I am that becomes the focus of ones actions. Like instead of just doing something which takes the recognition of "I", we become embroiled in a thought trail that involves maybe extrapolations and worries over the "I" and what it is doing. So I guess I see the recognition of ego-self, like you mention as being essential but see something more which can be both positive and negative depending on the context.

Yes, essential errors but essential nevertheless and errors nevertheless. Doesn't this apply to everything we construct: e.g., "truth", "absolute", "relative," "self", even non- or True Self. The problem i not their ontological reality; the problem, as you suggest, is our spiritually paralyzing attachment to them. I TRY to see all my opinions, even my most cherished opinions, as no more substantial than clouds floating by.

hmm...
I can see how the egoself is neccesary to survive in our current state of existence. Still I do not see why this would require us to retain some constant concept of self.
Self is a function, the yang to the yin called "other". Relationship is instantly established by contact between self and other, and as other goes away, so does self.
It's not easy to see in daily life, since one "other" is always replaced by a new "other" so seamlessly that we don't always notice. And in the same seamless fashion the self alters accordingly.

Anyway, my point is that even if I were to successfully obliterate my own sense of self, the function of self would still be active. I just would not see it so...

Yeah I see the recognition of ego-self as being automatic, self evident and natural in so far as our conception of reality, with it's "things" and relationships and interactions etc, NOT some big thought process. The requirement for a constant concept of self is where I see a conflict (an unnecessary one as opposed to the ego-self if you like) in so far as it seems to be, not just a case of interactions but interactions between selves that are encouraged to build up a collection of "things" to represent themselves more fully (ha!) so the interactions become more competitive and fractured if I can say so. This extra step if you can call it that seems to be that classic division of observer and observed which is to say self and other and of course the other in this relationship can be a multitude of things. We can be in isolation and yet still divide ourselves to create that self and other which seems to me, when seen as such a repetitive, seamless process, as that re-enforcement of a divide.

What I was thinking of when I said dissolution was to remove the divide in so far as, in any situation, "I" is not a complex mesh of memories that is currently observing itself and questioning itself with static "things" but in fact there is only a dynamic doing. I think that dynamic doing is what is being mentioned here as the function of self as still and always being active etc. Saying that right now, it's an intellectual statement and there isn't much behind it but when that actually is the case in my experience "simplicity" best sums it up.

I think you are right. And I like how you explain it.

Ego-self is like gravity, in that it is not in itself an actual thing, but a result of several conditions being met. It makes sense to me to think of egoself as a force of nature.

Agreed, gravity is an interesting example. Actually I think the problem with this concept of self is...like many things, over indulgence. Chocolate isn't bad but eating it in bucket loads day in, day out will often leave the person in question feeling a little empty. Acknowledging the concept of self we carry around with us and interact with isn't bad but the over-attachment to it doesn't necessarily lead to great results either.

A problem, as I see it, is that from the very beginning of our lives we are trained and taught to reinforce the egoself. Admonitions to apply yourself breeds competition, which is in turn encouraged. Accomplishment is rewarded, and even when being selfless we are often so self-conscious in the act, "I am being good", that the reward for such actions isn't appropriately valued, and the whole thing misunderstood.

And we are surrounded by countless taunts and tricks, the deft pushing of accomodations for an ego-self with time to kill. Gadgets and clothes define us. Our entire culture is aimed at one thing, and that is to reinforce the sense of self.
Not exactly prime conditions for the rise of a consciousness without this idea of it's existential center. Or perhaps just the right conditions. I wouldn't know.

Very good statements, guys. I particularly like Cyracuz's acknowledgement that "Self is a function, the yang to the yin called "other". Relationship is instantly established by contact between self and other, and as other goes away, so does self."

This reminds me of the famous dictum from the Upanishads that "That Art Thou" (Tat Tvam Asi). I refer to it often. The other, i.e.., the so-called objects of my perception do not HAPPEN to a "me" (as I've said before); they ARE me. In this respect they cease to exist as distinct things when I recognize them as me, and I cease to exist as a distinct thing when I recognize myself as them.

Given this, the title of this thread--Is there anything that is not Buddhism?"-- should be "From the Buddhist perspective, is there anything that is not you?"

Which, though I've read this before I believe, sounds like it runs on nicely to the idea that, when the "object of perception" is a thought of "the world", in terms of prime conditions for the rise of consciousness..."I" am the "world". This reminds me of a favourite quote of mine which goes, "the miracle is not to walk on water, the miracle is to walk on this green earth in the present moment". One thing I take from this that, yes ok, we can perceive a divide and look at the world as offering "poor" conditions BUT to divide yourself from those poor conditions is to either literally or metaphorically run away from those poor conditions and when you consider the "true" nature of these perceptions, this perpetuates a divide hence, the miracle of walking on this green earth (whatever your surroundings may be, western or eastern) is to cease attachment to division no matter circumstance. To fight the "outer" in this respect seems to perpetuate the "inner" battle.

Speaking of perspectives, the eastern perspective on a western backdrop that I've considered for a while often just makes me laugh at the insanity that it reveals if you switch normal/abnormal around between east and west perspectives. An example of this is the common phrase, though blatant, that I hear which is, "I saw it and I wanted it". Another of a different topic is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

By the way, one of the reasons I like what Cyracuz said regarding, "as other goes away, so does self" is the same reason I think a bit of alone time can be quite profound. Even though the "other" can still hold the same significance whether we are alone or not, the level of expectancy when we are with other people makes it harder to see this process going on.

JL
Your reminders are always cherished.

I think our discourse implies some explanation to our facination with god concepts.
We've talked about how "self" is inseperable from "other" and yet "self" is percieved as something contained and absolute by very many people.

It's the same with god. This concept is basically the notion of contained and absolute "other", as I see it. A nessecity, to balance the counterpart "self" on the scales of dualism.

But by the very same argument as "self" is deprived of it's center, god is deprived of it's identity within creation. The two are one and the same. In terms of absolutes, god is creation seen as one. And in relativism, creation is god seen as many.

I very much like the statement There is nothing but God. Here there is no theistic Other, only that which is.
Given your last post, Cryacuz, can it also be said that There is nothing but Self?