If there is no self, why am I having this experience?

[jackvincent]

This is a common idea in Buddhism.


We come out of nature as a wave comes out of the entire ocean before returning. So might one say that the wave is born out of the ocean, and that we are born out of nature?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I

This is a common idea in Buddhism.


We come out of nature as a wave comes out of the entire ocean before returning. So might one say that the wave is born out of the ocean, and that we are born out of nature?

Is this the same as asking where everything comes from? If the waves are born from an ocean, then from what is the ocean born?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Is this the same as asking where everything comes from? If the waves are born from an ocean, then from what is the ocean born?

I understand Buddha neither accepted or denied the existence of GOD. He was quiet on the issue.

 

[sayak83]

I understand Buddha neither accepted or denied the existence of GOD. He was quiet on the issue.

No He explicitly denied the existence of God in sense of Creator. He accepted the existence of deities who lived in heavens of various levels.

 

[jackvincent]

I understand Buddha neither accepted or denied the existence of GOD. He was quiet on the issue.

I believe the point would be God is, God is awareness, and namely God is self-evident or self-created by the imagination of yourself...

Because of the never ending regression of "Who made the original God?". This is the definition of the eternal, the unborn and the undying. It has existed forever and will endure forever.

It is the Tao.

 

[sayak83]

This is a common idea in Buddhism.


We come out of nature as a wave comes out of the entire ocean before returning. So might one say that the wave is born out of the ocean, and that we are born out of nature?

Your sense of self is construction from the experiences, the experiences are the strings out of which your self is stitched like a cloth. The self has no independent existence apart from the experiences. That is the Buddhist view, roughly speaking.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is a common idea in Buddhism.


We come out of nature as a wave comes out of the entire ocean before returning. So might one say that the wave is born out of the ocean, and that we are born out of nature?

From how I understand and believe it is that everything goes into and out of one another without needing an origin nor an end. Once you try to find an origin, you excite the waves again. Once you try to end it, you try to calm waves naturally flowing. Once you sit back and let the waves go, they naturally settle. So when the moon turns and the waves go at it again, you're not bothered by their origin nor their end. That's nibbana. (In my own words)

This is from the our prayer book I received at our ceremony...

"...The marvelous Truth is inconceivably difficult to ascertain. Trying to seek it only brings about exhaustion. Not one single thought arising, that's true seeking. As the seeking mind persists, we remain absolutely unknowing." Namu Sakyamuni Buddha. An excerpt of a prayer to The Buddha.

As for the self thing, I never understood that. It always sounded like riddles and rhymes for something simple. There is no " I " means there is no permanent self. Everything like the wave is changing and flowing so saying I-Me-and other definite pronouns makes us think that "I won't change." To me, I is just an English pronoun. The unchanging nature of life is the nature of life regardless of what pronouns we use.

Everything changes. There is no origin. That's probably why the concept of god of abraham isn't spoken of. It can't exist in a non-origin world.

 

[LuisDantas]

Things are as they are. There is no reason for us to exist and experience things; we just do.

Out of curiosity, why are you talking about deities in this thread?

 

[jackvincent]

I might also add the Tool song, Swamp Song puts it nicely, although quite hostile, as the Universe is.

"Wanderin', wanderin', no one even invited you and you still stumble in".

 

[Rinchen]

This is a common idea in Buddhism.

Because experience isn't self.

 

[George-ananda]

This is a common idea in Buddhism.


We come out of nature as a wave comes out of the entire ocean before returning. So might one say that the wave is born out of the ocean, and that we are born out of nature?

If there is no self, why am I having this experience?

I will answer this question from my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hindu (Advaita) perspective.

In my view the foundation and only permanent entity is God/Brahman. The universe is a play/drama of God/Brahman where He separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. During the separation, a ray of Brahman animates temporary material bodies on the planes of nature. That is why you are having this experience as a 'self' and why there is also no permanent self (only the Self (capital 'S')/God/Brahman are eternal). Eventually the self realizes the Self in Moksha/Nirvana.

This is why I find Hinduism to fit me better than Buddhism. Buddhism likes to back off from these metaphysical questions and focus on the practical. But for many of us we need the big questions addressed before we move into practice. Buddhism is great as a practice but leaves you hanging on the big questions.

 

[jackvincent]

If there is no self, why am I having this experience?

I will answer this question from my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hindu (Advaita) perspective.

In my view the foundation and only permanent entity is God/Brahman. The universe is a play/drama of God/Brahman where He separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. During the separation, a ray of Brahman animates temporary material bodies on the planes of nature. That is why you are having this experience as a 'self' and why there is also no permanent self (only the Self (capital 'S')/God/Brahman are eternal). Eventually the self realizes the Self in Moksha/Nirvana.

This is why I find Hinduism to fit me better than Buddhism. Buddhism likes to back off from these metaphysical questions and focus on the practical. But for many of us we need the big questions addressed before we move into practice. Buddhism is great as a practice but leaves you hanging on the big questions.

Liberation must be a choice though if we have free will. Another way to put it is loving God must be a choice if there is free will.

The alternative to liberation is annhialation which is no experience, so I suppose there is still no suffering if we are either liberated or annihilated.

 

[George-ananda]

The alternative to liberation is annhialation which is no experience, so I suppose there is still no suffering if we are either liberated or annihilated.

There has to be a positive goal beyond just the elimination of the negative (no suffering) I would think. In Advaita, it is the Self/God-Realization of Oneness in being-bliss-awareness. In the annihilationist's view, I could attain no suffering immediately with a bullet but this is not what any spiritual teacher espouses.

 

[David1967]

I understand Buddha neither accepted or denied the existence of GOD. He was quiet on the issue.

Yes, when asked who created everything, he remained silent, neither denying nor affirming the concept of God.

 

[jackvincent]

There has to be a positive goal beyond just the elimination of the negative (no suffering) I would think. In Advaita, it is the Self/God-Realization of Oneness in being-bliss-awareness. In the annihilationist's view, I could attain no suffering immediately with a bullet but this is not what any spiritual teacher espouses.

I'd like to believe it but I fail to believe the Universe is so loving as to give every person that ever exists enlightenment/liberation. The hostility of the Universe doesn't end with advanced society, there are bigger fish in the realm of consciousness ready to devour you when your stay has come to its end here.

When you have lived enough lives and it comes time to merge with the One, you can merge or commit spiritual suicide.

 

[Rinchen]

This is why I find Hinduism to fit me better than Buddhism. Buddhism likes to back off from these metaphysical questions and focus on the practical. But for many of us we need the big questions addressed before we move into practice. Buddhism is great as a practice but leaves you hanging on the big questions.

The reason why Buddhism doesnt answer such questions is because they are ultimately irrelevant to the path of Buddhadharma, or thinking you have the answers to those questions is just another delusion. When you accept you dont know, that is when you are the closest to Prajna.

 

[Rinchen]

Yes, when asked who created everything, he remained silent, neither denying nor affirming the concept of God.

Dont fool yourself into thinking the Buddha did this to give hope for theists.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Yes, when asked who created everything, he remained silent, neither denying nor affirming the concept of God.

The response from his followers is, Buddha accepted there was no Creator God, but there were divine beings with differing levels in the Heavens. Let's push on that opening a little and see where it leads...

No He explicitly denied the existence of God in sense of Creator. He accepted the existence of deities who lived in heavens of various levels.

So then one would ask, who are these deities that exist in Heaven?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Dont fool yourself into thinking the Buddha did this to give hope for theists.

And don't fool yourself into thinking Buddha was anything other than a mortal created human being travelling through the Lands as a philosopher trying to make sense of the meaning of life.

 

[David1967]

Dont fool yourself into thinking the Buddha did this to give hope for theists.

I don't think that the Buddha was trying to either encourage or discourage anyone. My impression is that he taught us to seek our own path/salvation.