A question for Buddhist and Hindus

[zer0]

Okay, all the analogies and references aside. One basic question. Does this reality of ego have just as equal an existence of that existence of non-ego and non-self which you speak of? I

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay, all the analogies and references aside. One basic question. Does this reality of ego have just as equal an existence of that existence of non-ego and non-self which you speak of? I

Nanrei Kobori Summarised this well (Zen and the Brain *(1) by James H. Austen) of which appears to me to be an adequate intellectual response in light of the question asked.
"Buddhist Philosophy tells us to return to one's real self, namely to non-ego. He must awaken to the fact that the self he normally considers to be his self or ego is a false self, full of ignorance and subject to suffering. -Nanrei Kobori (1918-1992)-

Are you familiar with the 10 ox herding *(2) pictures as well? Again the imagery should provide sufficient.



The rest is entirely your call.

Take good care of yourself,

-/\-



1) Sesshin and Tiesho at Ryoko-in (1974)
2) or 10 bulls

 

[zer0]

Well Nowhere Man, I suppose we might agree to disagree on this one. I only feel that we miss the point that both extremes are the 'ultimate self' the Buddha spoke of. Perhaps, however, I have yet to come to the realization that this is not so. In the end, we have only our own direct experience to judge from.

 

[atanu]

Nanrei Kobori Summarised this well (Zen and the Brain *(1) by James H. Austen) of which appears to me to be an adequate intellectual response in light of the question asked.

"Buddhist Philosophy tells us to return to one's real self, namely to non-ego. He must awaken to the fact that the self he normally considers to be his self or ego is a false self, full of ignorance and subject to suffering. -Nanrei Kobori (1918-1992)-

From Hindu perspective, I agree. What above indicates is that the real self is not dependently arisen. And if this real self was not intelligent then the dependently arisen objects would not be seen and would not be mistaken as the real self.

So, where is the difference between what Nanrei Kobori is saying and what Sanatana dharma has always taught as below:

Mandukya Up.
7. -------That is the Self; that is to be known.

and

Gita
13.13 I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

 

[atanu]

Well Nowhere Man, I suppose we might agree to disagree on this one. I only feel that we miss the point that both extremes are the 'ultimate self' the Buddha spoke of. Perhaps, however, I have yet to come to the realization that this is not so. In the end, we have only our own direct experience to judge from.

zer0

I can agree with you and Nowhere Man

'Extremes' arise dependently but is not the nature of Brahman (also called the real self). Scriptures (such as cited abve) exhort us to know the Brahman, which is the fullness devoid of polarities. A part cannot know the fullness. So, the Hindu call is not dissimilar to Buddha's call.

However, being a part and acting as a part, i find it absurd to negate the part. And in this aspect the knowledge of Turiya (as indivisible beyond mind) and its states of prajna (deep sleep), taijjassa (dream), and vaisvanaro (waking) is crucial. The parts (separation of subject and objects) is there in dream and in waking. In deep sleep, the separation is hidden and remains as seed.



But Turiya is partless, unchanging, neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, without awareness of internal or external, and is the without a second seer of the three states.

• As a part it is impossible to know the Turiya.
• OTOH, a part is well explained in the states and need not be rejected while acting from within the states.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well Nowhere Man, I suppose we might agree to disagree on this one. I only feel that we miss the point that both extremes are the 'ultimate self' the Buddha spoke of. Perhaps, however, I have yet to come to the realization that this is not so. In the end, we have only our own direct experience to judge from.

There is nothing amiss in differing viewpoints being expressed and as such is completely natural. Illumination through direct practice and experience yet remains a true teacher of which points and forces the direction we happen to traverse. We come to realization while undifferentiated as a whole of which opinion and perspective remains fluid and transient among the nudges of those compassionate.

Gassho

:candle:

 

[Tathagata]

Buddhism is only politically consistent with Left Libertarianism. "Left" because Buddhism wants to help those in need, and "Libertarian" because it supports freedom of the individual and opposes initiatory coercion.

"Thus you should go about self-governed."
-- the Buddha [Adhipateyya Sutta]

In other words, no one should govern you but yourself. No external control should coerce you as are the Libertarian principles.


.

 

[Surya Deva]

Namaste zerO,

I am not going to say left or right, because I think this is is simplistic and will tell you little about what I believe. I am conservative and traditionalist, in the sense that I think we need to bring back the traditional wisdom of the ancients. In my case it is the Vedic system of society that I think is the ideal way of organizing society - organize society as per the merits and qualities of people. Moreover, make education the foundational value of society. It is education that produces the next generation, and if you want a good generation of people you need to provide them with a good education that caters to their physical, emotional, mental and spiritual development. Hence spiritual training like Yoga/meditation should be an integral part of our education system. We must learn to respect teachers in society, for then we will learn to respect knowledge.

We do not live today in a knowledge based society based on sound scientific and spiritual principles, but we live in a society based on only one thing: profit. The paradigm needs to be changed to a knowledge-based society, where knowledge is glorified. In order to do this, the first thing we need to change our current education system which is designed to create employees into an education system that is designed to create good and noble human beings. Secondly, we need to decentralize power and wealth through local governments, civil society and an economic democracy, where all wealth generated in a society is democratically utilized, such that it is impossible for one individual to have a disproportionate share of the wealth in society. We need to focus more on local production.

I think as soon as we have a good and working model of society based on these two principles I described 1)Knowledge based society and 2)Decentralization - we will see a lot of change for the better in this world.

 

[Sweetvoice]

I believe Buddhists should be individualist in that they should be concern only about the present and not be concern with the next thought - politic and others. Buddhist reacts only to the present, if need to, the rest is karmic influence.