Why people don't awaken
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Are you saying I replaced my belief of 'self' with 'no self'?
To that: my answer is, no.
I do not believe in 'no self'. I have seen through the illusion of self, yes, but I do not hold on to any beliefs of any sort. There is just this real time authentication of the true face of experience/experiencing without an experiencer.
There is just the undeniable experience of hearing, seeing, thinking... without the sense or illusion of 'me in here seeing that over there'.
There is no concepts, beliefs required.
There is no self, and also no 'no self'.
There is just This... sound of keyboard typing, da da da.... words appearing on screen... all self-luminous, vivid, pristine, happening-of-itself.
Everything is just shining the obvious Truth... there is no need to keep thinking 'no self'. (oh but before you see this, keep contemplating)
You still hold on to the core concepts of Buddhism is true and correct. Once you can reject that notion, you truly are free. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You still hold on to the core concepts of Buddhism is true and correct. Once you can reject that notion, you truly are free.I don't just believe them, I've seen them to be true.
Once you see truth, it cannot be denied.
-
Is not people don't awaken, is because people just could not "fuck & no fuck" going simultaneously along a peaceful present
Originally posted by Beautiful951:Isn't it true that to understand no self, I first have to know what is the self?
Meditation is the only key, the duration of understanding it would depend on people's past charitable deeds and cultivation.
Take monitor screen as an example - there are uncountable wisdom displays on your computer screen. When the monitor screen is powered off, these wisdom just disappeared. Well! you could not simply or dogmatically claim its non existence, on the other hand, the fact of existence on the permanent self of this intrinsical wisdom displayed, could not be intellectually and logically justified because it's impossible to take out to show people that there is this inherent super-harmony in beings' beauty and beast known in layman term as Buddhahood
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I don't just believe them, I've seen them to be true.
Once you see truth, it cannot be denied.
You have seen nothing. Please do not confuse people. with "nothing". -
looks like it is back to some phenomenological ontology ....
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You have seen nothing. Please do not confuse people. with "nothing".No, enlightenment is 'seeing everything as it is'. It is not 'seeing nothing'.
Perceiving, hearing, seeing, thinking, etc still goes on. Everything still goes on... but without the illusion of self or grasping at solidity or permanency.
Hearing is, no hearer... seeing is, no seer... just a process of experiencing without an experiencer to be found.
-
Related to the first post:
http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging
A Glimpse of Mergingby Robert Wolfe on Saturday November 13, 20101 commentsThe enlightenment of each sage has followed a different process: no two alike. However, when you read the biographies of each of these enlightened sages, you notice that they collectively had one thing in common: the profundity of enlightenment is a life-changing development. The bottom line, in these recorded lives, is that there was a radical change between the pre-enlightenment life style and the life’s consequent course.
If you listen to electronic recordings of “spiritual” workshops, satsanga, retreats etc., you will frequently hear this comment from attendees: “I had a glimpse of the ultimate state once. But it has disappeared.” The reason for this is simple: the commentator has not transcended the subject/object perspective: there has been a “glimpse” to a “glimpser”; there was a persistent “I” in relation to a “spiritual experience.” In other words, the participant hasn’t fundamentally understood and transcended the perspective which we call dualism. The seeker’s presumption was that “I can have an experience of the One.” And so there is an “I” on the one hand, and “the One” on the other hand.
Every “experience” is impermanent; it occurs within the time frame of an “experiencer.” As the time–bound experience concludes, the experiencer’s I-consciousness recurs. There remains the “I” with its “glimpse.”
With the “I” remaining central to one’s perception, there will be no radical change in one’s self-centered life matrix. Only when this I-centered perspective has irretrievably dissolved will there be the true groundswell of matrix-breaking enlightenment.
Clearly, it is not uncommon for weekend “spiritual” participants to have an experience of a “glimpse” of “merging.” But when they come away from that “training” with the dualistic I/It mindset still unconsciously in place, there will be no permanent, substantial realization of the annihilating perspective known as nonduality ─ a permanent, thorough, annihilating change of the “experiencer” perception.
****
Unpublished manuscript. -
Ok I get it, there's no you
So you don't exist.
Guess I'm talking to air then.
BTW what's up with all the vulgarities? Just because someone doesn't see the world the same way you do doesn't mean that they are in any way inferior to you.
Maybe it's time for you to let go of your subconscious hatred of ang mohs.
Not very enlightening I must say.
-
Originally posted by littlemissbonkers:
Ok I get it, there's no you
So you don't exist.
Guess I'm talking to air then.
BTW what's up with all the vulgarities? Just because someone doesn't see the world the same way you do doesn't mean that they are in any way inferior to you.
Maybe it's time for you to let go of your subconscious hatred of ang mohs.
Not very enlightening I must say.
lol
Ciaran is an ang moh... but he's British ang moh.
I think it's more like sarcasm and humor... the whole British vs US thing.
-
1 possible reason is they dun sleep so they dun need to be awaken.
the other reason is they r oridi die-ed
-
Originally posted by littlemissbonkers:
Ok I get it, there's no you
So you don't exist.
Guess I'm talking to air then.
BTW what's up with all the vulgarities? Just because someone doesn't see the world the same way you do doesn't mean that they are in any way inferior to you.
Maybe it's time for you to let go of your subconscious hatred of ang mohs.
Not very enlightening I must say.
Please tell us which one is you. Bones, blood, air, skin or flesh ? Either one of these give you serious problem, you will be dead. May be you will tell me you are all of these but you are not because there is no need for all these (bones, blood, air, skin or flesh) to give you problem to collapse, any one of these can let you perish anytime.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Please tell us which one is you. Bones, blood, air, skin or flesh ? Either one of these give you serious problem, you will be dead. May be you will tell me you are all of these but you are not because there is no need for all these (bones, blood, air, skin or flesh) to give you problem to collapse, any one of these can let you perish anytime.
I'm an angel
-
Originally posted by littlemissbonkers:
I'm an angel
That sweet and lovely, plse convert all earth to edible foods/water when needed, and the sands to cars that would not be hindering one another while traveling, and also produces oxygen, and the bodily waste matter to become diamonds, and the used materials into leaves, plant and flowers among others -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No, enlightenment is 'seeing everything as it is'. It is not 'seeing nothing'.
Perceiving, hearing, seeing, thinking, etc still goes on. Everything still goes on... but without the illusion of self or grasping at solidity or permanency.
Hearing is, no hearer... seeing is, no seer... just a process of experiencing without an experiencer to be found.
But again you are not seeing things as it is. Why expect others to hold onto your view? -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
But again you are not seeing things as it is. Why expect others to hold onto your view?AEN is trying to share ,not impose, you may challenge him by elucidating contradictions in his views, arguments. Repudiate with a valid line of reasoning and facts, please.
If you please share things they way you see it, then the dialog will have meaning.
Disagreement, just for the sake of disagreeing, is as good as being petty.
Till now, I've not seen you of having personal beliefs, just disbelieve, which makes me more curious than ever to know your core beliefs are. Please share, and don't be afraid to invite ridicule and allow us to benefit from your beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
AEN is trying to share ,not impose, you may challenge him by elucidating contradictions in his views, arguments. Repudiate with a valid line of reasoning and facts, please.
If you please share things they way you see it, then the dialog will have meaning.
Disagreement, just for the sake of disagreeing, is as good as being petty.
Till now, I've not seen you of having personal beliefs, just disbelieve, which makes me more curious than ever to know your core beliefs are. Please share, and don't be afraid to invite ridicule and allow us to benefit from your beliefs.
Simple, science is not religion and vice versa. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Simple, science is not religion and vice versa.Science is about understanding phenomena, how things work, that we may make things work according to our understanding. Older theories are being debunked, making way for newer theories, to allow us to understand how things work. Things work the way it does regardless of what we believe.
Religion, in this instance, specifically Buddhism, is also about understanding phenomena, focusing on impermanence and also dissatisfaction. We all are inheritors of certain belief and culture of our community, clinging to the notions believing it to be permanent or solid.
Even as we are slowly changing our outlook as we grow , picking new ideas and habits, we still believe we are the same.
The difference being religion, in this instance, Buddhism, and science is addressing different needs. There are people who regard science as a religion, and also people who apply religion as science.
-
What is your position?
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
But again you are not seeing things as it is. Why expect others to hold onto your view?Wrong.
-
Religion is a subjective, individual experience and science that of objectivity. How to reconcile the irreconciliable?
As for the reluctance of being awakened - it is the fear of being found out that all that one has been doing or belieiving in could have all been or is ''wrong'', ''wasted'' and hence the stance of rejecting. So the opiate of sleep-walking is bound to percolate and permeate one. Having a porous ego might have one in good stead>
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Religion is a subjective, individual experience and science that of objectivity. How to reconcile the irreconciliable?
As for the reluctance of being awakened - it is the fear of being found out that all that one has been doing or belieiving in could have all been or is ''wrong'', ''wasted'' and hence the stance of rejecting. So the opiate of sleep-walking is bound to percolate and permeate one. Having a porous ego might have one in good stead>
What makes the subjective as being objective ? The assertion belief of facts of being irrefutable.Important is the underlying principle in which one applies one's understanding and perception of phenomena. Everything is relative to, even for measurements of things that can be measured. In science things are measured and rated to a constant.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Religion is a subjective, individual experience and science that of objectivity. How to reconcile the irreconciliable?
As for the reluctance of being awakened - it is the fear of being found out that all that one has been doing or belieiving in could have all been or is ''wrong'', ''wasted'' and hence the stance of rejecting. So the opiate of sleep-walking is bound to percolate and permeate one. Having a porous ego might have one in good stead>
Even better is the absence for the basis of an ego, self or "in reference to me" view.
If "I" accepted as not permanent and illusory, then one's life story becomes irrevelant.
-
Can love be objectified? If it is so, the other is a dead thing. Anything that is an existential experience is always subjective. To objectify as science purports to is to box it in - to define it which is utilitarian./ One can label a packet of cigratttes - it is finished, it is dead. It is objectivity.
Can one objectify a person? To objectify a person is (and it happens when one perceives) to see another as a thing.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Can love be objectified? If it is so, the other is a dead thing. Anything that is an existential experience is always subjective. To objectify as science purports to is to box it in - to define it which is utilitarian./ One can label a packet of cigratttes - it is finished, it is dead. It is objectivity.
Can one objectify a person? To objectify a person is (and it happens when one perceives) to see another as a thing.
Can I measure the actual total volume of the sea? Or actual size of the sun as of now>
Remove the emotional attachments you have of a person or anything else, one can. One just need a fixed rate of measurement.
Even love can be measured, I love you so much that I will dig out my heart to show it to you, ha! ha! Just kidding! The problem with love you have no fixed scale of measurement and the affection of love is subject change . Love is an emotion. Even the measurement of hotness of chillies is subjective.
-
I dont know if it is true or not but life being mysterious I would not ignore your views, thanks!