Awareness Is Not Enough!

[Brucenkhamen]

Why does there need to be a WHO? When the sun comes up tomorrow WHO is doing it? When my computer executes an antivirus scan WHO is doing it? When a leaf falls to the ground and dies WHO is doing it?

Of course we could make up a simplistic explanation and call it God or something like that but does that make us any the wiser?

The Buddhist practice is instead of asking WHO we ask WHAT. Firstly that’s an admission that we don’t know, second it’s a refusal to believe in simplistic answers, and thirdly it’s a process of learning to relate to our experience in an objective way.

The actual experience, not an abstract concept, is that awareness is an individual inner activity inside a human existence. Nobody can be aware FOR you to make you more aware.

True, but is that individual entirely distinct and separate from the environment in which he lives? If so that individual would be able to continue to live in a vacuum.

The actual experience, not an abstract concept, is that mind, being mindfull is an inner individual human activity. When somebodys mind would be mindfull for you, like Buddha did in his way, you can only become mindfull in the way he did became mindfull by being mindfull your Self.

In other words: when you do not become mindfull by your self you will never become mindfull at all !!

In my view the teachings of Buddha are no magic spiritual spell taking the responsibillity away from the individual.

My becoming mindful is based on a set of causes and conditions, many of those causes and conditions have worked together to develop my mind so that when presented with a choice it has the capacity to make the right choice. Of course if I haven’t developed my mind it’s my problem and my responsibility, but taking such responsibility is a process, I don’t need to buy into a view of it being all about me separate from the rest of existence.

There doesn’t need to be a WHO doing it, but either way the point is moot because the Buddhist practice is to see all experience in terms of it being not self, whether or not that means there is an kernel of “self” in there somewhere is irrelevant, I’ve yet to find it.

The life(s) of Siddhartha Gautama clearly showed that he, in inner activity, reached inner awareness, making him free of his inner self.

Yes, and from that point of view it’s irrelevant whether that inner self was conceptual or real, the point is he was free from it.

Dawnings of Aquarius is what I would call speaking in vernecular, but beside that it is just labelling,

Labelling is not helpfull to reach clearness and insight,

Obviously you are not a practitioner of the Mahasi technique then.

You can label it labelling if you want, if by doing so you miss a learning opportunity then that’s your causes and conditions.

[christiaan]

Why does there need to be a WHO? When the sun comes up tomorrow WHO is doing it? When my computer executes an antivirus scan WHO is doing it? When a leaf falls to the ground and dies WHO is doing it?

Who did came to enlightment? Who did founded Buddhism? Who did teach Buddhism? Who is the center of Buddhism? It is just a matter of asking the related and suitable questions.

Just imagine there would never have never been a Siddartha Gautama...there would not have been Buddhism as we know now. No monks, no monasteries, no temples, no thousands of images and scultpurs of Buddha. So to people with a realistic sense the WHO it is very important.

Then, when it is important to ask questions, it is very peculiar to exclude the WHO question. The How, the What, the Why, the Were questions atre filtered to be acceptabler but the WHO question for soem reason is not. Excluding the WHO question can only be done by a mind that is not free but that is prejudiced towards this question. There is a specific reason not to ask this question.

So excluding questions is done out of a concept being a part of a conceptual framework that could be a conceptual framework of interpretations of new age (?) Buddhism.

Of course we could make up a simplistic explanation and call it God or something like that but does that make us any the wiser?

We call the person, the Self, that became the Buddha : Siddhartha Gautama and with regard to Buddhism that makes us wiser

The Buddhist practice is instead of asking WHO we ask WHAT. Firstly that's an admission that we don't know, second it's a refusal to believe in simplistic answers, and thirdly it's a process of learning to relate to our experience in an objective way.

The Buddhist practice is to some extend an interpretation, diversed and cultural determined. Then,.. time did not stand still . Buddhism did not stand still in 2500 years time, it evolved and it is should not be considered to be a peculiarity in a spiritual museum.

A simple answer is not to ask questions people tell on forehand they cannot be asked or answered.

A simple attitude is to refer to answers given by other people and to rest in not thinking your self.

True, but is that individual entirely distinct and separate from the environment in which he lives? If so that individual would be able to continue to live in a vacuum.

This invidual is living by his senses and living toughts within the world, connected with this world.

My becoming mindful is based on a set of causes and conditions, many of those causes and conditions have worked together to develop my mind so that when presented with a choice it has the capacity to make the right choice. Of course if I haven't developed my mind it's my problem and my responsibility, but taking such responsibility is a process, I don't need to buy into a view of it being all about me separate from the rest of existence.

There doesn't need to be a WHO doing it, but either way the point is moot because the Buddhist practice is to see all experience in terms of it being not self, whether or not that means there is an kernel of "self" in there somewhere is irrelevant, I've yet to find it.

The Self is important to reach the state where a person can enter the pure idea of the phenomenon he or she meets, and so enter its spiritual reality. This can only happen when at that point we can leave our Self behind as an inner activity in awareness.

Yes, and from that point of view it's irrelevant whether that inner self was conceptual or real, the point is he was free from it.

This is just untrue. The fact is that whenever this self was conceptual ( and when it was connceptual by WHO was it concepted?) or real, he was not free from it, he BECAME free from it by his former lifes and by his life as being Siddhartha Gautama for about 35 years. What is it to say the life of Buddha before is irrelevant??

So it was and is very relevant WHO and HOW and WHAT and WHY this Self was what it was because this explains why he could become free from it.

The life and biography and meaning of the Life of Buddha is no Fairy Tale, no bedtime story for new age adults, but real facts of life on earth.

Obviously you are not a practitioner of the Mahasi technique then.

You can label it labelling if you want, if by doing so you miss a learning opportunity then that's your causes and conditions.

What I learn by this opportunity is that you think the way you think

[Brucenkhamen]

Who did came to enlightment? Who did founded Buddhism? Who did teach Buddhism? Who is the center of Buddhism? It is just a matter of asking the related and suitable questions.

Just imagine there would never have never been a Siddartha Gautama...there would not have been Buddhism as we know now. No monks, no monasteries, no temples, no thousands of images and scultpurs of Buddha. So to people with a realistic sense the WHO it is very important.

We know very well who that was in the conventional sense, a person, with a name as an identifier just as you and I are are people with names as identifiers on the conventional level. WHO is only important for people who are looking for something solid to cling to, it doesn’t lead to release from suffering, if it did the Buddha wouldn’t have taught us to see all experience in terms of it being not self.

Then, when it is important to ask questions, it is very peculiar to exclude the WHO question. The How, the What, the Why, the Were questions atre filtered to be acceptabler but the WHO question for soem reason is not. Excluding the WHO question can only be done by a mind that is not free but that is prejudiced towards this question. There is a specific reason not to ask this question.

That’s Buddhist practice, in Buddhist practice we see all experience in terms of it being not self, this leads to release from all of the suffering that identification with self creates, and it’s a lot, in my experience it’s one of the most powerful aspects of Buddhist practice.

If you find that peculiar then I would venture that you are on the wrong discussion board. If you feel my interpretation is incorrect according to Buddhist sources or your experience of Buddhist practice then that’s fine lets hear it as that’s what this kind of board is for, but so far all I’m hearing is that according to the philosophies of Christaan Buddhism is peculiar.

The Buddhist practice is to some extend an interpretation, diversed and cultural determined. Then,.. time did not stand still . Buddhism did not stand still in 2500 years time, it evolved and it is should not be considered to be a peculiarity in a spiritual museum.

A simple answer is not to ask questions people tell on forehand they cannot be asked or answered.

A simple attitude is to refer to answers given by other people and to rest in not thinking your self.

You are correct that Buddhism has evolved into different interpretations over the past couple of thousand years, and as already mentioned if you’d like to refute my understanding of the teaching in terms of one of those interpretations you are most welcome.

If you prefer complexity over simplicity then be my guest, I’ve learned over years of practice that complexity doesn’t lead to release from suffering, in fact it adds more. This is why the Buddha taught the handful of leaves rather than the whole forest. If you think you’re going to get enlightened by trawling the internet and accumulating knowledge I’m pretty sure Googlebot hasn’t achieved it yet so don’t get your hopes up.

This is just untrue. The fact is that whenever this self was conceptual ( and when it was connceptual by WHO was it concepted?)

It was concepted by the conceptee of course, and that conceptee might truly believe he or she is a self distinct and separate from the world around him/her, and 99 out of 100 people agree.

That however doesn’t prove it’s true and doesn’t prove that it’s a wise way to live your life;

Asking WHO is only going to get one further into the world of stories and concepts, instead one should reflect along these lines and in doing so reorient ones perspective away from concepts and stories into bare realities;

What is Christaan?

Where is Christaan?

Where does Christaan start?

Where does Christaan end?

Is Christaan thoughts?

Is Christaan feelings?

Is Christaan body?

Is Christaan a life history?

Is Christaan cells?

Is Christaan Atoms?

Is Christaan actions?

Is Christaan reactions?

[christiaan]

What is Christaan?

Christiaan is a human

Where is Christaan?

living on earth

Where does Christaan start?

since the day of his birth

Where does Christaan end?

till the day he will die

Is Christaan thoughts?

Being a human, on the one side of materila existence, on the other side the manifestation of a spirit, my self is the mediator between the physical existence and the spiritual existence.Within the soul myself lives, and in my soul my thoughts, my feelings, my will lives. They all become a uniques life story.

Is Christaan feelings?

Is Christaan body?

I am a body but I am more then just a body. The body is part of the physical world but gifted with LIFE. Out of my soul I act, react and become aware. My body , as an organic body, has about the same qualities as any other human body.

Is Christaan a life history?

Is Christaan cells?

Is Christaan Atoms?

Is Christaan actions?

Is Christaan reactions?

No difficult questions to answer. Is it in our opinion so that somebody needs to be a Buddhist to make this very complicated?

Brucenkhamen:

It was concepted by the conceptee of course

Christiaan:

This concepee, .....is this concepee a concept or a iving reality?

[Brucenkhamen]

No difficult questions to answer. Is it in our opinion so that somebody needs to be a Buddhist to make this very complicated?

If that's the case then this Zen story is pertinent...

Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.

One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.

The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”

The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”

Ajahn Chah said something along the same lines...

Many of those who came to see me have a high standing in the community. Among them are merchants, college graduates, teachers, and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like a cup of water. If a cup is filled with stale, dirty water, it is useless. Only after the old water has been thrown out can the cup become useful again. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and stupidity. If you think that you are clever, wealthy, important, or an expert in Buddhism, you cover up the truth of non-self - I and mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Those who are too clever will never learn. They must first get rid of their cleverness, first empty their "cup".

If you can't acknowledge that your perception of experience is limited you'll never be able to open your mind to perceive it differently.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[christiaan]

No difficult questions to answer. Is it in our opinion so that somebody needs to be a Buddhist to make this very complicated?

If that's the case then this Zen story is pertinent...

Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.

One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.

The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”

The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”

Ajahn Chah said something along the same lines...

Many of those who came to see me have a high standing in the community. Among them are merchants, college graduates, teachers, and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like a cup of water. If a cup is filled with stale, dirty water, it is useless. Only after the old water has been thrown out can the cup become useful again. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and stupidity. If you think that you are clever, wealthy, important, or an expert in Buddhism, you cover up the truth of non-self - I and mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Those who are too clever will never learn. They must first get rid of their cleverness, first empty their "cup".

If you can't acknowledge that your perception of experience is limited you'll never be able to open your mind to perceive it differently.

If one thinks all perception of experiences are concepts one will always will life within THIS concept.

Well, I, Christiaan, I am no concept. My life is no concept, this earth is no concept, and my life on earth and its history , like it was the case with Buddha, is and was no concept, my feelings are no concepts , my thinking is no concept, the world around me is no concept

They all can be experienced.

And yes the understanding and explanation of all experience is limited but it is to overcome by human activity.

It is to overcome by human activity as science and spiritual science clearly shows.

But to accept some concept about the limitations of understanding all experiences and to tell then all experiences are just concepts, illusions, non-reality, even the conceptee him or herself is no reality (and who can tell the teller him or her self is no reality?) is just another true concept itself, and by many people this is teached to be true Buddhism.

In modern philosophy there are other names connected to the same way of thinking but fortunately this never became some important religion.

So, when awareness meets awareness there is selfawareness and by this one enters the first state of enlightment.

[rockyysdt]

But to accept some concept about the limitations of understanding all experiences and to tell then all experiences are just concepts, illusions, non-reality, even the conceptee him or herself is no reality (and who can tell the teller him or her self is no reality?) is just another true concept itself, and by many people this is teached to be true Buddhism.

In modern philosophy there are other names connected to the same way of thinking but fortunately this never became some important religion.

Christiaan.

Non reality and illusion isn't the correct terminology for it.

Think of it more as relative reality & ultimate reality.

The relative reality is you, your ego, your body, conditioning and impermanence.

The goal is ultimate reality which already exists but we have not conscious of it.

Hence our need to enhance our awareness.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, I, Christiaan, I am no concept. My life is no concept, this earth is no concept, and my life on earth and its history , like it was the case with Buddha, is and was no concept, my feelings are no concepts , my thinking is no concept, the world around me is no concept

They all can be experienced.

Yes you are right they can all be experienced. The choice you have is to either experience the experience or filter the experience through concepts, concepts are important to enable us to use our intelligence, make comparisons and decisions but if we are fooled into thinking that they are direct experience when they are not, then we are fooled.

But to accept some concept about the limitations of understanding all experiences and to tell then all experiences are just concepts, illusions, non-reality, even the conceptee him or herself is no reality (and who can tell the teller him or her self is no reality?) is just another true concept itself, and by many people this is teached to be true Buddhism.

I didn't say that at all. There is reality and we can directly experience it, we can only do this if we realise that the concepts we create about our reality are just an interpretation that can be useful but are often flawed, especially if we have no wisdom.

So, when awareness meets awareness there is selfawareness and by this one enters the first state of enlightment.

Another Christaanism, sounds profound but when I read at it a few times it to try and extract meaning it seems meaningless, what is the "first state of enlightment" who told you such a state exists? What is selfawareness when the practice is to see awareness as not self? Does awareness really meet awareness or does awareness in this moment recognise that is was in operation in the previous moment? These would be useful reflections I think.

[christiaan]

Brucenkhamen:

There is reality and we can directly experience it, we can only do this if we realise that the concepts we create about our reality are just an interpretation that can be useful but are often flawed, especially if we have no wisdom.

Christiaan:

We cannot experience only if realising something like described. We just experience . We can only come to an understanding of our experiences when we realise some of the created thoughts are just concepts. To understand our experiences, beside just experiencing them, we should not filter them through concepts but we should use our faculty of thinking, our abbillity of thinking about our experiences and, even more important, we should think about our thoughts, think about our proces of thinking.

Concepts are not important to enable us to use our intelligence but clear thinking is.

So we should become aware in our thinking from aspects like sympathy or antipathy.

With clear thinking we become aware of the essence of concepts, concepts that are just a part of the reality of the world we live in, and by this thinking step out of combinative thinking build up on concepts.

So when we experience our self as a human, the language we use to describe this might be full of conceptual thinking, the experience itself is not.

Whatever we tell about experiencing ourself as being human, we know by our actual experience we are no tree, we are are no rock in a dessert, we are no fly on the window.

It is true we generally not always know to the full extent what it means to be a human but it is no sign of awareness to tell we are, or the phenomenons are mainly concepts.

It is like telling coffeee is a liquid and cola is a liquid and milk is a liquid and all the differences we experience between those three are just 'concepts of liquid'.

(Where liquid itself ofcourse will be named just a concept of material existence)

We know about reality by intuition, not by concepts.

It is interesting to look at suffering. The main thing I can read about suffering in most publications about Buddhism is that it is telling me people can free themself from suffering. And often it is not just what people can do but there is often a 'tone' that people should do. This way of thinking is a concept.

But we should ask our self questions. What is suffering? What is the essence and meaning of suffering?

On the physical level suffering is the reaction to a dramatic physical event, the experience of suffering is in fact a high physical awareness related to this event, to the specific part of the body. Becos of experiencing this suffering and becoming aware of the cause of this suffering, for example a cut in the skin, by the suffering itself, being concentrated - 'unpleasant' - awareness, we can act to look and ask for a treatment.

On the psychological level, suffering in relation to a divorce, or to a scam, or to a unpleasant situation in our work, this suffering, that is always different for different people, quite individual, this suffering shows and in fact 'force' us to become aware of specific aspects of our personal life where we have a lack of awareness that prevents us to deal with these kind of situations in our life. The meaning of all this suffering is: become aware and act !

And not: run away, avoid, or ignore it. This lack of awareness is part of a personal life and as long as a person not face this, gets his hands on it and go through the experience of it, this lack of awareness to that specific aspect of the life will stay with you as a compagnion of suffering all through your life(s) till you become aware of it and deal with it. It can even wait for a person after a monastric life.

So when awareness meets awareness there is Self awareness and this is the first state of enlightment.

This might be meaningless to some persons but it is the experience and the observation that tells about the trut.

When I experience myself as a member of the physical world, enclosed in a living body, a body I can see, feel, touch, smell, taste, with physical senses, a body I can see in the mirror. When I experience myself as a thinking entity, an entity I can only meet and be aware of with my spiritual senses, my thinking, my intuition, a spiritual existence that is no part of the material world, but part of a spiritual world, these both worlds of my existence are no concepts but actual experiences.

These both worlds meet eachother in my human existence to become one world inside me at the moment my awareness, and by that my Self awareness is a lived experience.

Awareness is the unification of the material world and the spiritual world happening inside the Self- aware activity of an individual human.

No plant, no stone or mineral, no animal on earth can reach this level, this state of existence in this world, only a human can, by its personal inner activity.

That is the first level of enlightment.

The self living in the soul that is living inside a physical body, meeting its higher Self, the I that is completely spiritual that will enter the self more and more in acts of awareness.

[Brucenkhamen]

We cannot experience only if realising something like described. We just experience ....

Far too long, ever heard of the saying "less is more"? Any chance of obliging with a synopsis?

[christiaan]

We cannot experience only if realising something like described. We just experience ....

Far too long, ever heard of the saying "less is more"? Any chance of obliging with a synopsis?

Far too long,? Too much effort asked to read and understand? How easy....

A story about a cup of tea that is spilling over is short enough?

Do you have any idea how much publications there are about Buddhism?

Just go to a bookshop and see how important it has become nowadays to have the expression 'Buddhism' in your booktitle since the KISS people so easily are atracted to trendy streams in superficial life.

Far too long? Far too much?

For a Buddhist who did read all Pali Canon, the Agamas, and the Mahayana sutras, the Visuddhimaga, The Milinda Panha, and the Tibetan gTerma, just to mention some?

We all accept the book about how to work with your newest mobile phone, a booklet probably nobody ever reads completely, but when talking or writing about the essence of human life one needs to be attached to the rule and concept KISS?

And then we are prejudiced to the length of a contribution of the size of an A4. What a concept.

I would say it is maybe possible some people are just too much driven by sympathy and antipathy to have an open mind for the phenomenons in the world.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would say it is maybe possible some people are just too much driven by sympathy and antipathy to have an open mind for the phenomenons in the world.

Oh, I did not realise I was dealing with an authority on the phenomenons of the world. If you can't make all your posts concise and to the point like this one and thereby lose audience what have you achieved?

[lungmi]

from http://glossary.budd...word/4016/panna

paññā: 'understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight', comprises a very wide field. The specific Buddhist knowledge or wisdom, however, as part of the Noble Eightfold Path (magga, q.v.) to deliverance, is insight (vipassanā, q.v.), i.e. that intuitive knowledge which brings about the 4 stages of holiness and the realization of Nibbāna (s. ariyapuggala), and which consists in the penetration of the impermanency (anicca, q.v.), misery (dukkha, s. sacca) and impersonality (anattā) of all forms of existence. Further details, s. under tilakkhaṇa.

With regard to the condition of its arising one distinguishes 3 kinds of knowledge knowledge based on thinking (cintā-mayā-paññā), knowledge based on learning (suta-mayā-paññā), knowledge based on mental development (bhāvanā-mayā-paññā) (D. 33).

" 'Based on thinking' is that knowledge which one has accquired through one's own thinking, without having learnt it from others. 'Based on learning' is that knowledge which one has heard from others and thus acquired through learning. 'Based on mental development' is that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development in this or that way, and which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appanā, q.v.) (Vis.M. XIV).

Wisdom is one of the 5 mental faculties (s. bala), one of the 3 kinds of training (sikkhā, q.v.), and one of the perfections (s. pāramī).

[/quote

The English translation of paññā as "wisdom" is insufficient. The indo/european root fits with "prognosis", the knowledge of what I know a n d I don't know and the way to know as a dialectical process.

[christiaan]

But to accept some concept about the limitations of understanding all experiences and to tell then all experiences are just concepts, illusions, non-reality, even the conceptee him or herself is no reality (and who can tell the teller him or her self is no reality?) is just another true concept itself, and by many people this is teached to be true Buddhism.

In modern philosophy there are other names connected to the same way of thinking but fortunately this never became some important religion.

Christiaan.

Non reality and illusion isn't the correct terminology for it.

Think of it more as relative reality & ultimate reality.

The relative reality is you, your ego, your body, conditioning and impermanence.

The goal is ultimate reality which already exists but we have not conscious of it.

Hence our need to enhance our awareness.

I think I can agree with all you wrote here. It is a good addition.

Thank you.

In the last sentence I would make it:

Hence our (relative) Selfs need to enhance awareness.

But maybe that is what you mean to say also.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think I can agree with all you wrote here. It is a good addition.

Thank you.

And it was clear, concise, and to the point don't you think.

[AYJAYDEE]

true awareness is awareness aware of itself. it is enough

[christiaan]

I would say it is maybe possible some people are just too much driven by sympathy and antipathy to have an open mind for the phenomenons in the world.

Oh, I did not realise I was dealing with an authority on the phenomenons of the world. If you can't make all your posts concise and to the point like this one and thereby lose audience what have you achieved?

People with open minds are no authorities for that reason, but they could become.

What I achieve?

What do you think?

This is a forum about Buddhism and you ask me what I achieve?

I have no sympathy and no antipathy towards Buddhism, not even to all those different interpretations, I only have questions.

And by those questions and observations I achieve: insight

I would think this must not be too difficult to understand for somebody who is into Buddhism for 15 years.

But I noticed the point where you avoided writing about the content and choosed to go over to irrelevant aspects like the length of a contribution and synopsis.

And when my contributions ask to much to you you by their length I see no need to repeat that in a concise way over and over again, you can also choose just not to read and answer them in any way.

[christiaan]

true awareness is awareness aware of itself. it is enough

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

One of those humans was Siddhartha Gauatama.

[Brucenkhamen]

People with open minds are no authorities for that reason, but they could become.

I wasn't talking about people with open minds.

But I noticed the point where you avoided writing about the content and choosed to go over to irrelevant aspects like the length of a contribution and synopsis.

And when my contributions ask to much to you you by their length I see no need to repeat that in a concise way over and over again, you can also choose just not to read and answer them in any way.

It's difficult enough to work out your main points from your shorter discourses, with the longer ones I just get lost and I don't see anyone else queueing up to reply to them.

An internet forum is a conversation, not an opportunity to sermonise. In a conversation if one person says 185 words and the next person replies with 871 words one would think the latter was trying to dominate the conversation not trying to have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

That's exactly what he didn't say. You can twist peoples posts so that they appear to be in line with your agenda but you're only fooling yourself.

Wouldn't it be better to ask him, "did you mean the self is aware"? Or disgaree with him plainly that you don't believe awareness can be aware of itself without a self pulling the strings.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[AYJAYDEE]

the buddha , like you and I , did not possess and enduring soul. we are continuous ever changing processes. when enlightment is achieved, the process ends.

true awareness is awareness aware of itself. it is enough

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

One of those humans was Siddhartha Gauatama.

[AYJAYDEE]

what i was trying to express was done in your "two steps back" post .

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

That's exactly what he didn't say. You can twist peoples posts so that they appear to be in line with your agenda but you're only fooling yourself.

Wouldn't it be better to ask him, "did you mean the self is aware"? Or disgaree with him plainly that you don't believe awareness can be aware of itself without a self pulling the strings.

[AYJAYDEE]

the buddha believed insight could only be achieved by direct seeing. asking questions and getting answers can help us know how to look but it cannot give true insight.

I would say it is maybe possible some people are just too much driven by sympathy and antipathy to have an open mind for the phenomenons in the world.

Oh, I did not realise I was dealing with an authority on the phenomenons of the world. If you can't make all your posts concise and to the point like this one and thereby lose audience what have you achieved?

People with open minds are no authorities for that reason, but they could become.

What I achieve?

What do you think?

This is a forum about Buddhism and you ask me what I achieve?

I have no sympathy and no antipathy towards Buddhism, not even to all those different interpretations, I only have questions.

And by those questions and observations I achieve: insight

I would think this must not be too difficult to understand for somebody who is into Buddhism for 15 years.

But I noticed the point where you avoided writing about the content and choosed to go over to irrelevant aspects like the length of a contribution and synopsis.

And when my contributions ask to much to you you by their length I see no need to repeat that in a concise way over and over again, you can also choose just not to read and answer them in any way.

[AYJAYDEE]

the "poor tone" and "lack of respect" could be very good objects of meditation however

[christiaan]

what i was trying to express was done in your "two steps back" post .

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

That's exactly what he didn't say. You can twist peoples posts so that they appear to be in line with your agenda but you're only fooling yourself.

Wouldn't it be better to ask him, "did you mean the self is aware"? Or disgaree with him plainly that you don't believe awareness can be aware of itself without a self pulling the strings.

I do not twist, i ad my thought to the remark. I did not suggest it was the thought of someone else.

I have bno intention to be in line or not to be in line with anything beside clear thinking

And with regard to spitrituallity that is a point on an agenda

Do not make some xconcept of fooling out of your own projection

[christiaan]

the "poor tone" and "lack of respect" could be very good objects of meditation however

That could be right. But it could also be just an object of clear thinking.

To question our self what is a 'poor tone' and 'lack of respect', when we decide to use these concepts and why.

And...realising/observing criminal bosses use this as an excuse to kill their 'workers' and governments to put their opponents in prison.

Clear and free thinking can also be a good object of meditation.

[Brucenkhamen]

I do not twist, i ad my thought to the remark. I did not suggest it was the thought of someone else.

I think it was pretty clear he was talking about a self-less process of awareness being aware of awareness, the term self was intentionally left out, as it was in Rocky's and my posts previously which you did the same to. Your thoughts added made it the opposite of what was intended, that's twisting in my book.

So if you have definitive proof that there cannot be a process of awareness without a self or soul to operate it lets hear it, otherwise lets get back to the subject of Buddhist practice.

[Brucenkhamen]

And...realising/observing criminal bosses use this as an excuse to kill their 'workers' and governments to put their opponents in prison.

What does this have to do with the topic?

Clear and free thinking can also be a good object of meditation.

What meditation technique is this?

Clear and free thinking is good and useful as long as one realises that it is just thinking, thinking is conceptual and limited and can easily turn to wrong thinking without us noticing, it is not a guide we can rely on.

[christiaan]

the buddha , like you and I , did not possess and enduring soul. we are continuous ever changing processes. when enlightment is achieved, the process ends.

true awareness is awareness aware of itself. it is enough

Yes, you are right and within this awareness the self is aware this awareness of awareness is taking place on earth inside human selfs living in the souls inside their physical body.

One of those humans was Siddhartha Gauatama.

The Buddha, like you and me, had no enduring soul. So in his former lifes Buddha was not Buddha yet and he was not known by the name Siddhartha Gautama. The soul as we have in a specific life is the 'mediator' for that specific life between our existence in the material world and our existence , our I, of the spiritual world.

This soul dissolves at the end of the life.

The material dissolves to pure matter again.

And we are with our awareness in our I in the spiritual world.

The life not ends when enlightment is achieved, the ever continueing proces of rebirth, reincarnation, being a human again, with other characteristics and so another selfactivity and so another soul, ends when a specific level of enlightment has been reached.

But it depends also how we define enlightment.

When we define enlightment as the state of not be born again then it is correct, when we see enlightment so as a continueing proces of entering deeper and deeper into the spiritual realities, the world of the living ideas, then it is not correct.

That is my opinion.

[christiaan]

christiaan, on 2010-12-13 13:42, said:

And...realising/observing criminal bosses use this as an excuse to kill their 'workers' and governments to put their opponents in prison.

Brucenkhamen: What does this have to do with the topic?

It was a reaction to the remark made by someone else before about poor voice and respect and you are right this directly was not related to the original topic.