Awareness Is Not Enough!

[christiaan]

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

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

Brucenkhamen:

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:

I could tell you what meditation technique this is, but since the answer would cover certainly a lot more as 1 A4 I respect in this case your antipathy towards long contributions.

On the other hand, whe you would realy like to know you would surely find the answer by your own efforts.

When you write what clear and free thinking is in your opinion you have to realise in your own words this is a concept too and so it could be wrong thinking as you write.

How do you know for sure what you write?.

I have another opinion as you have, and i would say here we can look at the so beloved KISS principle: when we know our thoughts could be wrong thinking because of handling concepts: Be(come) aware when you do so and the problem is solved

Then, to my experience and awareness , not all thinking are concepts, so when working to become enlighted, I direct myself to those idea's .

[christiaan]

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.

Christiaan:

I know he was talking as he was talking and I know I was talking as I was talking, and you know I was talking as I was talking, so what is the problem?

That I agree this could be right,..........when realising there cannot be awareness without - first being - selfaware(ness) ?

Siddhartha Gautama was not born enlighted, no human ever was born enlighted. There are no enlighted babies teaching followers, there are no enlighted children teaching followers.

I know of only one child teaching on a high level, but that is not the subject overhere.

All people that became enlighted, true or not, became enlighted after they before developed an aware self or self awareness.

There is nobody sudenly waking up in Thailand in an ochre robe discovering he became a monk without knowing how he ever came into this situation.

Only after we have reached selfawareness it might be possible to enter a state of pure awareness by excluding the self by the activity of the self.

[Brucenkhamen]

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.

So to you "poor voice and respect" is the equivilent to "criminal bosses use this as an excuse to kill their 'workers' and governments to put their opponents in prison"? I find that strange.

[Brucenkhamen]

I could tell you what meditation technique this is, but since the answer would cover certainly a lot more as 1 A4 I respect in this case your antipathy towards long contributions.

No need to feel you must do a full thesis on the subject, just the name of a technique that I might know so that I can get an idea of what you mean by clear thinking being a good object of meditation.

When you write what clear and free thinking is in your opinion you have to realise in your own words this is a concept too and so it could be wrong thinking as you write.

How do you know for sure what you write?.

I don't, what I know is a work in process, it's subject to the same laws of anicca, dukkha, anatta, it's subject to the same process of describing our world through concepts. As Ajahn Chah says one should always have a mai nair (not sure) mind. Having that view one can always be open to build new understanding on top of old understanding, however that doesn't mean one should expect to pull down all of ones understanding and start again, nor does it mean one can't debate issues with vigour.

I have another opinion as you have, and i would say here we can look at the so beloved KISS principle: when we know our thoughts could be wrong thinking because of handling concepts Be(come) aware when you do so and the problem is solved

Beloved by whom? You're the one that keeps mentioning the KISS principle. Yes I think you are right one has to become aware before one can become aware of wrong thinking. To be properly aware of thinking though one needs to first develop the ability to see it objectively, it's not me not mine it's just thought arising and passing away, with that objectivity one can then have the freedom to uproot wrong thinking.

[/i][/size]Then, to my experience and awareness , not all thinking are concepts, so when working to become enlighted, I direct myself to those idea's .

Can you give an example of thought without concepts?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

All people that became enlighted, true or not, became enlighted after they before developed an aware self or self awareness.

It depends on what you mean by "self awareness", if you are just using the term on a relative conceptual level or in the vernacular then it's not much of a problem, if you mean there is an actual distinct and seperate self that becomes aware then that's not a Buddhist view, you might be more comfortable on a Hindu forum.

Only after we have reached selfawareness it might be possible to enter a state of pure awareness by excluding the self by the activity of the self.

Sounds profound on first reading but after several readings trying to work out what it really means sounds like nonsense to me.

The Buddha, and contemporary Buddhist teachers, seem to be able to express this much more clearly than the above, overuse of the word "self" just muddies the waters from my point of view. Having said that you could well be talking about exactly the same thing for all I know.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[AYJAYDEE]

im getting the feeling that christian is here for debate for the sake of debate. it is beginning to smack of passive agressive, and probably not in my interests to abet. i am trying to find ways to ahieve and maintain mindfulness in every day life and reduce the amount of intellectual excercise i have been used to.

All people that became enlighted, true or not, became enlighted after they before developed an aware self or self awareness.

It depends on what you mean by "self awareness", if you are just using the term on a relative conceptual level or in the vernacular then it's not much of a problem, if you mean there is an actual distinct and seperate self that becomes aware then that's not a Buddhist view, you might be more comfortable on a Hindu forum.

Only after we have reached selfawareness it might be possible to enter a state of pure awareness by excluding the self by the activity of the self.

Sounds profound on first reading but after several readings trying to work out what it really means sounds like nonsense to me.

The Buddha, and contemporary Buddhist teachers, seem to be able to express this much more clearly than the above, overuse of the word "self" just muddies the waters from my point of view. Having said that you could well be talking about exactly the same thing for all I know.

[AYJAYDEE]

i dont think thre is a need for a link between our material world and our spiritual world. the 5 aggregates encompass all our "worlds"

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.

So to you "poor voice and respect" is the equivilent to "criminal bosses use this as an excuse to kill their 'workers' and governments to put their opponents in prison"? I find that strange.

After we have become aware why I answered to this non Topic contribution I can tell you I just made some effort by my remark ' poor voice and respect' are just concepts when used in the way it was done.

[christiaan]

I do not give a name for the meditation technique becos especially names are aproached as being labels, but that is not the most important, I will now not meet the desire to shorten the description of the technique by a name.

As I wrote, when you realy want to know, you will learn to know.

I am, not the "one" that keeps mentioning the KIS principle, I am one of the people who does. I became aware some people love the KIS principle as an argument in dialogue when its suitable to them. By this KIS turned out to be a subjective concept.

All becoming aware is a personal lived inside individual becoming aware, as I wrote it is not your neighbour becoming aware for you when you do, nor your teacher, nor your boowriter, it is you.

This inside personal activity in being and becoming aware is taking place in a individual soul, living in an individual body, and this is called a self. -- This process is inspirated by the spirituality of the I being our true essence--- On earth this is the situation by wich we are separated from the world around us and by awarenes we can overcome this situation. The The whole proces described here before is the process of lifting up the dualism of the world we live in. We do this continously being aware we do, since we are part of the proces.

We make dualisme disapear by our awareness and at the end the whole creation of the world will be spiritual again continueing moving on into the next phase of development.

All direct experiences are part of reality and suitable for meditation and all non subjective ideas are.

By this the proces of a plant growing is the manifestation of a living idea - the idea "plant" - into the material existence, and we can become aware of this idea in meditation and practice by our intuition, the "gate", the human facuilty, by wich pure thoughts can enter our individual mind in self activity.

[christiaan]

i dont think thre is a need for a link between our material world and our spiritual world. the 5 aggregates encompass all our "worlds"

Christiaan : Everyone is free to think as he or she likes to think.

[christiaan]

im getting the feeling that christian is here for debate for the sake of debate. it is beginning to smack of passive agressive, and probably not in my interests to abet. i am trying to find ways to ahieve and maintain mindfulness in every day life and reduce the amount of intellectual excercise i have been used to.

All people that became enlighted, true or not, became enlighted after they before developed an aware self or self awareness.

It depends on what you mean by "self awareness", if you are just using the term on a relative conceptual level or in the vernacular then it's not much of a problem, if you mean there is an actual distinct and seperate self that becomes aware then that's not a Buddhist view, you might be more comfortable on a Hindu forum.

Only after we have reached selfawareness it might be possible to enter a state of pure awareness by excluding the self by the activity of the self.

Sounds profound on first reading but after several readings trying to work out what it really means sounds like nonsense to me.

The Buddha, and contemporary Buddhist teachers, seem to be able to express this much more clearly than the above, overuse of the word "self" just muddies the waters from my point of view. Having said that you could well be talking about exactly the same thing for all I know.

As we all, you are free to have your concepts and feelings,

As I wrote before, answering a question of Brucenkhamen I am here achieving more 'light' with regard to the subjects handled in the discussions.

[christiaan]

All people that became enlighted, true or not, became enlighted after they before developed an aware self or self awareness.

It depends on what you mean by "self awareness", if you are just using the term on a relative conceptual level or in the vernacular then it's not much of a problem, if you mean there is an actual distinct and seperate self that becomes aware then that's not a Buddhist view, you might be more comfortable on a Hindu forum.

Only after we have reached selfawareness it might be possible to enter a state of pure awareness by excluding the self by the activity of the self.

Sounds profound on first reading but after several readings trying to work out what it really means sounds like nonsense to me.

The Buddha, and contemporary Buddhist teachers, seem to be able to express this much more clearly than the above, overuse of the word "self" just muddies the waters from my point of view. Having said that you could well be talking about exactly the same thing for all I know.

When this forum is meant to be the home for the sympathizers, the fans of Buddhism, I would be on the wrong forum since I do not sympatise or have anthipathy towards Buddhism.

When this forum is meant to write about Buddhism in general, from all kind of points of view, as I thought it is, I am feeling fine here.

The overuse of the word self is what I met in many publications out of and about Buddhism, and is very important when looking at being a Monk.

The Self, the awareness of the Self, the activity of the Self is very very important to reach enlightment, and every person in every situation in the world can reach enlightment by the activity of the self.

And at the moment we are in pure awareness with awareness we still are and should be aware of our Self.

As I wrote before , we are part of awareness, the Self is part of awareness.

(How do you know I would be or not be writing on a Hindu forum?)

[lungmi]

When this forum is meant to be the home for the sympathizers, the fans of Buddhism, I would be on the wrong forum since I do not sympatise or have anthipathy towards Buddhism.

When this forum is meant to write about Buddhism in general, from all kind of points of view, as I thought it is, I am feeling fine here.

The overuse of the word self is what I met in many publications out of and about Buddhism, and is very important when looking at being a Monk.

The Self, the awareness of the Self, the activity of the Self is very very important to reach enlightment, and every person in every situation in the world can reach enlightment by the activity of the self.

And at the moment we are in pure awareness with awareness we still are and should be aware of our Self.

As I wrote before , we are part of awareness, the Self is part of awareness.

(How do you know I would be or not be writing on a Hindu forum?)

You cannot be aware of your Self, because there is no Self no Soul. It's your delusion to be attached to this notions. Check out these links (English an German) - Avoiding the void/Das Vermeiden der Leere

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy8.htm

www.mb-schiekel.de/loy8d.pdf

[Brucenkhamen]

I do not give a name for the meditation technique becos especially names are aproached as being labels, but that is not the most important, I will now not meet the desire to shorten the description of the technique by a name.

As I wrote, when you realy want to know, you will learn to know.

If you make a statement without the ability or willingness to back it up you’ve effectively made a meaningless statement.

I am, not the "one" that keeps mentioning the KIS principle, I am one of the people who does. I became aware some people love the KIS principle as an argument in dialogue when its suitable to them. By this KIS turned out to be a subjective concept.

Give me an example of where someone else but you used the phrase KIS or KISS principle.

Maybe I understand the term differently but to me the phrase KISS principle belittles what I’ve said regarding the handful of leaves etc, it implies the dumbing down rather than the focussing on what is important.

This inside personal activity in being and becoming aware is taking place in a individual soul, living in an individual body, and this is called a self. This process is inspirated by the spirituality of the I being our true essence---

This is not Buddhism, if you want to come on a Buddhist board and argue against pretty standard Buddhist teachings you’d better have proof.

I wouldn’t go on a Christian forum and tell them that Jesus never died on the cross, I wouldn’t go on a Yoga forum and tell them there is no Atman. For two reasons; because I value my time, and because it’s rude.

On earth this is the situation by wich we are separated from the world around us and by awarenes we can overcome this situation. The The whole proces described here before is the process of lifting up the dualism of the world we live in. We do this continously being aware we do, since we are part of the proces.

We make dualisme disapear by our awareness and at the end the whole creation of the world will be spiritual again continueing moving on into the next phase of development.

All direct experiences are part of reality and suitable for meditation and all non subjective ideas are.

By this the proces of a plant growing is the manifestation of a living idea - the idea "plant" - into the material existence, and we can become aware of this idea in meditation and practice by our intuition, the "gate", the human facuilty, by wich pure thoughts can enter our individual mind in self activity.

This is your opinion.

I think you need to be able to point to where this is taught in Buddhism or how you learned this through Buddhist practice, or go and peddle your wares elsewhere.

[Brucenkhamen]

When this forum is meant to be the home for the sympathizers, the fans of Buddhism, I would be on the wrong forum since I do not sympatise or have anthipathy towards Buddhism.

This forum is Thaivisa and about Buddhism in Thailand, so I think from Thaivisa point of view there are really two target audiences; people who are confused about their Thai girlfriends Buddhist beliefs (so spirit houses and string bracelets etc), and people who want advice on which Wats to go to do meditation retreats or ordain.

On top of that luckily the moderators and some of the posters are practice oriented and interested in discussing the Buddhas teaching.

I don’t think it was ever intended to be a comparative religion forum, though some comparison is inevitable.

If you come on here and say “I do not sympatise or have anthipathy towards Buddhism” then I question why you are here at all. I have no sympathy or have antipathy towards macramé but I wouldn’t waste my time on a macramé forum.

The overuse of the word self is what I met in many publications out of and about Buddhism, and is very important when looking at being a Monk.

Please give an example of a Buddhist publication that overuses the word self, and explain why the word self is very important when looking at being a Monk.

The Self, the awareness of the Self, the activity of the Self is very very important to reach enlightment, and every person in every situation in the world can reach enlightment by the activity of the self.

It’s been explained before many times that this is not the Buddhas teaching, Buddhist practice is to see all experience in terms of it being not self.

(How do you know I would be or not be writing on a Hindu forum?)

I don’t, but if you do you’ll likely be more at home.

[christiaan]

This forum is Thaivisa and about Buddhism in Thailand, so I think from Thaivisa point of view there are really two target audiences; people who are confused about their Thai girlfriends Buddhist beliefs (so spirit houses and string bracelets etc), and people who want advice on which Wats to go to do meditation retreats or ordain.

On top of that luckily the moderators and some of the posters are practice oriented and interested in discussing the Buddhas teaching.

I don't think it was ever intended to be a comparative religion forum, though some comparison is inevitable.

If you come on here and say "I do not sympatise or have anthipathy towards Buddhism" then I question why you are here at all. I have no sympathy or have antipathy towards macramé but I wouldn't waste my time on a macramé forum.

I have to understand this means you only think it is worth to spend your time when your feelings of antipathy or sympathy are involved? That maybe could explain a lot of your contributions as I read.

*

Please give an example of a Buddhist publication that overuses the word self, and explain why the word self is very important when looking at being a Monk.

*

It's been explained before many times that this is not the Buddhas teaching, Buddhist practice is to see all experience in terms of it being not self.

(How do you know I would be or not be writing on a Hindu forum?)

I don't, but if you do you'll likely be more at home.

It is obvious you have not much of an idea of how much I learn about the thinking out of interpretations of Buddhism as I meet here on this forum.

It is all very enlightening and maybe I should thank you, no, not maybe, I should thank you for 'wasting your time' - as you seem to put it - in reacting to my contributions.

I can understand you project your likes and dislikes, your concepts ,opinions and feelings the way you do, I am not unfamiliar with that, but it doesn't mean your projections are telling much about me, my thinking and my feelings.

But it is not all clear to me why you spend so much time to my contributions, what do you want to achieve by that?

Further on, I would not spend my time on macrame either, allthough it sure is very interesting, and I am covinced I would learn the most if I would keep my feelings of antipathy and sympathy, being expressions of the ego, out of the practice when trying to become aware of the essence of a craft like macrame.

Then, I am not realy into comparative religion allthough it is, as you wrote, something that is inevatible but I am more into questioning the phenomenons that I meet in life, it seems I have to repeat that all the time overhere.

It is all very interesting and enlightening overhere, especially the parts where people can not do more as referring to what Buddha teached.

That is , as far as I understand, the point where, as Trevor Ling tells , philosophy turns into becoming a religion

I understand you like to have answers to the questions you put, but I notice there is often a kind of silence when I put some important questions and remarks, by wich the statements I read before loose their meaning, so I hope you excuse me for not going into some of your questions.

I also have to take care my time and I have to be aware long contributions are not apreciated overhere.

[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.

Hello Rocky

I agree the non reality and illusion is not the correct terminology so that is why I 'protest' when someone suggest this with regard to life on earth by telling this is only a framework of concepts of the mind.

And yes, reality is relative, but it is the reality we have to deal with, living in this reality on earth.

It was within this relative reality that Siddhartha Gautama , after several lifes before in this relative reality, did become the Buddha.

So being a relative real part in the relative real world has a meaning and is not just a concept or some kind of illusion.

We can become aware, on earth, living within this relative reality, of this relative reality, and with awareness work out of the self inside our self to reach the ultimate continious in evolvement moving 'ultimate' reality.

We can as humans, cos we are gifted with the faculty of -self- wawareness.

And yes, to reach the ultimate reality, the reality of the spiritual world, the truth, we - with our selfs - have to enhance our awareness, and we can.

Anybody can do so in his or her situation, a housewife, a plumber, a doctor, a monk, a nurse , and so on.

These are just my thoughts to your contribution, I hope you understand I had no intention to twist your contribution in any way

[cardholder]

i think members are finding christiaan's ramblings as tiresome on Thai Visa as they were on another provincial forum not far from Surin.

[Brucenkhamen]

I have to understand this means you only think it is worth to spend your time when your feelings of antipathy or sympathy are involved? That maybe could explain a lot of your contributions as I read.

It is obvious you have not much of an idea of how much I learn about the thinking out of interpretations of Buddhism as I meet here on this forum.

It is all very enlightening and maybe I should thank you, no, not maybe, I should thank you for 'wasting your time' - as you seem to put it - in reacting to my contributions.

You introduced the phrase antipathy or sympathy, I dont think or talk like that, so I can only make assumptions about your meaning. Like all normal humans however my time is finite, so I have to choose where I spend it, this is determined by combination of things.

As I mentioned before evidence of learning would involve change in the nature of questions asked or observations made, if the same things come up again and again thats evidence of learning not happening.

I can understand you project your likes and dislikes, your concepts ,opinions and feelings the way you do, I am not unfamiliar with that, but it doesn't mean your projections are telling much about me, my thinking and my feelings.

But it is not all clear to me why you spend so much time to my contributions, what do you want to achieve by that?

My likes and dislikes and feelings having nothing to do with the discussion, however the concepts and opinions we use do.

My projections are not telling you anything about you, how could they Ive never met you? however they are telling about how your approach on this board is perceived.

This is not a blog where you are free to sermonise the teachings of Christaan, this is a Buddhist discussion board, so if your posts make no sense from a Buddhist perspective expect this to be pointed out if not by me then someone else.

Now if you could explain how your views have roots in Buddhist practice or theory then that would be interesting.

So the question is why are you here. If you really wanted to learn about Buddhism then this board is smalltime, there are several Buddhist boards that have thousands of members and hundreds of posts a day, many much more learned that you'll find here, why not choose one of them? The only answer I can think of is it would be harder to turn them into a blog of the teachings of Christaan.

I am covinced I would learn the most if I would keep my feelings of antipathy and sympathy, being expressions of the ego, out of the practice when trying to become aware of the essence of a craft like macrame.

Correct, this is the Buddhist approach.

I understand you like to have answers to the questions you put, but I notice there is often a kind of silence when I put some important questions and remarks, by wich the statements I read before loose their meaning, so I hope you excuse me for not going into some of your questions.

Thats often because I find the questions ambiguous and am unsure as to what you are asking, or I may think it unimportant. I realise that English is not your first language and something may have been lost in translation so you are welcome to repeat the question if it is important.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

I agree the non reality and illusion is not the correct terminology so that is why I 'protest' when someone suggest this with regard to life on earth by telling this is only a framework of concepts of the mind.

Who has been using the terms “non reality” and “illusion”?

And yes, reality is relative, but it is the reality we have to deal with, living in this reality on earth.

It was within this relative reality that Siddhartha Gautama , after several lifes before in this relative reality, did become the Buddha.

So being a relative real part in the relative real world has a meaning and is not just a concept or some kind of illusion.

Reading this I’m not sure you understand the meaning of terms that we use, so I think best to give a couple of examples.

Is Thailand ultimate reality or relative/conceptual reality for example? Animals ignore it’s borders, as does the weather, and rivers, a tree on one side of the border doesn’t have more “Thainess” than a tree on the other side of the border. So Thailand is a relative/conceptual reality that only applies to humans.

If a Thai person says it’s cold he might mean it’s 25 degrees, if a Swedish person says it’s cold he might mean it’s 5 degrees. So hot and cold is a relative/conceptual reality. Even a thermometer though it’s measurement of temperature is objective it’s doing so with a conceptual unit of measure.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience that habitually understand as my “self”.

So the idea is to use those concepts where appropriate but realising that they are just an interpretation of our experience, in realising that we don’t get attached to the concepts, without attachments to concepts our mind is open to clearer understanding, we might call this an understanding of ultimate reality.

We can learn to experience our experience directly without filtering it through a conceptual framework which is based on subjective interpretation.

[AYJAYDEE]

it seems to me that two different concepts of "self" are being interchanged in this thread. anatta , as i understand it, is the abscence of a permanent , enduring, unchanging essence. christian seems to be referring to the ever changing , non permaent personality which is a "relative self". hence the divergences. perhaps if we used the term anatta??

I agree the non reality and illusion is not the correct terminology so that is why I 'protest' when someone suggest this with regard to life on earth by telling this is only a framework of concepts of the mind.

Who has been using the terms "non reality" and "illusion"?

And yes, reality is relative, but it is the reality we have to deal with, living in this reality on earth.

It was within this relative reality that Siddhartha Gautama , after several lifes before in this relative reality, did become the Buddha.

So being a relative real part in the relative real world has a meaning and is not just a concept or some kind of illusion.

Reading this I'm not sure you understand the meaning of terms that we use, so I think best to give a couple of examples.

Is Thailand ultimate reality or relative/conceptual reality for example? Animals ignore it's borders, as does the weather, and rivers, a tree on one side of the border doesn't have more "Thainess" than a tree on the other side of the border. So Thailand is a relative/conceptual reality that only applies to humans.

If a Thai person says it's cold he might mean it's 25 degrees, if a Swedish person says it's cold he might mean it's 5 degrees. So hot and cold is a relative/conceptual reality. Even a thermometer though it's measurement of temperature is objective it's doing so with a conceptual unit of measure.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience that habitually understand as my "self".

So the idea is to use those concepts where appropriate but realising that they are just an interpretation of our experience, in realising that we don't get attached to the concepts, without attachments to concepts our mind is open to clearer understanding, we might call this an understanding of ultimate reality.

We can learn to experience our experience directly without filtering it through a conceptual framework which is based on subjective interpretation.

[christiaan]

I agree the non reality and illusion is not the correct terminology so that is why I 'protest' when someone suggest this with regard to life on earth by telling this is only a framework of concepts of the mind.

Who has been using the terms "non reality" and "illusion"?

And yes, reality is relative, but it is the reality we have to deal with, living in this reality on earth.

It was within this relative reality that Siddhartha Gautama , after several lifes before in this relative reality, did become the Buddha.

So being a relative real part in the relative real world has a meaning and is not just a concept or some kind of illusion.

Reading this I'm not sure you understand the meaning of terms that we use, so I think best to give a couple of examples.

Is Thailand ultimate reality or relative/conceptual reality for example? Animals ignore it's borders, as does the weather, and rivers, a tree on one side of the border doesn't have more "Thainess" than a tree on the other side of the border. So Thailand is a relative/conceptual reality that only applies to humans.

If a Thai person says it's cold he might mean it's 25 degrees, if a Swedish person says it's cold he might mean it's 5 degrees. So hot and cold is a relative/conceptual reality. Even a thermometer though it's measurement of temperature is objective it's doing so with a conceptual unit of measure.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience that habitually understand as my "self".

So the idea is to use those concepts where appropriate but realising that they are just an interpretation of our experience, in realising that we don't get attached to the concepts, without attachments to concepts our mind is open to clearer understanding, we might call this an understanding of ultimate reality.

We can learn to experience our experience directly without filtering it through a conceptual framework which is based on subjective interpretation.

It might be possible to made things more clear by this way, but to some people this might be too long.

Thailand is a reality. Thailand is an experience in many ways, There is the country Thailand, (wich we could compare to the body of a human) There is the culture of Thailand, containing the Thai politics, Thai traditions, the Thai government, the Thai economy, the Thai Army, (wich we could all call the life, the soul of Thailand) There is a Thai King ( wich people could call the I of Thailand)

Thailand is relative, not permanent, it will change in time, it might even be possible to dissapear in some way somewhere in future.

But at this moment Thailand is what it is, actual reality and this actual reality does not change when animals cross its borders.

The actual reality is that when one would chop a tree inside Thailand it would be a Thai tree, just like when you would chop a tree in the garden of your neighbour it will be the tree of your neighbour, your neighbours tree.

The fact that we do make concepts about this, the fact that we try to define reality by concepts does not change this....it is all to be experienced.

All the concepts about Thailand are just excersises of the mind to grasp or define the reality of the experience of Thailand.

At the best one could say concepts are attempts to reach the pure reality of an experienced phenomenon.

At the worst one could say concepts are attempts to define the reality of phenomenons.

So it are not the concepts itself that tell about the quality of concepts but the intention by wich they are handled.

Cold and heat also are experiences, the fact that a Thai defines and handles cold different as a Westerner does not change this experience.

The definition of cold and heat are thoughts in the mind of humans, nobody would mistake the experience of cold and heat in an actual experience and clear observing. Nobody would walk out of his house in swimming clothes when its freezing outside, nobody would put on a thick fur coat to have holliday in Thailand.

The unit of measure on a thermometer is the manifestation of the conceptual thought about measurement of humans, but it does not change ,nor has any influence on the actual happening and experience of the movement of the mercury in the mercurythermometer

The thermometer itself is just the human expression of an attempt to contain the reality of a phenomenon, in this case the phenomenon of temperature variation.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience the self.

The self is experience also, as I wrote in several contributions before.

Thoughts about the self are concepts, the self itself is actual reality.

Every healthy human knows the difference in experiencing the self of him or her Self and the experience of any other Self.

That is why a human can only say I with regard to its own Self and never to someone else, while we can say you to every other person.

The fact that the realities are moving realities does not change anything about reality, the movement , the changing of reality can be experienced and concepts are made in the mind to attempt to understand this experience.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to Buddha and Buddhism.

Some people could say Buddha cannot be experienced - in real life anymore - , Buddha died more then 2000 years ago.

Buddhism can be experienced, and as described in this forum, it has many variations.

People could say since Buddha himself cannot be experienced anymore all that is left are concepts.

Concepts about teachings, concepts about original teaching and added teachings, concepts being interpretations, concepts about Buddhism, concepts about being a monk, being lay and so on.

What I often see is that Buddhism, especially with western people, nowadays has become an abstraction of reality.

Buddhism nowadays very often seem to be just another concept itself, an abstract concept.

It is the general way of western thinking nowadays..

Reality by those people is often explained as being just concepts. Some people even write the realities we deal with are only projections, merely projections of mind, nothing more.

But concepts are thoughts related to, born out of the -unaware intuitive - experience of reality, and the experience of reality is self experience, is experiencing done by your self, whether this is done by your material senses or spiritual senses.

It is by growing awareness that 'concepts' can become increasingly similar with the ultimate reality and at the end will disapear in a direct awareness of ultimate reality.

Sometimes I think the dwelling in the interpretation of Buddhism as being an abstraction of reality could even be a spiritual drug for people who cannot coop with the challenges of daily life.

Any drug is related to escaping reality, escaping the experience of the Self.

In the west I sometimes notice Buddhism can be commercialised, one can make a living out of it looking at the amount of money asked for teachings in/about Buddhism,

Without a self there cannot be awareness, without a self we cannot even recall an experience, not even describe an experience with awareness..

It is by the actual activity of the Self - not of the concept Self - we can enter a state where we can become one with the experienced reality, by holding back our self actively, then the creation, the world of phenomenons might 'talk' to us, and we are listening like we are reading a book, being aware we are the one reading that book.

[Brucenkhamen]

It might be possible to made things more clear by this way, but to some people this might be too long.

Yes

[AYJAYDEE]

the 'self" referred to in the buddhist tradition is an enduring, permanent unchanging entity which they believe does not exist. the self you are referring to is something entirely different. In a forum on buddhism, it would be helpful to use a different label. perhaps personality or some other word? this would eliminate confusion.

I agree the non reality and illusion is not the correct terminology so that is why I 'protest' when someone suggest this with regard to life on earth by telling this is only a framework of concepts of the mind.

Who has been using the terms "non reality" and "illusion"?

And yes, reality is relative, but it is the reality we have to deal with, living in this reality on earth.

It was within this relative reality that Siddhartha Gautama , after several lifes before in this relative reality, did become the Buddha.

So being a relative real part in the relative real world has a meaning and is not just a concept or some kind of illusion.

Reading this I'm not sure you understand the meaning of terms that we use, so I think best to give a couple of examples.

Is Thailand ultimate reality or relative/conceptual reality for example? Animals ignore it's borders, as does the weather, and rivers, a tree on one side of the border doesn't have more "Thainess" than a tree on the other side of the border. So Thailand is a relative/conceptual reality that only applies to humans.

If a Thai person says it's cold he might mean it's 25 degrees, if a Swedish person says it's cold he might mean it's 5 degrees. So hot and cold is a relative/conceptual reality. Even a thermometer though it's measurement of temperature is objective it's doing so with a conceptual unit of measure.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience that habitually understand as my "self".

So the idea is to use those concepts where appropriate but realising that they are just an interpretation of our experience, in realising that we don't get attached to the concepts, without attachments to concepts our mind is open to clearer understanding, we might call this an understanding of ultimate reality.

We can learn to experience our experience directly without filtering it through a conceptual framework which is based on subjective interpretation.

It might be possible to made things more clear by this way, but to some people this might be too long.

Thailand is a reality. Thailand is an experience in many ways, There is the country Thailand, (wich we could compare to the body of a human) There is the culture of Thailand, containing the Thai politics, Thai traditions, the Thai government, the Thai economy, the Thai Army, (wich we could all call the life, the soul of Thailand) There is a Thai King ( wich people could call the I of Thailand)

Thailand is relative, not permanent, it will change in time, it might even be possible to dissapear in some way somewhere in future.

But at this moment Thailand is what it is, actual reality and this actual reality does not change when animals cross its borders.

The actual reality is that when one would chop a tree inside Thailand it would be a Thai tree, just like when you would chop a tree in the garden of your neighbour it will be the tree of your neighbour, your neighbours tree.

The fact that we do make concepts about this, the fact that we try to define reality by concepts does not change this....it is all to be experienced.

All the concepts about Thailand are just excersises of the mind to grasp or define the reality of the experience of Thailand.

At the best one could say concepts are attempts to reach the pure reality of an experienced phenomenon.

At the worst one could say concepts are attempts to define the reality of phenomenons.

So it are not the concepts itself that tell about the quality of concepts but the intention by wich they are handled.

Cold and heat also are experiences, the fact that a Thai defines and handles cold different as a Westerner does not change this experience.

The definition of cold and heat are thoughts in the mind of humans, nobody would mistake the experience of cold and heat in an actual experience and clear observing. Nobody would walk out of his house in swimming clothes when its freezing outside, nobody would put on a thick fur coat to have holliday in Thailand.

The unit of measure on a thermometer is the manifestation of the conceptual thought about measurement of humans, but it does not change ,nor has any influence on the actual happening and experience of the movement of the mercury in the mercurythermometer

The thermometer itself is just the human expression of an attempt to contain the reality of a phenomenon, in this case the phenomenon of temperature variation.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to experience the self.

The self is experience also, as I wrote in several contributions before.

Thoughts about the self are concepts, the self itself is actual reality.

Every healthy human knows the difference in experiencing the self of him or her Self and the experience of any other Self.

That is why a human can only say I with regard to its own Self and never to someone else, while we can say you to every other person.

The fact that the realities are moving realities does not change anything about reality, the movement , the changing of reality can be experienced and concepts are made in the mind to attempt to understand this experience.

Where it gets interesting is that the same kind of scrutiny can be applied to Buddha and Buddhism.

Some people could say Buddha cannot be experienced - in real life anymore - , Buddha died more then 2000 years ago.

Buddhism can be experienced, and as described in this forum, it has many variations.

People could say since Buddha himself cannot be experienced anymore all that is left are concepts.

Concepts about teachings, concepts about original teaching and added teachings, concepts being interpretations, concepts about Buddhism, concepts about being a monk, being lay and so on.

What I often see is that Buddhism, especially with western people, nowadays has become an abstraction of reality.

Buddhism nowadays very often seem to be just another concept itself, an abstract concept.

It is the general way of western thinking nowadays..

Reality by those people is often explained as being just concepts. Some people even write the realities we deal with are only projections, merely projections of mind, nothing more.

But concepts are thoughts related to, born out of the -unaware intuitive - experience of reality, and the experience of reality is self experience, is experiencing done by your self, whether this is done by your material senses or spiritual senses.

It is by growing awareness that 'concepts' can become increasingly similar with the ultimate reality and at the end will disapear in a direct awareness of ultimate reality.

Sometimes I think the dwelling in the interpretation of Buddhism as being an abstraction of reality could even be a spiritual drug for people who cannot coop with the challenges of daily life.

Any drug is related to escaping reality, escaping the experience of the Self.

In the west I sometimes notice Buddhism can be commercialised, one can make a living out of it looking at the amount of money asked for teachings in/about Buddhism,

Without a self there cannot be awareness, without a self we cannot even recall an experience, not even describe an experience with awareness..

It is by the actual activity of the Self - not of the concept Self - we can enter a state where we can become one with the experienced reality, by holding back our self actively, then the creation, the world of phenomenons might 'talk' to us, and we are listening like we are reading a book, being aware we are the one reading that book.

[lungmi]

Gestaltheoretical Psychology defines "Me" or "Self" as I, here, now (subject, location, time). it's a tridimensonial (even multidimensional) field where all factors exists in an impermanent unstable and labile balance with the tendency towards homeostasis.

Awareness is a more or less working stabilizer but the field is multidimensional - the past (memory ) and the future (wishes, daydreams) and and and... are interfering in every moment.

Co-dependent origination - Kamma - law of nature.

Kammuna vattati loko - the world is directed by Kamma

[AYJAYDEE]

but this is a forum on buddhism

Gestaltheoretical Psychology defines "Me" or "Self" as I, here, now (subject, location, time). it's a tridimensonial (even multidimensional) field where all factors exists in an impermanent unstable and labile balance with the tendency towards homeostasis.

Awareness is a more or less working stabilizer but the field is multidimensional - the past (memory ) and the future (wishes, daydreams) and and and... are interfering in every moment.

Co-dependent origination - Kamma - law of nature.

Kammuna vattati loko - the world is directed by Kamma

[Brucenkhamen]

the 'self" referred to in the buddhist tradition is an enduring, permanent unchanging entity which they believe does not exist. the self you are referring to is something entirely different. In a forum on buddhism, it would be helpful to use a different label. perhaps personality or some other word? this would eliminate confusion.

You could be right but I doubt it. He's also used the word "soul" a few times and that's pretty unambiguous. Also if by "self" he meant to say personality or similar I don't really see why it's necessary to often use the word several times in a sentence.

[Brucenkhamen]

but this is a forum on buddhism

Gestaltheoretical Psychology defines "Me" or "Self" as I, here, now (subject, location, time). it's a tridimensonial (even multidimensional) field where all factors exists in an impermanent unstable and labile balance with the tendency towards homeostasis.

Awareness is a more or less working stabilizer but the field is multidimensional - the past (memory ) and the future (wishes, daydreams) and and and... are interfering in every moment.

Co-dependent origination - Kamma - law of nature.

Kammuna vattati loko - the world is directed by Kamma

That definition looks pretty compatible with Buddhism to me.

[AYJAYDEE]

if you are correct, i can only assume he is delibrately picking a fight by coming to a buddhist site and denying one of the basic tenet of buddhism. which is anunderstandable desire i guess, but not one that will hold my attention.

the 'self" referred to in the buddhist tradition is an enduring, permanent unchanging entity which they believe does not exist. the self you are referring to is something entirely different. In a forum on buddhism, it would be helpful to use a different label. perhaps personality or some other word? this would eliminate confusion.

You could be right but I doubt it. He's also used the word "soul" a few times and that's pretty unambiguous. Also if by "self" he meant to say personality or similar I don't really see why it's necessary to often use the word several times in a sentence.

[AYJAYDEE]

yes i agree. i was only pointing out tht the "self" discussed in the term anatta is something different which buddhism denies exists. again , the use of one word for two different concepts causes confusion.

but this is a forum on buddhism

Gestaltheoretical Psychology defines "Me" or "Self" as I, here, now (subject, location, time). it's a tridimensonial (even multidimensional) field where all factors exists in an impermanent unstable and labile balance with the tendency towards homeostasis.

Awareness is a more or less working stabilizer but the field is multidimensional - the past (memory ) and the future (wishes, daydreams) and and and... are interfering in every moment.

Co-dependent origination - Kamma - law of nature.

Kammuna vattati loko - the world is directed by Kamma

That definition looks pretty compatible with Buddhism to me.