Some people

[propellerbeanie]

They are human qualities, one a virtue and the other a vice, and the only quality cowardice has of the will is the lacking of it.

So cowardice is a habitual and unconscious act?

Certainly unconscious, in that to save one life the coward may endanger many, and perhaps habitual as are many vices, though one moment of cowardice is sometimes enough to cure an honorable man.
We should not presume a complete understanding of all the factors that make one a coward. The reason it is so prevalant as a human quality is that it survived through natural selection, like falsehood, because those who knew when to take to their heels and, or to lie -survived.
Look at who is running America. These cowards might sink the ship, but they will never go down with it. Cowardice is becoming a national virtue. The police and the military look like turtles in their armor, and much of the killing is done from air conditioned cubes by people with their fingers on joy sticks who never get dirt under their nails, and who eat supper every night with their children and their wives. Our military are not soldiers, risking death in an honorable cause. They are torturers, and executioners who often die from ineptness, or by accident as much as from enemy fire. And in the end we will lose in suffering only a fraction of the deaths of our enemies because those deaths will illustrate our moral and economic emptiness.

[N0X23]

Certainly unconsciou

s,

If cowardice is an unconscious act, as you claim, then it lacks intent, and thus moral judgement is rendered entirely mute, and your argument is completely irrelevant.

We should not presume a complete understanding of all the factors that make one a coward.

Why is that?

[propellerbeanie]

Certainly unconsciou

s,

If cowardice is an unconscious act, as you claim, then it lacks intent, and thus moral judgement is rendered entirely mute, and your argument is completely irrelevant.

Consciousness is the sense of ones separate being. Anything a person does whether unconscious of this separate being, which is also consciousness of our being in common with society is subject to a moral judgement for one gets one morals in relationship with society. Even if cowardice were the accepted social norm, and bravery were thought the high point of stupidity the whole subject would be open at all times to examination.

We should not presume a complete understanding of all the factors that make one a coward.

Why is that?

As in the quotation from Luther that I posted, honesty is as difficult to produce from self examination as from public examination. When people are judged cowards it is never on the basis of factors, but on the simple fact of the scatter. Some run, but everyone has felt runny at times. So, to understand why in general that people do anything may be the best we can manage. Truth is as elusive there as anywhere, and I am inclined to accept an approximation.

[N0X23]

Oh, okay. Thank you.

[alex]

He is without fear because he no longer belives in the existence of his self. He knows that nothing can harm him, as there is no "him" to begin with.

So then he is as good as dead already. And if he has no self then neither do we, so we are also dead already because we never lived.

The only way to be fearless is to know of a certainty that there is no death, so that death of the body would be little different from going to sleep at night and waking up tomorrow.

The stakes in death must be very, very low in order to have no fear.

Properllor you write inspiringly about courage, but it is a suppression of fear and not the elimination of it.

A man could be physically fearless but terrified by loss of love.

[David Quinn]

alex wrote:

DQ: He is without fear because he no longer belives in the existence of his self. He knows that nothing can harm him, as there is no "him" to begin with.

a: So then he is as good as dead already. And if he has no self then neither do we, so we are also dead already because we never lived.

As Nietzsche says, we are a species of the dead.

What you say here is essentially correct. The self doesn't really exist at all, neither in the sage nor in the ordinary person. The difference between the two is that the former thoroughly understands this fact and has incorporated it into every aspect of his mind, transforming his entire existence.

He no longer leads a self-centered existence, no longer experiences fear, no longer falls in love. He is entirely free. Without the illusion of self to block his sight, he is able to perceive and experience the Truth in every moment, without any effort at all.

The only way to be fearless is to know of a certainty that there is no death, so that death of the body would be little different from going to sleep at night and waking up tomorrow.

The stakes in death must be very, very low in order to have no fear.

Yes. If, through enlightenment and wisdom, a person were to abandon all attachment to his life forever, then death would no longer mean anything to him. There is nothing that death could take away from him. As an event, it recedes into being just another moment of change.

-

[alex]

The self doesn't really exist at all,

It's confusing. I talked to one guy who calls it an expanded sense of self, like the ego doesn't disappear but expands to include everything.

If that is the case, I'd say the ego is like a wall. A false wall and you knock the walls down and now you're free.

I'm reading a book about consciousness. They show some responses are immediate, others delayed. It's hard to explain, but they surmise the delayed ones are ego, the quick ones Atman.

There is nothing that death could take away from him.

Awareness?

[David Quinn]

alex,

DQ: The self doesn't really exist at all,

a: It's confusing. I talked to one guy who calls it an expanded sense of self, like the ego doesn't disappear but expands to include everything.

Our true nature is certainly everything, the totality of all there is. Those who are ignorant of this great truth are said to be spellbound by egotism, which is the belief in a finite self.

The ego doesn't expand when we become enlightened and realize our infinite nature. Rather, the truth is realized that the ego never really existed in the first place, that all along we have been taken in by an illusion.

It is a bit like what happens when we see through the illusion of the sun revolving around the earth. Nothing expands or disappears in this process. An illusion is simply dispelled, that's all.

If that is the case, I'd say the ego is like a wall. A false wall and you knock the walls down and now you're free.

The walls are not really there. We are already free.

I'm reading a book about consciousness. They show some responses are immediate, others delayed. It's hard to explain, but they surmise the delayed ones are ego, the quick ones Atman.

You mean, a sudden burst of violence comes from the Atman, while a thoughtful line of reasoning comes from the ego?

DQ: There is nothing that death could take away from him.

a: Awareness?

It is like a cloud being dispersed by a breeze.

-

[propellerbeanie]

Properllor you write inspiringly about courage, but it is a suppression of fear and not the elimination of it.

A man could be physically fearless but terrified by loss of love.

Never try to eliminate an emotion because they are what you are and what you live with. Feel them, and dwell on them if necessary, put them aside for awhile if life calls and needs a hand. Let your emotions spur your thoughts to action. Be complete.

I never felt fear of dieing until I had something I'd miss, which was the family I would worry about going down. No matter if you have insurance or whether there is government help, the only way to be certain of anothers welfare is to make certain of their welfare.
I found a beam once I could not walk. Louie Goodleaf Montour could walk it, one step at a time because he was a Mohawk. I couldn't walk it because I could not see the other end, and the top was rolled slightly, but to me it felt like a slippery log, and, and, and I was scared. It was one half of a semi circle that needed a temp connection in the middle that later supported the atrium between the two parts of an eleven story. And then they told me to finish welding it. I built a little bird perch of a scaffold that was heavy, but that I could let down from the top floor by floor. And I figured out that if I dropped a long handline tied at the top of the center I could use that for a flexible handrail while I walked this scarry piece. So fear, while a justified impediment at times only makes things impossible which, they say, is only a degree of difficulty.

[alex]

DavidQuinn

He was a follower of Yogananda and had an amazing website. Then he wrote a book and took it all down and began promoting the book. He calls it the expanded sense of self, rather than no self. It makes sense. I think it's the same thing.

The walls are not really there. We are already free.

That is questionable. If the wall is all in the mind, then it's real because you can't see outside of it. It doesn't matter if there is no wall, when the mind sees a wall. Understanding there is no wall doesn't help. The book tries to explain how the brain produces the sense of self, creating a subject-object split and some sort of circularity which hides from you what the mind is up to. I think he will discuss next that meditation can create a gap you can see through. For those who claim to no longer view the outer world as nonself they must have accomplished some sort of change in the brain.

It is like a cloud being dispersed by a breeze.

That is an expansion.

You mean, a sudden burst of violence comes from the Atman, while a thoughtful line of reasoning comes from the ego?

It might be so. I do believe they forgot to include that. I tried to go look it up and couldn't find it. The book is too dry anyway.But the timing difference is so small and our reactions are so quick and hidden that it might only seem to you that the violent burst is quick. If Atman is pure consciousness, does it engage in slow reasoning? Are the Atman and ego separate? Could the Atman be subject to the ego? Maybe it is.

[Kevin Solway]

If Atman is pure consciousness, does it engage in slow reasoning? Are the Atman and ego separate? Could the Atman be subject to the ego? Maybe it is.

Do you know what you are talking about when you speak of Atman and ego? If you did, then all your questions would be solved, and your words would become meaningful.

[David Quinn]

alex,

He was a follower of Yogananda and had an amazing website. Then he wrote a book and took it all down and began promoting the book. He calls it the expanded sense of self, rather than no self. It makes sense.

Does this mean that we are all currently living inside this guru's expanded ego?

What would happen if another guru came along and expanded his ego into everything? Would he have to push aside the first guru's expanded ego in order to make room for his own?

DQ: The walls are not really there. We are already free.

a: That is questionable. If the wall is all in the mind, then it's real because you can't see outside of it. It doesn't matter if there is no wall, when the mind sees a wall. Understanding there is no wall doesn't help.

It is of enormous help to know this. At the very least, it would stop us trying to do stupid, useless things like "expanding the ego".

The key to become wise is knowing how to distinguish between what is real and what isn't. Without this ability, one will only continue to chase mirages and go around and around in circles.

The book tries to explain how the brain produces the sense of self, creating a subject-object split and some sort of circularity which hides from you what the mind is up to. I think he will discuss next that meditation can create a gap you can see through. For those who claim to no longer view the outer world as nonself they must have accomplished some sort of change in the brain.

Since the self is an illusion to begin with, it makes no sense to speak of the sage seeing the world as non-self. If you really want to perceive Ultimate Reality and enjoy its fruits, then you need to know how to go beyond both self and non-self.

DQ: There is nothing that death could take away from him.

a: Awareness?

DQ: It is like a cloud being dispersed by a breeze.

A: That is an expansion.

It is the disappearance of something which the sage no longer calls his own.

a: I'm reading a book about consciousness. They show some responses are immediate, others delayed. It's hard to explain, but they surmise the delayed ones are ego, the quick ones Atman.

DQ: You mean, a sudden burst of violence comes from the Atman, while a thoughtful line of reasoning comes from the ego?

a: It might be so. I do believe they forgot to include that. I tried to go look it up and couldn't find it. The book is too dry anyway.But the timing difference is so small and our reactions are so quick and hidden that it might only seem to you that the violent burst is quick.

We could slow any of our actions down - even those which seem immediate and spontaneous - and we would always observe a delayed process of neurons firing, chemicals interacting, muscles expanding and contracting, etc. This would imply that none of our actions come from the Atman.

In any case, why is it that the Atman can only produce quick, spontaneous actions and not slow, deliberate ones? It seems a pretty strange restriction for a divine entity to have.

It sounds to me like your author is having fun and games and simply making it all up.


-

[DHodges]

It sounds to me like your author is having fun and games and simply making it all up.

Well, it does save a lot of time and effort, and most people can't tell the difference anyway. (Or can they? Maybe they prefer it that way.)

The key to become wise is knowing how to distinguish between what is real and what isn't. Without this ability, one will only continue to chase mirages and go around and around in circles.

But that's what (almost all) people really want, isn't it? A roller coaster. A fun ride; movement without really going anywhere. The illusion of danger in perfect safety. Stimulation. Theater. A carnival. Having fun pretending, playing make-believe.

[alex]

ksolway

Do you know what you are talking about when you speak of Atman and ego? If you did, then all your questions would be solved, and your words would become meaningful.

I have some idea, but to speak of full knowledge, no. Atman is consciusness, Brahma is consciousness. Atman is Brahman, experienced in an individual. When I say Atman could be subject to ego, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative one. Which is to say, we have the pure consciousness all the time but we live in an egoic awareness. Run by personality, memory, programming, fears and pains. So atman is always there, but heavily buried.

Now tell me what you think.

DavidQuinn

Does this mean that we are all currently living inside this guru's expanded ego?

I guess it does. He's not a guru.

What would happen if another guru came along and expanded his ego into everything? Would he have to push aside the first guru's expanded ego in order to make room for his own?

Of course not. This does raise a question, if I am the all and you are the all, what can this mean in the island of awareness that each person is?

It is of enormous help to know this. At the very least, it would stop us trying to do stupid, useless things like "expanding the ego".

You are right, it does help to know that the walls are false. But many people know it and see the wall nonetheless, and beat their heads against it.

The key to become wise is knowing how to distinguish between what is real and what isn't.

Depends how stringent you want to get. Being stringent, only existence is real.

What do you think is real?

Since the self is an illusion to begin with, it makes no sense to speak of the sage seeing the world as non-self. If you really want to perceive Ultimate Reality and enjoy its fruits, then you need to know how to go beyond both self and non-self.

No. I said the enlightened stops seeing things outside of his own body as nonself. As to going beyond, I'd say all is self, but of course, if you take that understanding as far as you can, the name 'self' disappears. I realize that. Is such a thing possible while living in a body?

It is the disappearance of something which the sage no longer calls his own.

That indicates that you think awareness disappears at death?

We could slow any of our actions down - even those which seem immediate and spontaneous - and we would always observe a delayed process of neurons firing, chemicals interacting, muscles expanding and contracting, etc. This would imply that none of our actions come from the Atman.

I was not able to do the book justice, and better books will be written. Just because their will always be neurons firing does not mean that Atman is not there. What you are saying is that the brain is separate from Atman. I am referring to consciousness.

In any case, why is it that the Atman can only produce quick, spontaneous actions and not slow, deliberate ones? It seems a pretty strange restriction for a divine entity to have.

It was foolish of me to bring up a book I could not defend.

[David Quinn]

alex,

I have some idea, but to speak of full knowledge, no. Atman is consciusness, Brahma is consciousness. Atman is Brahman, experienced in an individual. When I say Atman could be subject to ego, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative one. Which is to say, we have the pure consciousness all the time but we live in an egoic awareness. Run by personality, memory, programming, fears and pains. So atman is always there, but heavily buried.

Where does Buddha and Lao Tzu fit into all this?

a: He was a follower of Yogananda and had an amazing website. Then he wrote a book and took it all down and began promoting the book. He calls it the expanded sense of self, rather than no self. It makes sense.

DQ: Does this mean that we are all currently living inside this guru's expanded ego?

a: I guess it does.

DQ: What would happen if another guru came along and expanded his ego into everything? Would he have to push aside the first guru's expanded ego in order to make room for his own?

a: Of course not.

Why not? How many everythings can there be?

Either the expanded ego of each guru is not really "everything", or they are forced to duke it out between them.

his does raise a question, if I am the all and you are the all, what can this mean in the island of awareness that each person is?

The All refers to the sum total of all existences and islands of awareness. This means that neither your island of awareness, nor mine, constitutes the All.

DQ: It is of enormous help to know this. At the very least, it would stop us trying to do stupid, useless things like "expanding the ego".

a: You are right, it does help to know that the walls are false. But many people know it and see the wall nonetheless, and beat their heads against it.

This is why I keep stressing the importance of intellectual understanding. It is absolutely vital to comprehend the nature of Reality fully and completely. Only then will a person know for sure what to do.

DQ: The key to become wise is knowing how to distinguish between what is real and what isn't.

a: Depends how stringent you want to get. Being stringent, only existence is real.

I like to be as stringent as possible in these matters. It is the only way to get to the very root of things and reach the bedrock of absolute certainty.

What do you think is real?

Nature as it really is, as perceived by the enlightened mind. What is perceived when the mind no longer harbours any philosophical or spiritual delusions.

One can only begin to approach this lofty state of consciousness by understanding the illusory nature of all things. At bottom, it is the belief that things inherently exist which prevent the mind from understanding and experiencing Reality.

DQ: Since the self is an illusion to begin with, it makes no sense to speak of the sage seeing the world as non-self. If you really want to perceive Ultimate Reality and enjoy its fruits, then you need to know how to go beyond both self and non-self.

a: No. I said the enlightened stops seeing things outside of his own body as nonself. As to going beyond, I'd say all is self, but of course, if you take that understanding as far as you can, the name 'self' disappears.

That's right. Again, we must be stringent in these matters.

I realize that. Is such a thing possible while living in a body?

I definitely think so. We created the delusions in the first place through our erroneous thinking and false attachments, so we can unmake them.

DQ; It is the disappearance of something which the sage no longer calls his own.

a: That indicates that you think awareness disappears at death?

All the evidence suggests to me that it does. Although we will continue to reincarnate endlessly after our deaths - i.e. through the gradual breakdown of our body, providing food for the worms, and also through the consequences of our actions performed during our lifetime which continue to unfold in the world - it seems likely that our consciousness will cease when our brains shut down.

DQ: We could slow any of our actions down - even those which seem immediate and spontaneous - and we would always observe a delayed process of neurons firing, chemicals interacting, muscles expanding and contracting, etc. This would imply that none of our actions come from the Atman.

a: I was not able to do the book justice, and better books will be written. Just because their will always be neurons firing does not mean that Atman is not there. What you are saying is that the brain is separate from Atman.

I'm saying the opposite, in fact. I do not seperate the Atman from the neurons firing, chemicals interacting, muscles working, or indeed from anything in Nature at all. Nor do I seperate the Atman from Brahman. At root, the Atman is Brahman and Brahamn is Nature. Everything comes from the Atman. Everything is the Atman.

-

[alex]

Atman is consciusness, Brahma is consciousness. Atman is Brahman, experienced in an individual. When I say Atman could be subject to ego, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative one. Which is to say, we have the pure consciousness all the time but we live in an egoic awareness. Run by personality, memory, programming, fears and pains. So atman is always there, but heavily buried.

Where does Buddha and Lao Tzu fit into all this?

Lao Tsu says "The Tao is forever undefined...once the whole is divided, the parts need names." (32)
"Knowing the self is enlightenment." (I wonder about that translation. Was a term like enlightenment thought of by Lao Tsu?)
I don't know that Buddha's 8-fold path has much to do with it. Probably Buddhist phrases of mind or no-mind could relate but it isn't clear. Maybe Buddhism expresses the idea negatively rather than positively. On the net I found the below, which seems to negate any need to discuss atman in terms of Buddhism:
Buddha's Refutes the Notion that Tathagatagarbha is the Upanishadic Atman, or that the Buddhist Nirvana is the same as Upanishadic Moksha, from the Lankavatara Sutra

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement. All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathagata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

Buddhism teaches how to understand how the mind works, to see its tricks, to watch your reactions. It is of great assistance in helping to dispel the excess of personal sensitivity. You can go far if you understand some teachings in the Bible, but I understood them better after learning some Hindu ideas. Then they stood out. Hinduism and Buddhism urge the person to see beneath the surface. Don't believe everything is just like it looks. What I like about Buddhism is its clear, no-nonsense approach to the mind, but on this type of question, I have not found any clarity. It seems impossible at this point to find out whether Buddha really did teach reincarnation or not.

Why not? How many everythings can there be?

Either the expanded ego of each guru is not really "everything", or they are forced to duke it out between them.

He referred to it as an exapanded sense of self. It is the same self for each guru. There is one Being, the one without a second. So that isn't the problem. The problem is, to what extent can we believe that a human being can walk on the earth while claiming to have no self and be that One Self?

The All refers to the sum total of all existences and islands of awareness. This means that neither your island of awareness, nor mine, constitutes the All.

Yes, but you said

Our true nature is certainly everything, the totality of all there is.I am clarifying - we can know that this is true, but can we perceive it while living in a body? All selves are apparently the result of encircling some space and identifying with the conscousness within it.

This is why I keep stressing the importance of intellectual understanding.

I had not thought of it that way. But isn't the person who knows the wall is false, and beats his head againast it, having an adequate intellectual understanding? Wouldn't many spiritual seekers, for example all the seekers and meditators, have a good intellectual understanding? But still they find it difficult to achieve their goals.

One can only begin to approach this lofty state of consciousness by understanding the illusory nature of all things. At bottom, it is the belief that things inherently exist which prevent the mind from understanding and experiencing Reality.

Can you explain what you mean? Are you meaning they have an unconscious acceptance of this, like animals? I suppose if you ask them, everyone knows that things all don't inherently exist. Most think their souls inherently exist. No they don't even think that. They think their souls were created in time, but will not cease to exist. I think that only God inherently exists. Isn't that what the Catholic church teaches. The difference between me and that Catholic is that I have come to see that it's all really God.

I realize that. Is such a thing possible while living in a body?

I definitely think so. We created the delusions in the first place through our erroneous thinking and false attachments, so we can unmake them.

You say we created the delusions. I think of the animals. In a way they are more deluded, but in a way less. The animal deals so directly with reality, makes up no false ideas, but also has no insight. But how can we see that all is self when we live in a body? I can intellectually know that there is one whole process, call it Tao. I can know it, but can I live it, perceive it?

it seems likely that our consciousness will cease when our brains shut down.

In what way does this satisfy you, so that you described the enlightened person as having nothing to lose at death? This was not my understanding of "that which is not born cannot die." I know the Hindus believe in increasingly subtle bodies beside the physical. The astral, the mental, the causal. So while it may be true there is no ultimate separate self, those more subtle selves may not be relinquished for vast stretches of time. In this way, there is not a huge jump between a physical brain/mind and the ultimate or supreme, but a gradient. I find this a more believeable pattern. Furthermore, if it is true that awareness is forever gone at death, then it means it is better to be alive than to die. Better to be alive in a decent lifetime, than to die after enlightenment. The achievement of enlightenment is short-lived and the result in the end is the same - nonbeing, nonawareness. Enlightenment is a booby prize. You have become the One Life but you will cease to know it.

I'm saying the opposite, in fact. I do not seperate the Atman from the neurons firing, chemicals interacting, muscles working, or indeed from anything in Nature at all. Nor do I seperate the Atman from Brahman. At root, the Atman is Brahman and Brahamn is Nature. Everything comes from the Atman. Everything is the Atman.

I tend to separate, for example, the electric current wired into my house from the appliances that are designed to capture it and express it according to their circuitry and hardware. I think mind and brain are not synonymous.

[David Quinn]

alex wrote:

a: Atman is consciusness, Brahma is consciousness. Atman is Brahman, experienced in an individual. When I say Atman could be subject to ego, not in an absolute sense, but in a relative one. Which is to say, we have the pure consciousness all the time but we live in an egoic awareness. Run by personality, memory, programming, fears and pains. So atman is always there, but heavily buried.

DQ: Where does Buddha and Lao Tzu fit into all this?

a: Lao Tsu says "The Tao is forever undefined...once the whole is divided, the parts need names." (32)

The connection you are trying to draw here is very tenuous. I don't see anything in Lao Tzu's words here which relates to what you said.

The Tao is undefined because it is formless. Even though it is the creator of all the forms we see around us, it doesn't possess any form itself. It is like a stream endlessly creating bubbles, eddies and flowing patterns. This is a very simple (albeit profound) point. There is no need to bring in all these other unnecessary complications such as Atman, Brahman, egoic consciousness, and pure consciousness. These concepts are superficial and obscure the sheer simplicity of truth.

"Once the whole is divided, the parts need names" - this refers to the way in which people lose sight of the formlessness of the Tao and start believing the forms it generates are real.

"Knowing the self is enlightenment." (I wonder about that translation. Was a term like enlightenment thought of by Lao Tsu?)

No question of it. You can't know the self without being enlightened, and you can't be enlightened without knowing full well that you are enlightened, and that it is an incredibe realization, utterly profound and unique, with no parallel anywhere.

I don't know that Buddha's 8-fold path has much to do with it. Probably Buddhist phrases of mind or no-mind could relate but it isn't clear. Maybe Buddhism expresses the idea negatively rather than positively. On the net I found the below, which seems to negate any need to discuss atman in terms of Buddhism:

Buddha's Refutes the Notion that Tathagatagarbha is the Upanishadic Atman, or that the Buddhist Nirvana is the same as Upanishadic Moksha, from the Lankavatara Sutra

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?

The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement. All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathagata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

Like Lao Tzu, the Buddha is pointing to the formlessness of Reality. Concepts like the Atman, he says, are essentially crutches for those who cannot comprehend the nature of formlessness and are scared of it. These concepts might be useful in the beginning stages, but they eventually have to be abandoned.

Buddhism teaches how to understand how the mind works, to see its tricks, to watch your reactions. It is of great assistance in helping to dispel the excess of personal sensitivity. You can go far if you understand some teachings in the Bible, but I understood them better after learning some Hindu ideas. Then they stood out. Hinduism and Buddhism urge the person to see beneath the surface. Don't believe everything is just like it looks. What I like about Buddhism is its clear, no-nonsense approach to the mind, but on this type of question, I have not found any clarity. It seems impossible at this point to find out whether Buddha really did teach reincarnation or not.

Judging from the sutras, he basically saw it as a side-issue. He thought it was far more important that people strive to become enlightened as soon as possible in this lifetime. Only then will they be in a position to grasp the wise meaning of reincarnation.

DQ: The All refers to the sum total of all existences and islands of awareness. This means that neither your island of awareness, nor mine, constitutes the All.

a: Yes, but you said

"Our true nature is certainly everything, the totality of all there is."

That's right. Our true nature incorporates our own island of awareness and extends beyond it.

I am clarifying - we can know that this is true, but can we perceive it while living in a body? All selves are apparently the result of encircling some space and identifying with the conscousness within it.

We can never perceive anything beyond our island of awareness, by definition. But we can know our fundamental nature, which is the same everywhere.

As Lao Tzu says:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing.

DQ: This is why I keep stressing the importance of intellectual understanding.

a: I had not thought of it that way. But isn't the person who knows the wall is false, and beats his head againast it, having an adequate intellectual understanding?

No.

Wouldn't many spiritual seekers, for example all the seekers and meditators, have a good intellectual understanding? But still they find it difficult to achieve their goals.

Very few spiritual seekers have a good intellectual understanding. That is why they remain unenlightened.

DQ: One can only begin to approach this lofty state of consciousness by understanding the illusory nature of all things. At bottom, it is the belief that things inherently exist which prevent the mind from understanding and experiencing Reality.

a: Can you explain what you mean? Are you meaning they have an unconscious acceptance of this, like animals? I suppose if you ask them, everyone knows that things all don't inherently exist. Most think their souls inherently exist. No they don't even think that. They think their souls were created in time, but will not cease to exist.

Most people are not even aware of the problem and make no attempt to rectify it. But nonetheless, they are still subconsciously and emotionally spellbound by the belief that things inherently exist - just like animals, as you say. That is why they become emotional over things so easily, and why they experience fear and are so quick to use violence. Not only do they believe that they inherently exist, but they believe that other inherently existing things can harm them.

A wise person, by contrast, understands his mirage-like nature and rises above all that turmoil.

I think that only God inherently exists. Isn't that what the Catholic church teaches. The difference between me and that Catholic is that I have come to see that it's all really God.

That's a pretty big difference! The Catholic Church not only believes that God inherently exists, but they also believe Jesus does as well, along with Mary, Joseph, the saints, the holy spirit, the Bible, the Pope, sin, guilt, redemption - the whole box and dice.

This is a million miles away from understanding the simple truth that that God alone (i.e. the Totality) is real and everything within God is illusory.

a: I realize that. Is such a thing possible while living in a body?

DQ: I definitely think so. We created the delusions in the first place through our erroneous thinking and false attachments, so we can unmake them.

a: You say we created the delusions. I think of the animals. In a way they are more deluded, but in a way less. The animal deals so directly with reality, makes up no false ideas, but also has no insight. But how can we see that all is self when we live in a body? I can intellectually know that there is one whole process, call it Tao. I can know it, but can I live it, perceive it?

It's a matter of reprogramming one's brain so that it effortlessly relates everything it perceives and does to the Truth. This involves first understanding what Truth is, and experiencing it on a direct level, and then gradually altering one's life until it transparently reflects this Truth. It's certainly not an easy endeavour, by any means, but I do think it is achievable.

DQ: It seems likely that our consciousness will cease when our brains shut down.

a: In what way does this satisfy you, so that you described the enlightened person as having nothing to lose at death?

Why does it satisfy you to remain attached to consciousness? It's not even your consciousness to begin with! Why hang onto to something which is not yours? That's stealing.

This was not my understanding of "that which is not born cannot die." I know the Hindus believe in increasingly subtle bodies beside the physical. The astral, the mental, the causal. So while it may be true there is no ultimate separate self, those more subtle selves may not be relinquished for vast stretches of time. In this way, there is not a huge jump between a physical brain/mind and the ultimate or supreme, but a gradient. I find this a more believeable pattern.

Since the Ultimate comprises everything, there is literally no gap between it and the brain/mind. Thus, there is no jump to be made, and no bridging pattern is needed. That is all just conceptual junk which has to be abandoned.

Furthermore, if it is true that awareness is forever gone at death, then it means it is better to be alive than to die. Better to be alive in a decent lifetime, than to die after enlightenment. The achievement of enlightenment is short-lived and the result in the end is the same - nonbeing, nonawareness. Enlightenment is a booby prize. You have become the One Life but you will cease to know it.

All these concerns come from an egotistical perspective and reveal a lack of faith in God. Transcending life and death and realizing our timeless nature is its own magnificent reward. It is literally what is meant by entering heaven. All this other stuff about losing consciousness in the future is irrelevant. It's a case of crying over mirages. What are you going to do - cry over mirages, or make every effort to realize the Truth now?

-

[alex]

Hello Quinn,

The connection you are trying to draw here is very tenuous. I don't see anything in Lao Tzu's words here which relates to what you said.

The Tao is undefined because it is formless. Even though it is the creator of all the forms we see around us, it doesn't possess any form itself. It is like a stream endlessly creating bubbles, eddies and flowing patterns. This is a very simple (albeit profound) point. There is no need to bring in all these other unnecessary complications such as Atman, Brahman, egoic consciousness, and pure consciousness. These concepts are superficial and obscure the sheer simplicity of truth.

"Once the whole is divided, the parts need names" - this refers to the way in which people lose sight of the formlessness of the Tao and start believing the forms it generates are real.

You asked where Lao Tsu fit in with Brahman. I think I chose that quote to show that Brahman is the All, undivided. One of my fave's is "Brahma is the charioteer" or "God is the doer of all things."

Like Lao Tzu, the Buddha is pointing to the formlessness of Reality. Concepts like the Atman, he says, are essentially crutches for those who cannot comprehend the nature of formlessness and are scared of it. These concepts might be useful in the beginning stages, but they eventually have to be abandoned.

I reread the long quote I posted and I just don't understand it. I don't understand because Buddha says atman doesn't exist and it seems he denies the questioner's understanding of Womb of Tathagata which also doesn't exist. Yet he says he uses the term to get the simple to lay aside their fears. I must be the simple but his words would not cause anyone to lay aside their fears. At least, not if understood as you say. At the same time he says that people should give up the idea of a soul as something self-existing, and I can agree with that. But then he says there is no God either. Perhaps he means that God is not an individualized personality.

And I agree with that, more and more. It just hits me in the gut sometimes. I think the formlessness of God is why they invented the Holy Spirit and the Word. And I think that is good, they are necessary. I call them God's stepdown units. That is how it should work. But they have got that Jehovah-fiend confused with the true Father, the formless God.

Judging from the sutras, he basically saw it as a side-issue. He thought it was far more important that people strive to become enlightened as soon as possible in this lifetime. Only then will they be in a position to grasp the wise meaning of reincarnation.

Agree as to the first. I think Jesus tried to teach the importance of this life. Yet he failed because it has become a religion focused only on the future and not this life. It causes Christians to miss the boat. I believe in reincarnation. In order to achieve the reconciliation with God which Jesus talked about, it must occur in the lifetime. It cannot be put off to some imagined future. Once it becomes true now, it will be true when the future unfolds. But I digress.

We can never perceive anything beyond our island of awareness, by definition. But we can know our fundamental nature, which is the same everywhere.

Oh, I see. That makes sense. I was thinking that there would be no point of conscousness emanating from your body.

Most people are not even aware of the problem and make no attempt to rectify it. But nonetheless, they are still subconsciously and emotionally spellbound by the belief that things inherently exist - just like animals, as you say.

What does this really mean? After all, things change. A tree is born and it dies. What kind of mistake is it to think it inherently exists? Wouldn't only something eternal exist inherently?

That is why they become emotional over things so easily, and why they experience fear and are so quick to use violence. Not only do they believe that they inherently exist, but they believe that other inherently existing things can harm them.

The opposite! People feel vulnerable because they fear death, and they fear it subconsciously all the time.

A wise person, by contrast, understands his mirage-like nature and rises above all that turmoil.

Sure, his body, his personality are mirage-like, but his consciousness is not. If consciousness is an artifact of chemistry in the brain and nothing more, why speak of God? If my consciousness is snuffed out at brain death like you said, how should this make me serene?

The Catholic Church not only believes that God inherently exists, but they also believe Jesus does as well, along with Mary, Joseph, the saints, the holy spirit, the Bible, the Pope, sin, guilt, redemption - the whole box and dice.

I think I'm having trouble with this phrase, 'inherently exist.' Yes, they believe a lot of nonsense, and of course they think Jesus and the Holy Spirit inherently exist becasue they believe in a trinity. Oh, wait, I understand. You mean that they think that these items are separate. Yes, that is the problem. Recently, I read that Augustine believed that matter is eternal and uncaused. That simply shocked me. He is supposed to have been a great thinker. I myself of course throughout most of my youth never really thought about it, and considered all things as separate. But now that I thought about it and see it my way, I can't believe I ever didn't see it. How can a great doctor of the church not understand that nothing can originate outside of God? The theology of hell depends upon the idea that a soul can be separate. As a Christian, I believe in universal salvation, because there is no other option compatible with reality.

This is a million miles away from understanding the simple truth that that God alone (i.e. the Totality) is real and everything within God is illusory.

Wait. Temporal - but illusory? What you say indicates that the parts are a delusion but the sum of the parts is real. I think a little differently. I think there is an essence that underlies the kaleidoscope, and that essence is the reason that there is existence.

I can know it, but can I live it, perceive it?

It's a matter of reprogramming one's brain so that it effortlessly relates everything it perceives and does to the Truth. This involves first understanding what Truth is, and experiencing it on a direct level, and then gradually altering one's life until it transparently reflects this Truth. It's certainly not an easy endeavour, by any means, but I do think it is achievable.

Oh! Yes. I can see that.

Why does it satisfy you to remain attached to consciousness? It's not even your consciousness to begin with! Why hang onto to something which is not yours? That's stealing.

Ha, ha. To me it all boils down to consciousness. All the advice from the east, Nisargaddatta and so forth. It is realizing one's true nature and learning to identify with what is eternal and not what is ephemeral. Unless the sacrifice of the ego-self is replaced with a greater and truer self, then it is a sacrifice indeed.
Sure, it isn't mine. Isn't mine now and won't be mine ever. Except it is mine because I am the I am. But it isn't mine "Alex's." I think of it like a bowling alley. You know how that thing comes down and lifts up all the pins or puts them down again? The pin needs to realize that who it is isn't the pin but the contraption that holds all pins.

All these concerns come from an egotistical perspective and reveal a lack of faith in God.

OK, that is fairly provocative. But faith implies trust and what is there to trust in if consciousness is confined to the meat inside my skull?

Transcending life and death and realizing our timeless nature is its own magnificent reward.

That sounds great - except we have no timeless nature if we have no awareness of it. It is a brief reward that disappears. No further development or learning is possible. Where does "that which is unborn cannot die" fit in to all this? And why did Buddha speak in both the excerpt I quoted and the one you quoted of allaying people's fears? It looks to me like he is trying to steer them away from longing for a perpetual future of a personality, a separate soul, rather than identifying with the totality - but that does not mean there cannot be consciousness. After all, Buddha was enlightened to this reality while he was in the body, and having a body he also had a personal consciousness. You speak of identifying with all of reality and there is no reason why this should be confined to the bodily form.

It is literally what is meant by entering heaven.

I agree.