Where Buddhism/existentialism overlap

[jupiviv]

Existentialism - in spite of its recognition of dependent origination - cannot and does not refute the reality of a self.

Existentialism doesn't recognise dependent origination. And Buddhism refutes the false self born of ignorance, which is precisely the self that existentialism holds so dear.

This cannot be resolved, for as a few have eloquently said here, no self is born in a vacuum, but into a world of others. And a self can only identify itself through these others (i.e. what I am-not; or, what I am like, too: dependent origination). There is nothing else upon which to ground being than in beings; in turn, nothing can be said about this self but how it meets with itself and others in these conditions. It's in this sense that existentialism might put it that we are 'negatively defined" - in recognizing this lack, we set up project to become-something, participate in what-is: becoming.

There is no need for "others", as in "other selves". Any self is identified in contrast to all the things that are not it, and ultimately grounded in all things.

If there's only existence, and existence is like this, there's nowhere to run. The running is seen as the problem. The running is seen as flight from one's own existence, i.e. flight from the reality of being and the participation in becoming.

Saying "there is only existence" is exactly the same as saying "there is only non-existence." The flight from reality occurs when this fact is not understood.

Perhaps I could push this through another nietzsche-sieve: the hardest thing of all is to become what you are. And what you are is becoming, always and ever.

That is obviously a meaningless statement unless you interpret "becoming" to mean the whole of cause and effect.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Great thinking Pye, you make your point very clearly. At first self seemed a reference to Ego, I had only seen such a word used when talking about form or body being 'me', when in actuality there is only impermanence and no lasting qualities of self, though now I see 'Self" being used as distinguished from Ego, not a reference to the same thing at all.

There are many you would hear making a distinction between a 'false self' and 'true self', the latter being the 'eternal, formless' aspect of our being. That which isn't subject to birth and death. Awareness perhaps.

The 'flight from self' you refer to would rather be a flight from clinging to what isn't self and thinking it is. Such as the thought that certain appearances, i.e the body or personality, are me and when they dissolve I end..but I'm not sure how you view this.

Aside from words and names, all that is directly 'seen' are these passing experiences, or as you say, becoming.

experience itself in a world-of-others

This looks like concretion on your part (correct me) which I don't think can be rationally justified.
The world out there, is words and names. To give concretion to it as if it is self-existing or lasting, and act as if it is 'where' we reside.

There are appearances and there are those who think any appearance is lasting or contains permanence. (Would like to stress that this applies to thoughts, ideas, and specifically meaning)

Following is a great reflection of truth, one that to your possible dismay, accepts Self rather than running from it, while repeating 'You are not the body', 'You do not have a body'.

Where is meditation, pleasure,
prosperity or discrimination?
Where is duality?
Where even is Unity?
I abide in the glory of Self.
Where is past and future,
or even present?
Where is space, or even eternity?
I abide in the glory of Self.
Where is Self?
Where is not-Self?
Where is good and evil, confusion and clarity?
I abide in the glory of Self.
Where is sleeping, dreaming, waking,
or even the fourth state?
Where is fear?
I abide in the glory of Self.
Where is close or far,
in or out,
gross or subtle?
I abide in the glory of Self.

[Pye]

jupiviv: There is no need for "others", as in "other selves". Any self is identified in contrast to all the things that are not it, and ultimately grounded in all things.

How do 'other selves' escape being part of all-things? Rather, how are other selves entirely subordinated to one's self?

Perhaps you could explain this from another thread:

jupiviv: It's saying that the 'I' exists because of the other. If the other were to change, then so would the 'I'.

pye wrote: Perhaps I could push this through another nietzsche-sieve: the hardest thing of all is to become what you are. And what you are is becoming, always and ever.

jupiviv replies: That is obviously a meaningless statement unless you interpret "becoming" to mean the whole of cause and effect.

Answered in opening post:

And being that being is only, ever and always becoming. Otherwise, cause and effect would also be done causing and effecting . . .

[Pye]

Seeker posits: There are many you would hear making a distinction between a 'false self' and 'true self', the latter being the 'eternal, formless' aspect of our being. That which isn't subject to birth and death.

What that exists is not subject to its "birth" and its "death"? Just "Existence itself"? And how would there be an "our being" to have an 'eternal' aspect to it if it would not have be resolved this way (i.e. in, existence-as-eternal-itself?).

What will we do with this, then?:

This looks like concretion on your part (correct me) which I don't think can be rationally justified.
The world out there, is words and names. To give concretion to it as if it is self-existing or lasting, and act as if it is 'where' we reside.

[Pam Seeback]

Cause and effect is not a becoming, cause and effect is the revealing of what is already present in consciousness. Being reveals being. Belief that consciousness becomes anything other than what it is is the delusion perpetuated by the mind that is enchanted with the false idea of past, present and future.

[jupiviv]

How do 'other selves' escape being part of all-things? Rather, how are other selves entirely subordinated to one's self?

A self doesn't necessarily require other selves like itself to exist.

And being that being is only, ever and always becoming. Otherwise, cause and effect would also be done causing and effecting . . .

The whole of cause and effect is not a being.

[Pye]

jupiviv: The whole of cause and effect is not a being.

Not "a" being, as in a noun-thing, but "being' as in a verb-action. Causing-and-effecting.

[Pye]

(movingalways, can you please answer the relative pronoun confusion? thanks.)

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Mind-consciousness fears entering the depth of their suffering to the five aggregates because it is the house of suffering. It's motto: at least when you suffer you know you are alive (born).

Which "it" does the relative pronoun attached to the "motto" refer to: Mind-consciousness, or, the house-of-suffering?

Mind-consciousness is the house of suffering, the house of dependent origination, the house of conditions, the house of existence.

Wisdom is the higher view than mind-consciousness. It is the voice of wisdom that uses thought or phenomena to bring mind-consciousness to its (gradual) end.

[Pam Seeback]

The voice of wisdom is not the relative voice. Suffering WILL BE ended.

[Pam Seeback]

And this is how... (see eight fold path).

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: The whole of cause and effect is not a being.

Not "a" being, as in a noun-thing, but "being' as in a verb-action. Causing-and-effecting.

For there to be action there must be being. The whole of causality is neither a cause nor an effect, since there is nothing else for it to either cause or be caused by.

[Pye]

movingalways: It's motto: at least when you suffer you know you are alive (born).

Is this something you/wisdom sees as in error, this 'being alive'? - this 'being born'?

[Pye]

movingalways: Belief that consciousness becomes anything other than what it is is the delusion perpetuated by the mind that is enchanted with the false idea of past, present and future.

So with no enchantment for past, present, and future, one could say they have 'arrested' being(/becoming) into a state of "stillness?" - i.e. it just "is"? hence, the end-of-suffering?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: It's motto: at least when you suffer you know you are alive (born).

Is this something you/wisdom sees as in error, this 'being alive'? - this 'being born'?

Wisdom understands being born as being born, as suffering as being suffering. As does wisdom understand that being born/suffering comes to an end. Wisdom is eternal (always present), being born/suffering is not.

[Cahoot]

And being that being is only, ever and always becoming. Otherwise, cause and effect would also be done causing and effecting . . .

The "otherwise" is correct. Cause and effect finish. No more becoming. End of suffering.

[Pye]

movingalways: As does wisdom understand that being born/suffering comes to an end.

One could say existentialism understands this very much as well. But it does not come to an end whilst still in existence. Neither is this an excuse for doing nothing about it.

It (a person-suffering) comes to an end when they come to an end to their existence. An idea of death-in-life would be seen as pure flight . . . .

thanks for your help, m.a..

[Pye]

Cahoot: Cause and effect finish. No more becoming. End of suffering.

Tell me how this might happen whilst still in existence (being). Otherwise, we are still bracketing, as existentialists do, within our personal births and our personal deaths. Of course, will mighty-suffering end there . . . .

Arrested being in this context is indeed the god-thought. A god-thought that as a god-thought just "is." God, being that which is fully realized, in no need of 'becoming' anything else, is perfectly realized. I'd like to know if any of you here have 'achieved' that; if anyone has perfectly achieved that whilst [obviously] still in being . . . . I have to attach the word "perfectly" to it, if I can present it to others as anything other than flight-from, or death-in-life . . . .

In other words, the wisdom reveals itself conceptually; how about actually . . . .

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Belief that consciousness becomes anything other than what it is is the delusion perpetuated by the mind that is enchanted with the false idea of past, present and future.

So with no enchantment for past, present, and future, one could say they have 'arrested' being(/becoming) into a state of "stillness?" - i.e. it just "is"? hence, the end-of-suffering?

Being still of dependent origination (the SENSE of becoming) for one starting out on the path is but the beginning of the ending of dependent origination/suffering. It is from this point forward that the work of wisdom truly begins, wherein wisdom is acutely conscious of every word and image it releases into the world yet enchanted with its conditioning/suffering/awareness of time. The question that wisdom asks before "it" speaks is: does this word or image continue to give life to dependent origination (suffering) or does it contribute to the bringing to an end the life of dependent origination (suffering).

As I said above, being conscious of existence (suffering) is not a flight from existence, rather, it is to enter into its very heart with the goal of cutting it out, one feeling-condition at a time.

[Cahoot]

Cahoot: Cause and effect finish. No more becoming. End of suffering.

Tell me how this might happen whilst still in existence (being). Otherwise, we are still bracketing, as existentialists do, within our personal births and our personal deaths. Of course, will mighty-suffering end there . . . .

Arrested being in this context is indeed the god-thought. A god-thought that as a god-thought just "is." God, being that which is fully realized, in no need of 'becoming' anything else, is perfectly realized. I'd like to know if any of you here have 'achieved' that; if anyone has perfectly achieved that whilst [obviously] still in being . . . . I have to attach the word "perfectly" to it, if I can present it to others as anything other than flight-from, or death-in-life . . . .

In other words, the wisdom reveals itself conceptually; how about actually . . . .

It is your reasoning, the otherwise. There is only existence. One always is, existent. Re-examine your premise.

[Pye]

Cahoot: Re-examine your premise.

It is the premises of buddhist thought you're helping me with, Cahoot.
Thanks for the notation of overlap.

[Cahoot]

Well I was thinking, to one who sees only becoming, there is only becoming. What appears to the becoming to be becoming is apparent to the being to be the ripening of old causes.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: As does wisdom understand that being born/suffering comes to an end.

One could say existentialism understands this very much as well. But it does not come to an end whilst still in existence. Neither is this an excuse for doing nothing about it.

It (a person-suffering) comes to an end when they come to an end to their existence. An idea of death-in-life would be seen as pure flight . . . .

thanks for your help, m.a..

Death "happens" every time dependent origination is given life. After hearing your words, did they not have to die within me so that my words could come to life? Is it not the same for you when you hear my words and are moved to respond?

For those who are aware that in the realm of existence "death gives to life so life can be", death in life is not to be seen as pure flight, rather, as the very nature of existence. Which means that when a person-suffering comes to the end of their consciousness of existence, they come to the end of death.

[Pye]

. . . not every reply is argumentative; not every question, a 'retort' . . . .

(ain't that right, Seeker . . .)

[Pye]

For myself, I've never heard any of the wise say they were perfect in the practice of their lives/thoughts (this is not about the-addressing of suffering itself - that is every sentient being's thing to do); or say they had a 'final arrival.' All I know have been generous about their remaining imperfections-in-life, good-natured about it. Every one of them spoke in words, more or less, of more-to-do.

Would this not be pointing to more-to-become in existence and recognized as such? Hence, no 'final destination,' no being-arrested (perfected state) ?
(phrased here as end-of-being (becoming) whilst in being (still becoming).

movingalways, if you want the word 'death' to refer to the coming-to-be and passing-away of all things in existence, then most certainly could the other take on this [dramatic] vocabulary (and does).

Seeker, so you don't have a problem with the existentialist conception of self, you heard it 'unhysterically' :)
What do you think of the definition of 'ego' as one's sense of self? It's the condition of that sense that someone or other might parse about. But always and ever, one's sense of self - as the immediate, only and irrefutable access to anything. If you can see 'ego' in this context unreactively, that'd be neat, too. work for you?