GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian,

Is it your understanding that Huang Po's "One Mind" is the same as simply realizing the present moment?

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

You didn't say how you scored, Dan!

I scored a 202, but that's only because of the first section of the test where you get all those points for having a copy of the works they mention. I happen to have the CD from sacredtexts.com, which has everything on it, including all the works of Shakespare, different versions of the Bible, just everything. They're all on the website, anyway.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

You didn't say how you scored, Dan!

I scored a 202, but that's only because of the first section of the test where you get all those points for having a copy of the works they mention. I happen to have the CD from sacredtexts.com, which has everything on it, including all the works of Shakespare, different versions of the Bible, just everything. They're all on the website, anyway.

Dan Rowden got a 69, 60 for David Quinn, and 9 for Kevin Solway, and all the books they wrote.

Unidian,

Is it your understanding that Huang Po's "One Mind" is the same as simply realizing the present moment?

Not exactly, because it doesn't do any good to "realize the present moment" unless we first realize why we weren't realizing it before. Otherwise, it's trivial.

Jason,

Ok that all sounds pretty good, but the question for me is: why then do you go on to call into doubt the validity of the self? Doing so constitutes more than simply "realizing things are just as they are" so to speak, doesn't it?

What does the concept of "the self" add to direct experience? I'd say nothing. It's a concept less useful than that of car keys, and for which there is less evidence.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

You didn't say how you scored, Dan!

You don't seriously think I scored myself? I knew it was farcical after the first 2 questions. The first section was an insulting load of crap, the second barely any better and the third interesting only because it contained some fairly good quotes. Any New Age weirdo would have scored heavily on that test because they like to collect spiritual writings to impress people, see meaning in every symbol ever created and think spiritual quotes are fantastic even if, or possibly because they don't understand them.

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

You didn't say how you scored, Dan!

You don't seriously think I scored myself? I knew it was farcical after the first 2 questions. The first section was an insulting load of crap, the second barely any better and the third interesting only because it contained some fairly good quotes. Any New Age weirdo would have scored heavily on that test because they like to collect spiritual writings to impress people, see meaning in every symbol ever created and think spiritual quotes are fantastic even if, or possibly because they don't understand them.

Of course it's a load of crap. I just wondered what you were doing with the 8 minutes.

S: Is it your understanding that Huang Po's "One Mind" is the same as simply realizing the present moment?

U: Not exactly, because it doesn't do any good to "realize the present moment" unless we first realize why we weren't realizing it before. Otherwise, it's trivial.

Yes, in the process of learning you acquire knowledge.

But, are you certain you aren't (perhaps) confusing a spiritual realization (enlightenment) with one of a more scholarly aim?

And if so, what prevents you from spending your time aiming higher?

I think you're still trying to Gurulogize me, Steven. I'm not interested in that.

My answer to your questions would be "mu." Feel free to conclude I'm parroting that without any realization.

Fair enough, kaatz.

Check this out though:

http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html

Yes, rings true to me. I must be communicating poorly, because I thought I had pointed to all of the points on that page in my own way. Either that, or I'm correct in my assumption that you think you're "ahead of me" in some sense and are out to demonstrate it.

Either way, doesn't matter. It's impossible to be "ahead of me" and it's impossible for me to be "ahead of you," with the single exception that if either of us believes we are ahead of the other, we're actually behind. Up to you to decide whether any of that is going on.

Unidian,

Well, I was under the impression that your understanding was inferior to my own. Having said that, I respect the manner in which you conducted yourself, and am glad to see that I was mistaken.

Regards

Unidian wrote:

Jason wrote:Ok that all sounds pretty good, but the question for me is: why then do you go on to call into doubt the validity of the self? Doing so constitutes more than simply "realizing things are just as they are" so to speak, doesn't it?

What does the concept of "the self" add to direct experience? I'd say nothing. It's a concept less useful than that of car keys, and for which there is less evidence.

The concept of self simply adds the experience of the concept of self to direct experience. Dunno 'bout yours, but my concept of self is pretty substantial too, I'd say it adds a lot. However I'm not saying that having the concept of self is any more or less valid than not having it, just that I don't think removing the concept of self has anything to do with the realization that things are just as they are.

e.g.
Things are just as they are: I have a self, therefore I have a self.

or

Things are just as they are: I am selfless, therefore I am selfless.

Doesn't matter either way as concerns realizing that things are just as they are.

And how does the usefulness of the concept matter? I'm interested in realizing truth and reality not usefulness.

Why are you interested in "realizing truth and reality" if things are just as they are? Are you interested in adding the concepts of "truth and reality" to direct experience? If so, why? Because they are useful concepts, like the self?

Steven, on the one hand you want to believe that the self is an illusion, on the other hand you want to identify with Huang Po's description of the "One Mind". What is this "One Mind" if not a self? Can you see how I might be a little skeptical that you actually have a consistent position?

What do you understand by the assertion that the self is an illusion?

The best sense that I can get out of it is that it's saying that there is no particular thing that one can identify as the self. I have two reactions to this. The first is: how can you be sure that such a thing as a soul doesn't exist, purely through rational thought (and even through experience)? My second is: well, this is just a semantic game and not particularly meaningful. Truth is, we can define the self to be an illusion or we can define the self to be that set of processes, biological components and potentially energetic/spiritual components that make up what we usually consider to be a person. The existence of words such as "I", "me", "you", etc makes it pretty clear which one's most sensible. Truth is that I experience a self, whatever that self actually happens to be: that experience is undeniable - in other words, I do, self-evidently (pun intended) have a self - it's just the true nature of that self that's up for question. To say that the self is an illusion is to engage in distorted language.

Laird,

The statement "the self is an illusion" is often used to challenge any erroneous beliefs which arise from a core belief in an ego-centric self. By dismantling what the ego-self is, it is often easier to realize the truth that things lack inherent existence. In doing this, one may be able to experience samadhi, which can lead to kensho (enlightenment).

To relate Huang Po's "One Mind" to the above scenario:

Apart from one's mind, there is no Buddha. To realize the Absolute (the Buddha-Nature that permeates all things), one must first refrain from conceptual thinking from thought instant to thought instant. In doing so, the mind will resemble stone or wood in its stillness, and one's environment and mind will merge, one's subjectivity and objectivity will become one.

So, you still have an "I" which experiences, though one with a vastly different understanding (realization).

Laird wrote:The best sense that I can get out of it is that it's saying that there is no particular thing that one can identify as the self. I have two reactions to this. The first is: how can you be sure that such a thing as a soul doesn't exist(?)

Especially since it does exist.

What is often confusing when you ponder the self is that there seven selves, one inside another in a sheath-like manner, made of finer and finer stuff as you approach the core. The outermost self is the physical body. The innermost is the eternal spirit, the divine thread, of each person. During life on earth, the subtler bodies grow and develop as does the physical body, but the extent of that growth differs markedly from person to person. The physical body's growth is automatic, if it is fed. Likewise, the spiritual growth would be automatic if it were nourished and tended to on a regular basis. The soul may be viewed as the parts of the subtle bodies that are closest to the physical; the soul is that part of our spiritual nature of which we can become aware.

The mental or "mindal" body is part of the soul. It is the "I" in "I think, therefore I am." Our lives are the process by which information, knowledge, and then wisdom is absorbed from the lower planes into the higher, the process by which our spirits continue to grow and flourish even when the body begins to fail.

Des Cartes did not say "I can feel my hand, therefore I am." The existence of the physical body does not necessarily imply the existence of the mindal self; this indirectly confirms that the body does not equal the self, while at the same time being consistent with the view that the self persists after death in some form, after the death of the physical body.

Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

There is a difference between Faith and "wishful thinking." I think you know that. Do not expect me to try to convince you that a hole in the ground is all we have to look forward to.

brokenhead wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

There is a difference between Faith and "wishful thinking."

There is? Can you explain that difference?

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

Just curious, has this been scientifically established? If so, news to me, I'd love a link.

Carl G wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

Just curious, has this been scientifically established? If so, news to me, I'd love a link.

Why would you need to know if it's scientifically established? Logic alone proves that all things are finite, which includes our stream of awareness/consciousness.