Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
After reading some books on mysticism, i noticed that the Buddhas account of awakening correlates with a lot of other religions and his definitive characteristics share almost identical similarities with other mystics. Plotinus expierenced Oness as did many hindus and christian mystics such as Augustine and St. Theresa of Avila expierenced a blissful unitive event that was regarded as eternal and no doubt is similar if not the same as the description of Nirvana. Their methods are closely aligned, with prayer is just another form of meditation. However, after reading the connections made between these traditions from books like Richard Bucke Cosmic Consciousness and Evelyn Underhill Mysticism, i questioned as to why that even though these mystics share many common anomalies, they all label the expierence as God but Buddha is the only isolated figure that rejects the notion of God pertaining to the expierence, also rejecting self as many mystics testify that they have seen their true Self.

What is your thought on this? It just seems very odd that only one figure was seen to maybe look past the fabricated illusion or interpet it differently while others give same accounts. Also i thought it would be reasonable to label these mystics expierence with God as mere illusory or better yet a jhana incident but that thought evades when the act that people like Jesus are a lot like Buddha, who in turn are permanently transformed and see the same penetrating insights he has seen.

Does anyone know why this is the case? Could it be that Buddha saw past all that or ???

Ive found it very unusal when making elaborations as to why it is like this. Many writers are very remarkable to provide a basis to the psychology of it but i feel that Buddhas neglection and rejection of an Absolute Godhead us vital to mystical studies.

Are the mystics wrong? Is Buddha wrong? Or is nirvana or transcendence merely a relative expierence, though Buddha rejects that claim as well.

Best wishes, Mike
thumbnail
Pablo . P, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 379 Join Date: 3/21/12 Recent Posts
Hi Michael,

The topic is way beyond my skills and knowledge. But you may want to check Bernadette Roberts, as she started in the Christian Mystic tradition, and talks about a stage beyond St. Theresa of Avila and John, where the concept of God is left behind.

Quote from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Roberts

"The ego, matured through life experience and spiritual practice, falls away to reveal the unitive state, the oneness or wholeness of the self in unity with God, a state characterized by the feelings of love and subtle ecstasy. This was the end of the Christian journey — or so Roberts initially believed — and from this point we can see where Roberts travels beyond the limits of doctrinal Christianity. The Self, the mature human in a state of union with God, also falls away. This is the import of Roberts' work. So what does this mean and what is left when there is no-self? Fundamentally the unitive state is still a form of dualism — Self and God — it means that an idea or archetype of God is still captured by the psyche. Fundamentally this unitive state is nondualistic - in which the self and God are One, not two - "I and my Father are One," one without a second, without even the concept of one. Roberts experiences the falling away of the idea of God simultaneously with the experience of the falling away of self — when there is no self, there is no God. For someone wholly devoted to the spiritual life and to God, to discover that there is no God, not one iota of subtle conception of God left to grasp at or attach to, was a particularly horrendous and terrible experience and is described in detail in "the experience of no-self" (one of her three books). The experience is of a raw, pure and unadulterated reality without the imposition of concepts and ideas. Gradually this state, this initial loss, cleared to become a profound understanding of reality itself. In place of "unity" with God comes identity with God — a state she calls seeing with God's own eyes. But neither the ego-based sense nor the spiritualized self is "God". Instead, God is Reality itself, of which the human person is a single cell."
End in Sight, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
Micheal Kush:
After reading some books on mysticism, i noticed that the Buddhas account of awakening correlates with a lot of other religions and his definitive characteristics share almost identical similarities with other mystics. Plotinus expierenced Oness as did many hindus and christian mystics such as Augustine and St. Theresa of Avila expierenced a blissful unitive event that was regarded as eternal and no doubt is similar if not the same as the description of Nirvana. Their methods are closely aligned, with prayer is just another form of meditation. However, after reading the connections made between these traditions from books like Richard Bucke Cosmic Consciousness and Evelyn Underhill Mysticism, i questioned as to why that even though these mystics share many common anomalies, they all label the expierence as God but Buddha is the only isolated figure that rejects the notion of God pertaining to the expierence, also rejecting self as many mystics testify that they have seen their true Self.

What is your thought on this? It just seems very odd that only one figure was seen to maybe look past the fabricated illusion or interpet it differently while others give same accounts. Also i thought it would be reasonable to label these mystics expierence with God as mere illusory or better yet a jhana incident but that thought evades when the act that people like Jesus are a lot like Buddha, who in turn are permanently transformed and see the same penetrating insights he has seen.


It would be interesting to make a list of historical figures who claimed (something like) the end of the defilements...or at least sensual desire and ill will (which are easier to assess). Perhaps that (a difference in attainment) explains the difference in view between the Buddha and others.

On the other hand, at least in some contexts, "God" could be seen as a more appropriate term, conveying more of the importance and significance of the ultimate attainment than similar words might.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
End in Sight:
Micheal Kush:
After reading some books on mysticism, i noticed that the Buddhas account of awakening correlates with a lot of other religions and his definitive characteristics share almost identical similarities with other mystics. Plotinus expierenced Oness as did many hindus and christian mystics such as Augustine and St. Theresa of Avila expierenced a blissful unitive event that was regarded as eternal and no doubt is similar if not the same as the description of Nirvana. Their methods are closely aligned, with prayer is just another form of meditation. However, after reading the connections made between these traditions from books like Richard Bucke Cosmic Consciousness and Evelyn Underhill Mysticism, i questioned as to why that even though these mystics share many common anomalies, they all label the expierence as God but Buddha is the only isolated figure that rejects the notion of God pertaining to the expierence, also rejecting self as many mystics testify that they have seen their true Self.

What is your thought on this? It just seems very odd that only one figure was seen to maybe look past the fabricated illusion or interpet it differently while others give same accounts. Also i thought it would be reasonable to label these mystics expierence with God as mere illusory or better yet a jhana incident but that thought evades when the act that people like Jesus are a lot like Buddha, who in turn are permanently transformed and see the same penetrating insights he has seen.


It would be interesting to make a list of historical figures who claimed (something like) the end of the defilements...or at least sensual desire and ill will (which are easier to assess). Perhaps that (a difference in attainment) explains the difference in view between the Buddha and others.

On the other hand, at least in some contexts, "God" could be seen as a more appropriate term, conveying more of the importance and significance of the ultimate attainment than similar words might.


Its not that i want to label those mystics as wrong but it is rather perplexing to know that some have lived definite spiritual lives that boasted diligence, morality and happiness. Jesus is a plausible example as people grew fond of his mystique and penetrating insight that is closely parraleled with Buddha. People actually speculated whether he was the reincarnation of Buddha himself. I believe after reading i can make a distinction: the unitive blissfull expierence that is acclaimed by many practioners and mystics seems definetely to match the jhanas. If this is the case, then this means that these mystics have had serious and severe misconception on the nature of insight and reality and this arguemnent concludes that only the Buddhas and others were right. Because it is said in the Theravada tradition that if any remnant of self is still grasp whether this entails an absolute or temporal self, then it is merely an illusory delusion.

Thanks for the above replies.

Best wishes ,mike
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
This is a fascinating area and has been an interest of mine for many years, it’s an incredibly complex subject which continues to intrigue me; it’s basically like trying to find a Unified Theory of mysticism, which is what Aleister Crowley appears to have been trying to do with the Thelemic model. In fact, Crowley’s “777” may be of interest to you as a reference for how certain concepts and experiences line up across different traditions.

As far as I can tell, based on my own studies and experience, there appears to be some basic conceptual similarities between every tradition; each of them, in their own way and usually in symbolic language or through pictograms and geometric representations, describe certain fundamental aspects of human experience. For example, the symbolism of a trinity is always present in some way: “the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit” of the Christians, “Wotan, Odin and Friga” of the Scandinavians, and “Isis, Osiris and Horus” in the Egyptian pantheons, seem to refer to the same archetypal concepts. The same goes for the four elements, although the specifics in their definitions can make them seem unrelated; experiential knowledge of what they refer to clears it up in a way that description cannot.

Something to bear in mind is that all over these experiences, ideas and concepts have been described in language by human beings, which, to me at least, indicates that they must refer to some experience possible through those six points of sensory input we call the senses. Even in a PCE the senses continue to be where experience occurs for this body, the body is what allows the senses to operate and seems to be the only way in which a human can experience the world.

Realistically though, without considerable effort to practice sincerely within each tradition, record your results until you’ve gone as far as you can and then switch to another tradition and repeat the process over and over, it’s likely to be based on speculation. I’ve spent a long time involved in the process I’ve just described so I do have some practical knowledge of this stuff, but nowhere near enough to offer a definitive answer.

What then complicates matters further is the nature of communication between human beings, and the inherent difficulty in ensuring that others are understanding your words as you intended them to be understood. On top of that there are issues with language being translated over time, there are often centuries between the writing of the text in it’s original language, in specific social, economic, religious and political conditions which are often overlooked but are likely to have influenced the way in which that language was used. Further still, the nature of symbolic representations, even something as seemingly simple and universal as the crucifix, which predates Christianity by a long shot, means that their “true” meaning depends entirely on context; for Christians, a crucifix represents the death of Jesus for their sins, but to a Hindu it’s basically God’s cock. Add a rose to it, a’la Rosicrucianism, or a circle, a’la Celtic Paganism and it’s the God and Goddess (who are also Shiva and Shakti) locked in Divine intercourse, i.e. a symbol of the combination of opposing forces in union, aka the end of the subject/object division...which is also, just to keep you on your toes here, what the “Great Work” of the magician is aimed at, as well as the discovery of the “Philosophers Stone” for the alchemist. In fact, language is responsible for so much shit over the years that it’d be nice if a less ambiguous, more specific and universal mode of communication could be developed for this purpose.

As you can see, it gets very complicated very quickly and that’s before we’ve even started talking about “God”, “relative experience” and what any of these words refer to phenomenologically! In my experience, it’s an enjoyable area to study and can lead to some interesting insights which could be overlooked by continually thinking in a fixed way about things, which is always a possibility if you’re entirely immersed in the belief system, or conceptual model you’re working with, and then forget that you actually put yourself there.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
If one seriously and sincerely contemplates and connects the core essence of these mystical engimas, then one is bound to end up in a cyclic existence of frustration and dissapointment all because of the Buddhas account. Pablos link to Bernadette defintely sparked some intriguing concepts. It is certian that we may conclude that these symbolic representations are defintely common into the practicioners path. However, Edward Carpenters account and analysis of such distinctions brings up a good point: many people including this forum expierenced jhanas and other attainments without prior expierence or knowledge, one can say by spontanous accident.

So look at this concept: a deeply religious man or otherwise was blatantly gifted like an artistic vision, was subjected to a, certian lets say jhana or AP expierenced through spontanous incident, this mind blowing suffusion can doubt lead one if religious to say that it was God if no explanation of an ineffable predicament was presented before. This can be the reason why many Buddhists who practice and achieve infinite conscioussness jhana, they are warned not to become attached to it. Bernadette realized after her unitive event with God, she like many others " accidently " fell into a state of no self that transcended subjective consciousness into a realm of seeing things as they are. As a matter of fact, it wouldnt be wrong to assume that if anyone who was a vitctim to even something like jhana unconditionally, they would without doubt exaggerate the composition of the event. Even Swami Vivekenanda was said to have visions of Krishna and then when converting to a christian practice, he seen jesus. Also, it is also proof that some who fell to these incidents who were athiests or sceptics never attributed it to a God or diety.

So, if one takes into all these accounts it must be said: That unlike Buddha, these mystics were too attached to that self image and their preconcieved beliefs and never had the intent of going farther, Bernadette and those lucky to restrain from the clinging saw a ultimate and uncondtioned path. As a matter of fact, if mistakes like these are common, then it wouldnt be erronoues to assert that maybe there is a path farther than Nirvana. The only way to objectively conclude this: practice yourself and see if its right.

And Tommy, language a faculty of the mind is interpretive and no doubt a synthesis of subjective quality. Actually, linguistics or language falls short to elucidate reality. It may be an accurate approximation but thats all it is, an aporoximation.

This is why the Buddha advised to atleast try to explain it.

Best wishes, Mike
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
It may be an accurate approximation but thats all it is, an aporoximation.

That's what I'm saying, language is limited in it's ability to communicate experiential data accurately without possibility of misinterpretation and/or distortion through numerous factors.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
This is why most mystics and philosphers like Kant and Buddha always followed the doctrine that language as human faculty can never be responsible for its representation of nature. Kant in his Critique Of Pure Reason signifies a correlation between synthetic and analytical knowledge. He attributes our intuitive conceptions such as math or even time and space are nothing more than creationa of frameworks that our mind has to work in order to recieve information. This can be the reason by such things as enlightment or objective insight can never be penetrated by intellctual speculation nor analytical pondering because they are limited as a form of language and its best to be mindfull of the minds tendency to react and label things to its stimuli. However, with the cessation of consciousness and perception, only expierence stands in the forefront because the bodily functions are the only remnants of being remaining. This might also be why Nirvana can never be elaborated as language like intellcutal prediction is a mode of the conscioussness and its subjectivity.

Once again, the only way well find out is if we attain full enlightment and see if this elucidation is valid.

Best wishes, mike
thumbnail
D Z, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 346 Join Date: 9/18/11 Recent Posts
Short answer: They are describing different states.

Long answer:
This article by Kent Palmer is interesting, well worth reading in full if you are interested in this stuff.



The problem is that Buddhism is derived from the Indo-European worldview which is unique in having Being as a fundamental linguistic concept. Buddhism is a attempt to get away from Being and back to Existence. But the unfortunate problem is that once you have Being, if you try to return to existence, it does not mean you can return to the pristine state prior to the advent of Being. This is fundamental problem that once you are sullied with the illusory nature of Being you cannot return directly to a pristine state directly. This is part of the insidious nature of Maya.

In some way, it is this contradiction that has made Buddhism so deep. if it did not have this contradiction that comes from its source in Hinduism then it would not nearly be as interesting philosophically. Because Buddhism has struggled with this fundamental contradiction at its core that it takes from Hinduism its depth is much greater.

The basic problem is that Buddhism says that things are empty, especially the self, that they do not have Being (Sat). Yet the Buddha also accepted Karma which is a metaphysical kind of causality across lives through reincarnation and offers the escape from this wheel of Samsara (Birth and Death) as Nirvana (cessation). The basic contradiction is how can there be causation when everything is empty? There is no substantive basis to carry the causation, yet the struggle for freedom from Karma is the central drive that pushes Buddhists toward the realization of Nirvana...[contd]


... Saying that Being does not exist still calls attention to it, and thus does not escape its traces completely. What happens is that despite the rejection of Being, Buddhism remains with traces of Nihilism within its core despite its focus on non-duality. Once Being arises you cannot just immediately return to existence without carrying some of the infection of maya, dunya, dukkah with you back into existence. In this sense there is no direct way our of Being once you have become ensnared in its illusions. Because if this there is great doubt that many Western practitioners of Buddhism ever actually get out of this maze, but in most cases they remain in some sort of rarefied self-delusion. But on the other hand because Buddhism arises directly from the Indo-European worldview of Hinduism it is also perfectly applicable to the Western worldview and thus it is a genuine path toward non duality for Westerners who want to escape the duality of existence emphasized by Western culture throughout its history. However, because this way comes from the Indo-European worldview it is particularly suited for us as Westerners but also it does itself not escape completely the problematic of the Western worldview either particularly its nihilism. Buddhism remains fundamentally nihilistic in spite of its seeking nonduality as a state of existence. And in fact as I say in another answer it in fact uses nihilism of the worldview against itself to provide the leap to Nirvana. So Buddhism is essentially selling us our own snake oil back in different bottles believing that two wrongs do make a right, but unfortunately this is not exactly true and the slight asymmetry causes us not to actually be able to return to existence unsullied by Being...[contd]

... Another problem in early Buddhism that Mahayana solved was the fact that early Buddhists and probably the Buddha said only the Self was empty but there were about a hundred other dharmas (tattvas) had real Being. Eventually it was realized that for Buddhism to be self -consistent all dharmas had to be empty. As time went by Buddhism step by step erased the various inconsistencies in early Buddhism and in the process Buddhism became a very sophisticated philosophical approach to existence as nondual. But this nonduality was approached on the basis of a fundamental duality in the nature of truth. There are two truths, one is that of the mundane world, and the other is the world of enlightenment where nirvana is realized by the individual who then comes back into the world and lives as an enlightened being. The fact that there are these two truths, mundane and super-mundane is a fundamental belief of Buddhism. But it is no wonder that eventually a higher kind of Buddhism would come along which would challenge the two truths. And in fact there were several of these, the most interesting of which is DzogChen of Manjushrimitra and Mipham. Manjushrimitra turns Nagarjuna’s logic back against Buddhism producing a second order heresy that denies the two truths, and point out its dualism and nihilism. DzogChen is considered the highest form of Buddhism by the Tibetans. It is a kind of Buddhism that leaves Buddhism behind and is practiced by the Bon (in Tibet like the Taoist, Shinto) as well as the Buddhists. In DzogChen we come full circle finally and return to a pristine state, after carrying the infection of Being over into the Nondual on the way our of it. And this is a fundamental lesson. Getting out of Maya, Dunya, Dukkha is not so easy as just taking a nondual stance toward existence, one must get rid of the traces of nihilism that are left over from being in existence as well.

So there is actually four different states:

Taoism – Void existence prior to the introduction of Being.
Duality within a World suffused by Being created by Indo-Europeans uniquely
Non-Dual Emptiness that is still nihilistic even without Being in Buddhism
The extraction of nihilism from nondual emptiness in DzogChen’s manifestation.

The key point is that all these are different states and the fact that DzogChen negates the nihilism still endemic to Buddhism despite its claims to nonduality of emptiness does not mean that the primordial void has been returned to in the pristine way in which we departed from it when we created Being. However the sate that DzogChen proposes appears very similar to the state of Void in Taoism. One way to talk about this is to realize that Taoist Void and Buddhist Emptiness are different from each other and that they are in fact dual-nonduals. What DzogChen gets at is a deeper nonduality of manifestation prior to the distinction between emptiness and void created by the institution of Being.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
Thanks for the post. But im sorry either i have intepreted this article wrong or what but i dont agree with this guy. Is essay is the classical example of " if there is no self, then what is reborn? ". He states that without the essence of being, existence cannot begin to fathom an explanation. He also states that a karmically functioned rebirth directly contradicts the truth of no self or emptiness but anyone one will tell you or him for that matter that remnants of karma which is composed of aggregates are converted into a series of successions that occupy a body. What karma and how it works is like matter and energy converted into new forms and shapes,that give rise to supposedly new propertoes. Now when analysing energy, no one speculates that is has some underlying basis or essence that is a self. So it is not contradictory to assume that these truths are identically factual. Just because residues of so called personality remain to be renewed into another subjective consciousness if you will in no way postulates that there has to be a subst, antial basis underlying its role. Like energy, these aggregates just convert to a specific life form. He thinks according to my opinion, that these aggregates are in a mental continuum of a certian person only occupying him but even though this is partially true due to the fact that an enlgihtened individual eliminates the cyclic existence, self in no way regarded as a permanent nor an ubderlying essence. If energy dissolves and gives rise to a new form, we dont question whtether there is a little soul occupying that stream but its like a new existence only conditoned by the old one. So once the chain of cause and effecr are broken, then that liberated existence is open. But i do find it rather confusing.

My studies in Tibetan Buddhism are not strong and some modern scholars assert that the no self us severely misconceieved by people.

Best wishes, mike
thumbnail
D Z, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 346 Join Date: 9/18/11 Recent Posts
Micheal Kush:
Thanks for the post. But im sorry either i have intepreted this article wrong or what but i dont agree with this guy. Is essay is the classical example of " if there is no self, then what is reborn? "...


Yea initially, but later on he also talks about how Buddhism resolves the classical "if there is no self, then what is reborn", along with some speculative history of the type of solution that you are writing about here.

I think his historical theories are a bit of stretch, to but it mildly. But that, IMO, is not the salient issue in the article. The important part is bit about the types or level of non-duality.

So there is actually four different states:

Taoism – Void existence prior to the introduction of Being.
Duality within a World suffused by Being created by Indo-Europeans uniquely
Non-Dual Emptiness that is still nihilistic even without Being in Buddhism
The extraction of nihilism from nondual emptiness in DzogChen’s manifestation.


Basically what I am suggesting is that the no self, Only Self (or Brahman, or God or etc) type experience is incomplete non-duality.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
D Z:
Micheal Kush:
Thanks for the post. But im sorry either i have intepreted this article wrong or what but i dont agree with this guy. Is essay is the classical example of " if there is no self, then what is reborn? "...


Yea initially, but later on he also talks about how Buddhism resolves the classical "if there is no self, then what is reborn", along with some speculative history of the type of solution that you are writing about here.

I think his historical theories are a bit of stretch, to but it mildly. But that, IMO, is not the salient issue in the article. The important part is bit about the types or level of non-duality.

So there is actually four different states:

Taoism – Void existence prior to the introduction of Being.
Duality within a World suffused by Being created by Indo-Europeans uniquely
Non-Dual Emptiness that is still nihilistic even without Being in Buddhism
The extraction of nihilism from nondual emptiness in DzogChen’s manifestation.


Basically what I am suggesting is that the no self, Only Self (or Brahman, or God or etc) type experience is incomplete non-duality.


Ahhh now i get it. Yes i can see how that works out considering that if you did have a union with God, there would still be a slight seperation. But yes it is interesting and i will read his articles more.


Thanks and best wishes, Mike

Edit: btw that article is mind blowing. After reading it, im still puzzled by his concept of nonduality. Is he saying that arahantship is flawed because there are still remains of duality and that one should keep going to reach nonduality like the Bodhissitava ideal?
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
...some modern scholars assert that the no self us severely misconceieved by people.

I'm not a scholar, modern or otherwise, but I would agree that a lot of people have completely misinterpreted the anatta seal and so still end up taking either the eternalistic and a nihilistic view, both of which were dismissed by the Buddha himself. I highly recommend "Awakening to Reality" for a more thorough and clear discussion of anatta.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
Tommy M:
...some modern scholars assert that the no self us severely misconceieved by people.

I'm not a scholar, modern or otherwise, but I would agree that a lot of people have completely misinterpreted the anatta seal and so still end up taking either the eternalistic and a nihilistic view, both of which were dismissed by the Buddha himself. I highly recommend "Awakening to Reality" for a more thorough and clear discussion of anatta.


Exactly. Actually some people like to misintepret the texts stating that what Buddha meant by anatta is the lower conventional self and that he advocated an absolute Self, which is another delusion. The paradox up there in the article regarding Existence and Being is a bit puzzling but after much thinking its easy to see how anatta works, well just have to wait until we actually expierence it

Best wishes, mike
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
The paradox up there in the article regarding Existence and Being is a bit puzzling but after much thinking its easy to see how anatta works, well just have to wait until we actually expierence it

It'll happen, don't worry about that. emoticon

To get to grips with the general paradox referred to, image two completely opposite concepts existing at the one time; where is that those concepts exist and what is it that causes them to appear as opposites? I'm asking the question rhetorically, just look at your own experience right now and see what's actually happening as you sit there as this body.

"You" don't get to experience it though... emoticon
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
Thanks for the lucid elucidation. I get it now, a doing but no doer of course. However, i do understand how some might misconcieve the idea of anatta and rebirth. For example, this existence that "I" am occupying is the result of karmic aggregates from previous lives and when i become liberated, the cycle breaks. One may speculate as to why there is a reason why this mental continuum always functions through a certian life force. Say you have a continuum and i have one but we really dnt have ine because its not ours.

But yes, no doer and no knower just existence itself.

Best wishes, mike
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
I get it now, a doing but no doer of course.

You've probably seen in mentioned on here countless times already, but check out the instructions in the Bahiya Sutta:

Bahiya Sutta:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

It's just a matter of recognizing what's already happening, and how it is that the mind fabricates an "I" to be the doer, or the subject who perceives an object when, in actuality, there was never a subject there in the first place; when there is no subject to perceive an object, there is no object to be perceived since it's mental identification as an "object" immediately imputes the illusion of a "subject" who perceives it. When that's seen clearly, the distinction no longer arises and the entire experience of reality is seen as this luminous, transient interplay of impersonal processes.
Micheal Kush, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Buddhism and other mystical traditions.

Posts: 34 Join Date: 6/6/12 Recent Posts
Have defintely seen it many times. I cant imagine the expierence of nonduality extended to an ultimate level like that. It must be ineffable. However, i feel like its also ordinary as ever not that its a disadvantage. Well wait and see

Best wishes, mike

Breadcrumb