Originally posted by Weychin:Upon one’s demise, we can either choose whether “Self” ends which discussion ends.
Or when we die, the “Self” remains, residual of karmic consciousness, subject to our habitual clinging. It is with this identify that we cling “Self as “Soul”.
When only if we are born with human parents that we develop a human consciousness. Again investigation shows one’s”Self” is developed in this human body, pending its functionalities. The provision of “Self” comes with being born and not with introduction of “Self”.
Similiarly, if being born an animal, similiarly the consciousness will be that of an animal. Just a dog would have dog “Self” or a cat with cat”Self”!
I think the Christian belief is that animals have not “Soul”, but when we observe or interact with animals, we will find that they are capable of acting for “Self”, exhibiting free will.
The Bible talks a lot about animals, but you are right that the Bible does not speak of animals in the same way it speak of humans. Both humans and animals are considered nephesh chaya, which means "living soul". That would mean that both animals and humans possess the same "life principle" if you like, but man is created in the image of God whereas animals are not. So yes, animals do act and behave as if they have a mind on their own and have feelings too, but they do not worship God or engage in self-reflection and moral reflection. On the other hand, plants are not called nephesh chaya so plants are not alive in the way that humans and animals are. Which his why when we say that God gave man the freedom to eat from plants and fruits there is no issue of death. The original creation was all vegetarian. Plants wither, they don't die in the same sense as animals and humans die. Biblical life is not the same as biological life, that's the point I want to mke.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There is no subject or object. Subject is empty of a self-standing, independent Self or agent or controller or perceiver apart from experience. Object is also empty in that they are dependently arisen and empty of any inherently existing substance.
What I find most intriguing is why, if there is really no subject or object, that universally we communicate and live as though object and subject exists. I mean, even as a Buddhist communicating Buddhist beliefs to others you have to speak in terms of object and subject. You cannot communicate without presupposing them. So how is it possible to deny the very existence of something that must be presuppose to even begin to deny it? In the same way one would have to use the very laws of logic to deny that laws of logic exist.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
In any case, it must be understood that the emptiness teachings reject a substantially existing Brahman or ultimate reality.
The ultimate truth of emptiness is not the same as some Absolute [inherently existing metaphysical essence, which would oppose emptiness]. Ultimate truth is not the same as ultimate reality.
While ultimate truth is not ultimate reality, wouldn't ultimate truth declares or reflects what ultimate reality is? If an ultimate reality is rejected, what then is left of reality? By my lights, the ultimate reality is like the ground of all being or existence. I believe that God is the ulltimate reality, the great I AM. From Him comes the source of all that exists in the universe. The universe exists because God made it, but God is self-existing and eternal. If He is not self-existing, then there must be someone greater. But since God is defined as that which there is no greater, we cannot go backwards or it becomes irrational and illogical. Philosophically speaking God is called the necessary being of which there can only be one.
Originally posted by Weychin:You would have realised that the Yahweh in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus Christ has different roles. One is a patron deity of the tribes of Israel has much anger, that wage much destruction on Israelis’ enemies and anyone, including Israelis who worship other gods.
The other is the New Testament God that embraces Gentiles but with a double standard with Jews as chosen people and professing(conditional) love and forgiveness.
This are aspects of Christianity I more familiar with. Please pardon my ignorance.
The God of the OT and the NT is the same. There is no double standard at all. You have to understand the makeup of the OT and NT. OT has 39 books, large in volume and having more historical elements in it. NT is only 27 books, 5 of which are historical and the rest being letters. The OT is about God's dealings with humans over a period of 4500 years, but the NT is only about a history of 100 years beginning with the birth of Jesus. So it is incorrect to say that God in the OT is more angry or is a mere tribal God compared to the NT. That stems from a failure to consider the makeup and genre of the books in the Bible.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is false ultimately but on the level of conventions it may be true (that is, on the presumption of self and things which is how language works), and language does not actually need to have substantial existence to work (for example we know that a car has no self-essence of car anywhere inside or outside its components, yet conventionally we impute 'car' for communication purposes) which is why,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
I guess this is why I find it intriguing to speak of no-self. A car exists or it does not. I own a car. I sit in it and drive in it everyday. It has real existence, not just by convention or conventional use of language and words. The car really exists. If one wishes to go philosophical and say that the car CAN BE deconstructed in the mind such that you no longer have a car but only the various parts that can be made into anything, of course I agree with that. But that's just being philosophical about it and theorizing, or you might actually physically wreck it, but you are still left with the physical parts, you cannot deconstruct it until it disappears into thin air. The fact remains, and the reality remains, and the law of identity applies, that there is a car in which I am really using. The car objectively exists right here and right now. The reason why a car exists is because human intelligence has been applied to matter, an intelligent cause resulting in an intelligent product that serves a purpose.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is certainly not self-destruction because to 'destroy' a 'self' would imply that there was a self to begin with.
But it can be realized that there was indeed, no such substantially existing 'self' to begin with, that could later be annihilated or destroyed.
So we are not 'destroying' a self but simply seeing through that notion. Indeed, thought does not need to presuppose a thinker and senses does not need to presuppose a sensor.
Just like raining does not need to presuppose a 'rainer'. Raining rains, raining IS rain.
Wind blowing does not require a blower, etc. Blowing = the wind. We are not denying that causes and conditions are required for wind: for example, the interaction of air pressure, etc. But we are saying there is no ultimate self, controller or agent that 'controls' wind. There is just the blowing/wind. The same goes for self and experience.
Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeCW-b41_E
But wouldn't it be precisely begging the question to say that the self does not exist? Wouldn't it more in accordance to daily experience to affirm the existence of the self than to deny it? Wouldn't the burden of proof rest on the person denying the existence of self, for even there needs a self to deny a self. Thoughts presuppose a thinker in the same way that a painting presupposes a painter. I would even argue that rain presupposes a "rainer" because God established the laws of nature such that we have the hydraulic cycle. The same applies for other natural effects like wind or snow.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The Buddhists however are rejecting a Self that is: A separate, or independent, or changeless self or agent, apart from and unaffected by all conditioned experiences.
If I understand correctly, I see this rejection of Self as a rejection of God, for in Christianity we understand that God is separate, independent, changeless etc. i.e. God is separate and distinct from His creation. God's existence is not dependent on any other, for if so He ceases to be God. Instead, all else that exist is dependent on God.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, that is not the case. You are thinking that the person, as an individual person, becomes deified. It is not the case that the person is God. There is no ego involved (if it is the individual person that is 'God' then that would certainly be an 'egoic' kind of position), instead the ego dissolves in this realization.
Actually what the person experiences is a dissolving of his 'old me', a dissolving of a sense of a separate or individual existence, so there is no question of the person or old me becoming deified. (as mentioned in the 'salt doll' example in the upanishads example) Instead, what 'takes over' is transpersonal true I AM/Self that is all-pervasive consciousness underlying and giving rise to life, and an animating life force that transcends him and lives him. And this realization and experience is common to all the mystical/contemplative traditions of all religions throughout the world, whether or not you agree with the mystics' understanding of God.
This is why I find that this quote is very similar to the mystic's experience and there is no doubt to me that this author has experienced similar states:20 I have been tcrucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives uin me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, vwho loved me and wgave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
I have personally been through that realization, so has a number of people in this forum. It is a humbling realization, not a self-centered one.
Yet the apostle Paul, in penning those words, is describing a reality, or an experience, that is vastly different from what I understand you as sharing here. Paul is not negating himself, or denying his self's existence. Rather he is telling us who is his boss in life now. It is akin to the master-slave relationship, but more intimate and spiritual in nature. Paul wants to be more like Christ, to let the character of Christ be reflected in his life. Christ has become Paul's role model in life, so to speak.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/04/buddhism-is-not-what-you-think.html
"The Song of the Jewel Mirror Awareness," a poem by the great Chinese Zen teacher Tung-shan, speaks of the very same Awareness that the Buddha pointed to. This image of a jewel mirror was used as a way to express the source from which all things issue. All the myriad things, thoughts, and feelings we experience appear like images in a mirror: vivid yet insubstantial. The ungraspable mirror is what's Real, while the seemingly isolated things that appear in it are not.
Consider for example, the simple act of smelling a rose. We see the rose, feel the rose, bring it close, breathe in through our nose. We "smell the rose," as we say, though this refers more to how we conceptualize our experience than it does to what is actually experienced. To say we smell a fragrance would be closer to the actual experience.
But where does the act of smelling a fragrance takes place? If we attend carefully, we can see that all of our usual accounts of the experience start to break down.
Is the fragrance in the rose? If it was, how could you smell it? You're here while the rose is "out there" somewhere. On the other hand, if the rose were removed, you surely wouldn't smell the fragrance. But if you were removed - or if the air in between you and the rose were removed - you also wouldn't smell it.
So is the fragrance in the rose? Is it in your nose? Is it in the air in between? Is it in the air if no one is around to smell it? If so, how could we tell? Is the fragrance in your brain, then? And if it's in your brain, then why is the rose necessary at all?
Ultimately, the simple act of "smelling a rose" - or any other act involving a subject and object - becomes impossible to pin down and utterly insubstantial.
Gradually, however, we can begin to appreciate what the experience of smelling a rose actually entails. It's of the nature of the mirror itself - that is, that the source of all experience is Mind. As such, the act of smelling - or seeing or hearing or touching or thinking - literally has no location. This non-locality is the very essence of Mind.
But I would ask, why even try to break down the rose? The rose can be observed, held, seen, and smelled, and even tasted (if you like rose tea). It really truly exists in reality. If it has thorns it can prick you and make you bleed for real. So this is very much the part where (very sorry) I still find it hard to grasp.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The Bible talks a lot about animals, but you are right that the Bible does not speak of animals in the same way it speak of humans. Both humans and animals are considered nephesh chaya, which means "living soul". That would mean that both animals and humans possess the same "life principle" if you like, but man is created in the image of God whereas animals are not. So yes, animals do act and behave as if they have a mind on their own and have feelings too, but they do not worship God or engage in self-reflection and moral reflection. On the other hand, plants are not called nephesh chaya so plants are not alive in the way that humans and animals are. Which his why when we say that God gave man the freedom to eat from plants and fruits there is no issue of death. The original creation was all vegetarian. Plants wither, they don't die in the same sense as animals and humans die. Biblical life is not the same as biological life, that's the point I want to mke.
Originally posted by Weychin:The difference between humans and animals is the level of sophiscation of speech and elaboration of conceptuals ideas. This owes to the complexity of the human society. Comparatively just as chimp can taught to understand spoken, sign and written language, owing to its relative complex society as compared to other animals. It is just as easy to say that God is created on Man's image/consciousness as no other animals is able to identify with God.
I think the difference is one of kind, not degree. Chimps and dogs can be taught to understand SOME human patterns of communication, but you can teach them for their entire lifetime and they can never reach the language grasp of a 3 year old precocious girl. You can even teach a parrot to talk, but you are not going to have any meaningful conversation with it. I think it only responds to cue words or repeated words but it is not reflecting and actually interacting with you like how a 3 year old would. If God were really created in Man's image, how would it look like? I doubt it would be the God of the Bible, because I would think that man would create a god that would be most palatable and acceptable to everyone. Even then, one must have some shred of evidence that God (specifically the God of the Bible) is invented by man. Not only that, it still leaves unanswered the question of who created man, and why man is the way he is, and so different from the animal kingdom in many aspects.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The God of the OT and the NT is the same. There is no double standard at all. You have to understand the makeup of the OT and NT. OT has 39 books, large in volume and having more historical elements in it. NT is only 27 books, 5 of which are historical and the rest being letters. The OT is about God's dealings with humans over a period of 4500 years, but the NT is only about a history of 100 years beginning with the birth of Jesus. So it is incorrect to say that God in the OT is more angry or is a mere tribal God compared to the NT. That stems from a failure to consider the makeup and genre of the books in the Bible.
Originally posted by Weychin:The presence of God in the Old Testament, centers around the Israel tribe and areas for the most parts. Other than Creation, God's presence is not ubiquitious among all peoples. Other tribes are usually just Israelis' enemies. So the relationship with God and Israelis' is an exclusive relationship,eg. patron deity. God have never acted on behalf any other people or tribes. Also the so called lost tribes are just what they are, "lost".
I beg to differ and would have to say that you are incorrect on this
The Bible talks about a God who created the heavens and the earth, a merism to denote the entire universe. God is a God for all mankind, beginning with Adam who was our ancestor, and then Noah after the Flood. Even from Abraham and then Israel whom God chose, the plan was always to bless the entire world beginning with Abraham. God's dealings with Israel always had a greater purpose that extends beyond the borders of Israel. Thus we see the progressive revelation of God from the OT to the NT, from dealing with Israel to the birth of the Messiah, from the Jews to include the Gentiles. Jesus died for the whole world, not just for the Jews.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think the difference is one of kind, not degree. Chimps and dogs can be taught to understand SOME human patterns of communication, but you can teach them for their entire lifetime and they can never reach the language grasp of a 3 year old precocious girl. You can even teach a parrot to talk, but you are not going to have any meaningful conversation with it. I think it only responds to cue words or repeated words but it is not reflecting and actually interacting with you like how a 3 year old would. If God were really created in Man's image, how would it look like? I doubt it would be the God of the Bible, because I would think that man would create a god that would be most palatable and acceptable to everyone. Even then, one must have some shred of evidence that God (specifically the God of the Bible) is invented by man. Not only that, it still leaves unanswered the question of who created man, and why man is the way he is, and so different from the animal kingdom in many aspects.
Originally posted by Weychin:That is you've failed to compare the pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies. We appear to one of a kind because of our constant developing minds owing to ability to conceptualize and communicate ideas through speech and writing. However, we also have developed "Self" and by proxy "God". The image of God is you as an individual would perceive it to be, and if you take the bible literary, man is to be created God likeness, an mirror image of man.
What do you mean by pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies?
The Bible talks about God creating living things to reproduce after its kind. So we have man kind, the dog kind, the cat kind etc. Each has been created and designed to do what it does do. Only humans have the ability to write and talk. Animals do not. They can communicate within their own kinds of course, but it is rather instinctual. Certainly unlike the language capability of man. Our ability to possess language complete with grammar and syntax is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We can talk and conceptualise things is because that's how we were created and designed to function.
If I were to create a God, I would not create a God that is all holy and will punish sin, don't you think so? Why not create a God that will save everyone, completely overlooks sin and put everyone in heaven?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:What do you mean by pace evolvement of complexity of different animal societies?
The Bible talks about God creating living things to reproduce after its kind. So we have man kind, the dog kind, the cat kind etc. Each has been created and designed to do what it does do. Only humans have the ability to write and talk. Animals do not. They can communicate within their own kinds of course, but it is rather instinctual. Certainly unlike the language capability of man. Our ability to possess language complete with grammar and syntax is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom. We can talk and conceptualise things is because that's how we were created and designed to function.
If I were to create a God, I would not create a God that is all holy and will punish sin, don't you think so? Why not create a God that will save everyone, completely overlooks sin and put everyone in heaven?
Originally posted by Weychin:Our fundalmental difference is I do not see the hand of god in anything, I see not profit in following the line argument. Simply, if you believe the bible, I respect your faith and beliefs. If God wants me to take faith him, then let him talk to me in all wisdom.
So the question is, if there is a God what would you expect to see?
The Bible says that the invisible things of God are made known in the things that are made. It teaches that the universe "shouts" the existence of God, just like a painting "declares" that a painter exists. It's a logical inference.
Originally posted by Weychin:I am more interested that you investigate “Self”, not as an intellectual subject or debate, but as an personal experience.
As of this moment, you are unable to see past “I” view.
You are unable to your “I”ness past your mind stories.
You see and indulge in your thoughts as a single stream.
But my personal experience is that self exists. I even refer to MYSELF when I am talking or communication. At every moment I am affirming the existence of self. I am communicating to you just as you are to me. At this point there is two selfs talking to each other. It is impossible to see past "I" view. Who is seeing past the "I" view? Surely it would mean you taking a vantage point above what you can see, but this is logically impossible.
Originally posted by Weychin:You should realise that you habitually label your thoughts emotionally.
Slow the mind a bit, settle down, and you will start to experience or”see” thoughts and sensations arising and passing. Liken this to watching a film on slow motion.
You will notice as long you do not indulge in you mind stories, your minds actually shifts betweens thoughts and thoughts, thought and sensation.
Until you are able to shift out the “I” perspective, you can only remain at your conceptual reality.
There are thoughts and there are sensations which are what I am thinking and experiencing. They are real. I can be thinking of a real person, or thinking of having a nice ice cream and then experiencing the sensation of an ice cream. They are all real and experienced by "I", I cannot go outside the "I" perspective. I don't agree that I am having only the concept of eating an ice cream if at this moment I am slurping on one.
You mentioned about slowing down and realising certain things. But who is doing the slowing down and realising? It has to be "me" or "I". Otherwise who exactly are you communicating to? Or who should be heeding your words if not "me" or "I"?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So the question is, if there is a God what would you expect to see?
The Bible says that the invisible things of God are made known in the things that are made. It teaches that the universe "shouts" the existence of God, just like a painting "declares" that a painter exists. It's a logical inference.
Originally posted by Weychin:I no longer have any relationship with god, I therefore consider it not profitable to make idle speculations. However, at this moment, I have a karmic ability with you. Hopefully, being here will sow the seed of liberation.
One can say he no longer has a relationship with his ex-girlfriend, but that does not translate to saying that the girl did not exist or does not exist. The same with God. Many people will say they do not know God, but that isn't the question yet, the question is whether God exists or not and this is hardly a matter of idle speculation. In philosophy the existence of God is always, if not usually, the most important topic of discussion. There are good reasons and arguments supporting the case for there being a God.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:There are thoughts and there are sensations which are what I am thinking and experiencing. They are real. I can be thinking of a real person, or thinking of having a nice ice cream and then experiencing the sensation of an ice cream. They are all real and experienced by "I", I cannot go outside the "I" perspective. I don't agree that I am having only the concept of eating an ice cream if at this moment I am slurping on one.
You mentioned about slowing down and realising certain things. But who is doing the slowing down and realising? It has to be "me" or "I". Otherwise who exactly are you communicating to? Or who should be heeding your words if not "me" or "I"?