Self or Not-Self

David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual experience wants to describe it in language.
Language is perhaps unavoidably dualistic: subject is
differentiated from predicate/attribute, something is designated
which then does something. So in order to express nonduality
this duality must be somehow denied. Two obvious alternatives
suggest themselves: one can say that there is no subject, or
that there is only subject. The nondual experience can be
described by negating the subject (no self: consciousness is
nothing other than what is experienced) or by denying the
object (all phenomena are nothing other than a manifestation of
consciousness itself). The first alternative is Buddhism, the
second is Advaita Vedanta. To say that there is no self, or that
everything is the Self, turns out to be the same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

Originally posted by Taoman
David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual ...[text shortened]... e same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

It's Descartes' fault. He didn't stumble upon "Cogitans, ergo cogitans."

Roughly, "Thinking is happening, therefore, thinking is happening."

Originally posted by Taoman
David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual ...[text shortened]... e same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

Hey Taoman, this Greek ole cow hopes you and yours are fine!


Methinks Loy would better say:
“Everything is real and not real
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.”

(and comment on this)
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual ...[text shortened]... e same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

Something very much like this is expressed in the words of the Apostle Paul -

The New Testament teaches the termination of the godless self and the resurrection of the man with the life of Christ dispensed into his soul, that he may live a life in union with the living and available Son of God.

"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Galatians 2:20)


Christ is crucified and resurrected. Through receiving Him in His form as "life giving Spirit" or the Holy Spirit an identification with Christ's life in accomplished more and more in the believer.

The believer comes to the realization that his identification with Christ has caused his ego to be grafted into Christ, indwelt with by Christ, and Christ's history becomes available in his experience.

He has been crucified with Christ. The fallen Adamic self centered "I" is terminated because of Christ's very death on the cross. Yet the new "I" which is mingled with God, infused with the Holy Spirit, was raised with Christ in His resurrection.

It is no longer the self-centered fallen Adamic "I" that lives. It is the new "I" which is a man mingled in a living union with Jesus Christ.

The illustration of the branch grafted into the vine tree was used by Jesus to explain this organic union in John 15.

"Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (See John 15:3,4)

Originally posted by Taoman
David Loy is an esteemed Buddhist writer, able to put more clearly into words that which many stumble to express.
A small offering for the Buddhist or non-dualist 'sympathisers' that may 'happen' around this neck of the woods ...

Excerpt from "Mu and Its Implications"
by David Loy

"An interesting problem arises when someone who has had
this nondual ...[text shortened]... e same: neither
description is more or less correct than the other."

Regards to all.

The explicate figures,
the implicate ground:
all one gestalt—

I-and-I say: every I
is an I of the same I,
in the all-in-all
nothing left over…

Originally posted by jaywill
Something very much like this is expressed in the words of the Apostle Paul -

The New Testament teaches the termination of the godless self and the resurrection of the man with the life of Christ dispensed into his soul, that he may live a life in union with the living and available Son of God.

[b]"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wh ...[text shortened]... bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (See John 15:3,4) [/b]

We come from different perspectives, but—

The I (“you” ) is right in that we must take care what “I” we’re talking about—the “small i” of the ego-self-construct, or the I that is prior to such constructs (though it may be masked and cramped by them). And so the particular, strange-sounding “word-sound-power” of Iyaric, in which I refer to “you” as “the I”: another I, as I am I, but not an objectified other. It’s hard to sustain such talk, so if I refer to you as “you”, underneath I still recognize the I to whom I speak… 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
Something very much like this is expressed in the words of the Apostle Paul -

The New Testament teaches the termination of the godless self and the resurrection of the man with the life of Christ dispensed into his soul, that he may live a life in union with the living and available Son of God.

[b]"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wh ...[text shortened]... bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (See John 15:3,4) [/b]

Paul's and John's comments are somehow like the Hindu Brahminical approach, but they are not similar to the Buddhist view. Loy over here describes non-dualism, not a religious way we can use so that we can unite with “the one supreme universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the physical universe”.

The Christian Godhead is a super entity. Mu/ Sunyata/ Emptiness/ Voidness is not an ontological entity but an epistemological fact (it is the mode of existence of phenomena and not any kind of thing or super entity).
The factual experience of being mu (empty of self by means of removing forever the fleeting emotional and cognitive obscurations) is the transcendence of duality that can be experienced by everyone: it is simply the constant conceptual and nonconeptual awareness as regards the inseparability of the Two Truths, Emptiness and Form
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Paul's and John's comments are somehow like the Hindu Brahminical approach, but they are not similar to the Buddhist view. Loy over here describes non-dualism, not a religious way we can use so that we can unite with “the one supreme universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the physical universe”.

The Christian Godhead is a super entity. Mu ...[text shortened]... nonconeptual awareness as regards the inseparability of the Two Truths, Emptiness and Form
😵

I usually do not interfere with others on the Forum expressing teachings concerning their own faiths. So for the most part, I will just watch on as the enthusiasts of the Buddhist or Brahminical beliefs discuss their teaching.

At this time I have no other comment unless someone asks me a question that I think I can answer.

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Taoman, this Greek ole cow hopes you and yours are fine!


Methinks Loy would better say:
“Everything is real and not real
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.”

(and comment on this)
😵

Warm greetings BB.
One keeps bouncing of those rubbery walls of words and concepts, giggling all the way!!
Hard edges for sale...anyone interested..going for free!
Nagarjuna rules!

🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
The explicate figures,
the implicate ground:
all one gestalt—

I-and-I say: every I
is an I of the same I,
in the all-in-all
nothing left over…

'I' thank 'you' , vistesd.

Your inimitable expression,
like a well-worn seat, empty,
waiting for the next 1.

Greetings.

Originally posted by jaywill
Something very much like this is expressed in the words of the Apostle Paul -

The New Testament teaches the termination of the godless self and the resurrection of the man with the life of Christ dispensed into his soul, that he may live a life in union with the living and available Son of God.

[b]"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I wh ...[text shortened]... bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (See John 15:3,4) [/b]

To me the message of Jesus was in his way of living; between the myth-built lines (and all such truth bearing myths surround all great men, including Gautama Buddha) I find in Jesus a man who had abandoned his concern for self, who had stepped out into a space of no obvious support and sought in his culture and day to show others how to accept and care, risking approbrium constantly by the hard edge-makers, rubbing those edges out as soon as they made them, mixing with the poor and rejected, the common and despised, bringing a greater vision.
That he used terms like "Father" and spoke in the ways and concepts of the day was incidental; the greatest thing about Jesus of Nazareth (who obviously had a major impact on those who walked with him, as did his message) was, as Paul later expanded on, the grace and forgiveness of God. This grace is of its own meaning, unconditional. Thus was preached a fully open-hearted "God", who tirelessly accepted and supported and accompanied each man and woman, whether they looked to "Him" or not. The selfless part, the empty part, is that when this is truly practiced, one loses gradually a sense of the edges between us. He showed us to accept the other as ourselves, and to such an extent of grace and forgiveness that we allow ourselves to see more clearly the other in ourselves and hard edges fade.
The main problem for theists (as I once was) is that "God" as usually conceived and argued over is just not big enough, we too much hold and restrain "Her" to our so limited and defining human view.

Originally posted by Taoman
Warm greetings BB.
One keeps bouncing of those rubbery walls of words and concepts, giggling all the way!!
Hard edges for sale...anyone interested..going for free!
Nagarjuna rules!

🙂

further:
'...'comment on this' (pardon my fivolity).. all the comments of thousands of years, including all those we never heard or read...not one got it right ever, really. Here we are suspended between silence and words, and often laughter only is left. Our almost comical, so serious quest... and any questing pushes 'it' further along...only by giving up questing does it come within reach...but to get the idea , it can help to have done some questing! The paradoxes of the Absence.

Originally posted by Taoman
To me the message of Jesus was in his way of living; between the myth-built lines (and all such truth bearing myths surround all great men, including Gautama Buddha) I find in Jesus a man who had abandoned his concern for self, who had stepped out into a space of no obvious support and sought in his culture and day to show others how to accept and care, riski enough, we too much hold and restrain "Her" to our so limited and defining human view.

To me the message of Jesus was in his way of living; between the myth-built lines (and all such truth bearing myths surround all great men, including Gautama Buddha)

How can you be so sure that the so-called "myth-built lines" are not simply the lines you have decided that you do not want to believe Jesus Christ said ?

I mean, if you take John chapters 14 - 15, can you enumerate from four chapters which lines you have decided are "myth-built" lines ?

Or can you take the 48 verses in Matthew chapter 5 and tell me which you have decided are "myth-built" lines, and why ?

I find in Jesus a man who had abandoned his concern for self, who had stepped out into a space of no obvious support and sought in his culture and day to show others how to accept and care, risking approbrium constantly by the hard edge-makers, rubbing those edges out as soon as they made them, mixing with the poor and rejected, the common and despised, bringing a greater vision.

Okay. What else do you see there ?

That he used terms like "Father" and spoke in the ways and concepts of the day was incidental;

It is true that the term "Father" as refering to God by the Jews, went back to the Old Testament prophets. Calling God "Father" was not a new matter.

Living as if God REALLY was a man's Father was another matter. And that Jesus did as no other. And there were a number of holy men and women who were exemplary in the history of Israel.

the greatest thing about Jesus of Nazareth (who obviously had a major impact on those who walked with him, as did his message) was, as Paul later expanded on, the grace and forgiveness of God.

I am glad you used the word "expanded" because Paul certainly did not invent either concept.

Christ said His reason for dying His death was to secure forgiveness for many:

"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

His concept of His approaching death is that it is redemptive, substitutionary, and for the forgiveness of sins. The penalty of judgment for sins will fall upon Him instead of upon the sinner, if the sinner would only believe in Him.

As you suggest, the Apostle Paul only taught based upon what Jesus had already taught. In that way he "expanded" upon it.

And as for grace, with Paul it is much more than the traditional "unmerited favor". Grace in Paul's teaching was really the enjoyment of the resurrected Christ living in the receiver / the believer. This indwelling Life of Christ dispensed into man could become man's enjoyment, empowering, enabling, strengthening and everything.

Grace is to Paul, God living in us to be our everything having been born again thorugh Jesus Christ.

This grace is of its own meaning, unconditional. Thus was preached a fully open-hearted "God", who tirelessly accepted and supported and accompanied each man and woman, whether they looked to "Him" or not.

I would only mention that to find such a passage in the New Testament - grace applied to an unbeliever as you suggest, I think would NOT be easy.

But I could find multitudes of verses on grace applied to the man RECEIVING Christ as Lord, inviting Christ to come into one's heart.

However, that God is merciful and allows His rain to fall on believer and unbeliever is certainly true. That God loves the world - believer and unbeliever, is certainly true. Or that the gifts of sunshine, long life, and many blessings are from God upon those seeking Him and those not seeking Him, that is certainly true.

But I would be hard pressed to find a passage on the grace of God, in the New Testament, applied to the unbeliever. God seeks to lead such a one to grace in Christ. Actually, the grace really IS Christ.

Notice the how Paul speaks of Christ living in him in one sentence and the grace working in him in another:

" ... and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 2:20)

Compare:

" ... I labored more abundantly than all of them [apostles], yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)

You see "not I ... but Christ" = "not I, but the grace of God which is with me."

The selfless part, the empty part, is that when this is truly practiced, one loses gradually a sense of the edges between us. He showed us to accept the other as ourselves, and to such an extent of grace and forgiveness that we allow ourselves to see more clearly the other in ourselves and hard edges fade.

When a man realizes what he himself has been forgiven by God, he can view others differently. He can even love and pray for his enemies.

But he must grasp in the depths of his being that he really has been pardoned. He really has been forgiven. God looks now upon him as if he had never sinned.

He has realized that he was JUDGED by God - in Christ's death, on Christ's cross at Calvary. Justice was imputed on behalf of the believer upon the Son of God.

The deep realization of this forgiveness radically alters his view of others. He knows he is no better than anyone else. He is only a sinner saved by grace.

And other sinners, like Himself, also can be graciously saved by grace. To xome under this revelation has to soften the heart of men even for his worst enemy. This is what Jesus can do in our hearts.

Many people realized it OUGHT to be that way. Jesus Christ made it possible that it COULD be that way.

The main problem for theists (as I once was) is that "God" as usually conceived and argued over is just not big enough, we too much hold and restrain "Her" to our so limited and defining human view.

This is true.

In my experience, daily trials, daily circumstances, year after year, enlarge me. As I am pressed to enjoy Christ in more and more varied circumstances, I realize that what I know of Christ is only a drop in the ocean compared to the ocean.

The Apostle Paul discribed the love of Christ as the very limitless dimensions of the universe without end -

" ... you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and height and depth are and to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God." (Eph. 3:18-19)

The BREADTH and the LENGTH and the HEIGHT and the DEPTH are the dimensions of the semingly infinite universe.

How broad is the breadth ?
How long is the length ?
How high is the height ?
How deep is the depth ?

These are the vast dimension of the universe itself. And the created universe speaks to mankind of the limitless love of God in Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill

To me the message of Jesus was in his way of living; between the myth-built lines (and all such truth bearing myths surround all great men, including Gautama Buddha)

How can you be so sure that the so-called "myth-built lines" are not simply the lines you have decided that you do not want to believe Jesus Christ said ?

I mean, if y ...[text shortened]... s to mankind of the limitless love of God in Christ.

Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way. There is also much presupposed belief and opinion already, making it far less than an unbiased account. While the gospels are the only source of information, they also differ greatly from each other. The Jesus of Johns gospel is described from a highly gnostic influenced background many decades later than Marks gospel.
The final figure of the triumphant Christ (Messiah) and the sacrificial literality of Jesus as the only "Son of God" are quite mythological in nature to me. Please do not read myth as lies, they are a common part of all religious traditions and should be read in a post-mythic world, (although Hollywood is still full of them), more in a beautiful poetic manner, as they express great human and spiritual truths.

The cruel Roman cross became the sacrificial altar on which the 'Son of God' was placed like the calves and lambs of the temple of old, placating a rather severe God of punishment. The great message of the cross myth is the underlying message of the change of the view of God to that in the 'New Covenant' (within the Judeao-Christian belief system) wherein freeing grace and love now reigned. A vast improvement of concept.
I'm sorry, I respect where you are coming from, but I deliberately do not try to justify my statements by reference to line and verse because it misses the greater point, which one sees more clearly, as I see it, when one stands back and surveys and let's the spirit of the writings speak within. I find I tend to get trapped in line and verse of the mix of myth and facts.
Also, this S.of G.is much different from the "Son of God" references in the Old Testament writings, in which he is the pre-eminent amongst all the children of God,(not a literal, physical and only one) and that we are all children or "sons" of God.
Poetic myth itself is a reflection of the blurred boundaries between Self and Not Self, between the seen and the unseen, between the describable and the indescribable of what Taoists simply call the Way, or the Great. Buddhists and Hindus have many other misty labels also trying to convey That which we are and have manifested from, and "God" would thus be here a much expanded and more abstract a concept than that of the patriarchical system of the ancient near east, where Jesus and the Judeo-Christian writings and their traditions emerged.

This does not require an abandonment, just a re-orientation of understanding, along liberal theological lines, wherein the Judeo-Christian riches are still celebrated and sought to be lived out.

Originally posted by Taoman
Our approaches to the sacred writings of the Christian church are different, from the beginning. My understanding is that the first gospel was written between 40 and 60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and historical verity is suspect and difficult to prove either way. There is also much presupposed belief and opinion already, making it far less tha herein the Judeo-Christian riches are still celebrated and sought to be lived out.

So many thoughtful points that I would like to comment on. I probably will not be able to develop too thoroughly my comments.

But before I do, I would only ask you to consider this. You say you don't want to get trapped into chapter and verse quoting. Okay. But realize that if you make the charge about "myth-built" lines or sayings as you did, it is appropriate that one should ask then - "Which ones ?"

Otherwise, it is too general. Ie. " I inform you of many myth-built passages in your New Testament. But I don't want to point them out. You'll just have to take my word for it that they are there. I don't want to get trapped into quote mining."

Do see my problem ? Now in clarifying my understanding of the Bible's teaching I have to just assume I'm stumbling over this and that myth-built passage in some generally vague way.

I suggested one chapter for you to point out the "myth-built" lines - Matthew chapter 5. I will not press the request. Just take note that you are simply asking me to just accept your charge of these corruptions in New Testament. I should just accept it on something like faith.