COPY: Truth regarding Buddhist concepts of No-Self and God?

[outofbodydude]

Hello Robert

I have great respect for the truth and effectiveness of Buddhist philosophy and practice, although there is an aspect of the philosophy that I can't help but disagree with based on the insights I have acquired in higher-level out of body experiences in which I experienced deeply profound levels of self and oneness with Source/God consciousness. Theravada Buddhism teaches that there is no true self and there is no God. Everything is simply conditioned phenomena constantly coming into and out of existence with no inherent nature or permanence. While this may be true at the physical level, my experience has proven that there is a fundamental level of being that is everlasting and divine in nature. Mahayana Buddhism teaches a concept called "Buddha-nature" which is quite similar to this fundamental divine nature, but Theravada Buddhism generally rejects such notions. I was hoping you could share some insight into your beliefs and experience regarding this subject.

Thanks!

[ButterflyWoman]

I copied this because I find it really interesting. :) I am in no way claiming to know any great truths. All I have is my own interpretation of my own experience.

I really think it comes down to individual interpretation of subjective experience, which then gets passed on to others, who may or may not actually "get it" in any real sense, and just take the words and form a concept and eventually it turns into dogma. The original mystic who had the experiences and tried to pass them on interpreted it according to their unique culture, society, and personality, with emphasis on that which they uniquely saw/experienced as "most important" or "most significant".

My experience is probably closer to that of the Theravada dogma. I have experienced for many years that there is no "self" here, not in the usual sense of it (yes, there's a coherent bundle of experiences with a story that ties them all together). And, somewhat sadly (I am still mourning the loss, in fact), the concept of a "God" which was somehow separate and discrete has also dissolved. So in that sense, I identify more with the Theravada teaching.

At the same time, I am ALSO aware of a pervasive, all-encompassing presence of divinity which is, paradoxically it appears to those who have not experienced it, simultaneously entirely mundane. I see and experience divinity in everything, and I see my reality moving and responding to that divinity, and to this bundle of experiences with a backstory which I like to think of as "myself". It's a very strange situation to try to explain in everyday language, and it makes little to no sense that way, so if it sounds weird, well, it is.

So, which one is "true"? Which one is "right"? The answer is fairly Zen (yet another sect of Buddhism ;)): None of it and all of it.

[Sinera]

When I try to remember how it was as a child I can only say I was a different 'person' then. When we get data from other incarnations we are also different 'persons'.

This maybe helps us understand that the current 'self' is not all there is, and never was and never will be. This teaches me (and it's just my own interpretation and 'feeling') that I am not dissolving into "nothing" in that sense when I go away from here, but I will realise again I am "more". When I am back I am maybe "no thing" instead of "nothing" because the ego-self is a created "thing", a temporary form chosen for experience in a certain environment.

When we blend in together with "universal unity consciousness" again we are maybe like a drop of water that was on a journey up in the clouds returning back to the sea - or maybe just a molecule of that water drop. ;)

People see contradiction in the 'vanishing' ego-self and the "only" consciousness real which is God consciousness. We should maybe start try looking at it from a different perspective. The water drop or whatever other metaphor / analogy you choose is such a starting point.

[ButterflyWoman]

When I try to remember how it was as a child I can only say I was a different 'person' then. When we get data from other incarnations we are also different 'persons'.
The philosopher John Locke wrote considerably on this topic. If "you" are a different person now than you were, what does this mean for "personal responsibility", for example? If "you" commit a crime, and fifteen years later, when you're completely different, you are charged with the crime committed by a "past self", are "you" still the one who committed that crime? Interesting topic. It'll do your head in if you contemplate it for long. ;)

[Equilibrium]

This is a tuff one.. I have looked at them as two different things. A state of just being. Then the bundle of experiences. (Lol my current most used body is like, is that all I am to you!? Shhh I love you ^-^) A field of experience, then behind that one a field of being. From the field of being is the choice to enter the field of experiences. From the field of experiences is the choice to enter the field of being. The field of being is the field of experiences.. Crap man, I don't know. Two parts of a whole experience?


So, which one is "true"? Which one is "right"? The answer is fairly Zen (yet another sect of Buddhism ;)): None of it and all of it.

None of it and all of it!? Don't do that to me lol :p



This maybe helps us understand that the current 'self' is not all there is, and never was and never will be. This teaches me (and it's just my own interpretation and 'feeling') that I am not dissolving into "nothing" in that sense when I go away from here, but I will realise again I am "more". When I am back I am maybe "no thing" instead of "nothing" because the ego-self is a created "thing", a temporary form chosen for experience in a certain environment.

Realize I am "more"
"No thing" instead of "nothing"

That view, thank you c:

[Osiris]

lol I was fond of myself at one time, seems like ages ago but it wasnt really...now that I've got to know myself alot better Im not so sorry to see it go...at some point. I personally have had a deep love and respect for all things as Im sure you all have, but I've always held myself atleast in part (ok a big part) separate from them. As time goes on and I learn to let go more I dont see my "self" as something I especially want to hold on to. I dont see that this "self" has ever done anything so wonderful so especially great that I should cherish it so much. As a matter of fact it seems to hinder more that it helps. It seems the more I let go of it, as hard as it is sometimes, a vacuum is created and a deeper love for everything else and everyone else fills the void. A feeling of loving euphoria that my "self" never accomplishes.
Frankly its my take that the self is merely the product of Ignorance, the notion that we are separate because of our "discrete" bodies and the different lives they appear to lead. But the 'self' serves as a invaluable tool, as our bodies do, through they're use we grow until we no longer feel the need for them. Like a kid grows up and no longer depends on his or her parents. I believe however that we preserve an individuality but not our concern for it.

I think all the worlds religions have something to offer, perhaps a great deal to offer for some, but ultimately fall short of the truth mostly because is was born from of position limitation.

Just think how wonderful it would be if we could cash our single "self" in for experiencing the lives of 2 selves simultaneously. Instead of bathing we 1 bar of soap....2 at the same time... but maybe im getting into the whole soul group thingy I dont know.

[wstein]

Part of this has to do with identity. What exactly is 'self'. Pretty much self comes down to arbitrary self declared definition.

Even at the physical level there is no clear boundary between self and non-self. The most obvious boundary is the skin, yet it is irregular, flexing, and flaking continuously. At the sub atomic level its more of a fuzz than a finite thing. As one looks wider, what about your breathe, is that part of you? How about your electric field? Your gravitational field? Those last two propagate (outward) near the speed of light indefinitely and will continue to do so long after your meat rots away.

Once one starts to include mental, cultural, ethereal, spiritual aspects of self, the idea of a distinct self becomes even more nebulous.

Its all connected (blurred together). Connected to what exactly? Well everything and yet nothing.

[HoldOrFold]

The way I understand it is that ultimately there is the void which is nothing, pure emptiness but somehow this is also the source of all light. It's like a paradox we can't understand, but I've heard many people describe it this way seeing a shining void as the ultimate reality or either modality (pure nothing or pure light).

[John Sorensen]

I pretty much agree with all that has been said so far here.

I'll add two things:

*Defining what is / is not self is a mental abstraction. I would say. Why would we ever want to define self? I'm a human BEING, not an abstraction.
"Label me, you negate me" - Soren Kierkegaard

*In Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the "void" of Buddhism is one of various Samadhi's and not the final samadhi (experienced while still in physical form).

On a side note, I'd like to know what brain-waves are most common with people subjectively experiencing the void state, I'd be curious to know if they were in low frequency Delta, high Gamma, or a mix of both. There is bugger all data (that I know of) on this topic, as the various scientific studies are ongoing, and really still in their infancy since the 1970s.

It's a bit crap that good data can take years, if not decades to trickle down into the public.

[CFTraveler]

I wonder if La Berge has this data- if someone knows him, they might want to ask.

[concedo]

I think it is worth remembering that Buddhism is very old and between the time when Buddhism flourished and today a lot has happened in the world, one of the main events being the appearance of Jesus Christ. Rudolf Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, said that it affected all the human beings constitutionally and is linked to the development of the Self/ I-consciousness. So it would be logical that at the time of Buddhism people didn´t consider the Higher Self because it didn´t exist or at least wasn´t developed so much as today.
I think it is obvious that how humanity experiences and connects to a "spiritual world" changes a lot over time.