This is something I pulled out of Yutopia.com Basically it explains one aspect of Buddhism. The power of the logical mind over life itself. Understanding this, one must make a decision. Which is more important. The power of non-self (the power of the rational mind over the power of self)or the power of self over the rational mind.). This power is a realisation that the rational mind, with sufficient vigour, can have power over self. A test of will. After all, this article quotes a famous saying right after the word Anatta. "where can dust be collected if there is nothing to start out with." Well apart from the mental trick, this question is very true. But it is true in a very simplistic way. Just recalling what non-self is associated with here. "here can dust be collected if there is nothing to start out with"- which could also possibly be the argument for a god. After all, even the smallest thing seen at that time had to begin somewhere. As a friend once said to me, what started the big bang. If this falls, where does it fall from, and what does it land on. It lands on something. It fell from something. What did it fall from? Lets go back a lot less and ask ourselves this instead. What are we? Evidence here: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ See at this piece of information this same question will be asked. Are you self or non-self. Strangely the logic is complete because the answer is obvious. Even if you are non-self, you are required to do good. So you care for the self of others until your ego is completely vanquished. No ego, no self. However it is evident that there is another description in the statement above. You are self if you believe that there is a god. A non-self cannot appreciate that there is another magnitude above that which the ego appears to know. But the non-self, in its suppression of its ego, must also suppress the ego's own super-ego. The ego is self sustaining after all. To a non-self, it must suppress the super ego by giving everything willingly. To the point where the ego is crushed. That is where the power lies. Yes. The power does lie there alright. Its a load of non-sense. See how the super ego wants to crush and seek power. It is self. Self is very strong and very wily. So by totally giving, you have nothing to give any more and powerless. Now the world can take all it can from you. But that is a flawed argument. The non-self makes no care anymore of good or evil. It is beyond that. or so it thinks. The questions must be asked than is this. How can the non-self know itself? Surely that is the argument of self. Quite devious isn't it this Self Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So one type of Buddhist are asked to be good on the way to non-self. Just so that you will know you have got rid of one aspect of self. The loudest aspect. The one that is hate and jealousy, greed etc etc. This is the correct path. But when one gets to the end of the journey, self still exists. If it is good, is that not the path prescribed? How can a non-self make that decision. Both ways are open equally. There is a fork of equal importance, size, magnitude any way you want to look at it. The non-self is random to a self therefore it is random to the mathematics of that self. The logic and rational of the non-self is randomness. So the non-self has met a paradox. So begins the need for a self. Self will meet the paradox and decide its direction based on ego. If that self is positive, it will take a positive path. But this may only be a positive path on average. In general. Dharma. If that self is negative, it will take a negative path in general. Dharma. So the question still lies on the Self unless there is faith in a God. The other side of the Buddhist. The thinking here stems from this very clear statement - "where can dust be collected if there is nothing to start out with." We know there is dust. Where did that dust begin. We know there is a shape. How do I know that it is a shape? In fact, how do I know that it is not me. What is self? Now we know by anecdotal evidence, and possibly reliable evidence (see Princeton thing above....be wary of the negative self, it is self sustaining by being self consuming - destructive. See the evidence. Always refer to the positive self) that humans are likely to have an effect on the Universe. The anecdotal evidence is stronger but not mathematically vigourous. I would take care to read the document for i have not and will likely not. Princeton after all is an ivy league university and should be a little more intelligent than the rest. A bias, but one that is worthwhile. Well for the rest, please be more careful than this lazy self. So the question now becomes relevant to the religions and to what was always thought to be unbiased, Science. Opps. It has now a faith that the answer is no. A failure of logic as the negative self asserts its subtle power. The suppression itself is an act of will, of self. The stronger the suppression, the stronger the self. Suppression has negative connotations, negative emotions associated. Such as lies, hate, killing, death etc. The negative self. Referring back to the positive self, it will answer correctly and honestly, "I do not know". Once this truth is known. Then the non-self requires the assistance of the positive self to assist in moving along a path again. If the negative self is used, it will continue to lie or use a negative to self perpetuate. It cannot cross the fork in the road because of its nature. Put another way, it cannot cross the path because it needs to move in a negative way (on average) ie. backwards. The positive self is also a believer in a God. That there is a being that wants the positivity that there is a positivity in the world. An optimist, a saint, a prophet, a messiah, and all the positive nouns we use in whatever our languages may be. There is also very strong argument that there is a God, based on the same probability models that we see in our instruments we use we ease all around us. A probability function called the standard model. By which, should it not exist, your computers and digital watches would not work. A simple thought. Why is there the standard probability function. The bell curve. This shape. Should it not be random ie. No shape at all. A paradox. A fork in the road. As usual, we must select the positive self to obtain a positive answer. The selection of the negative self here is possible but will likely pull one over to the decision point in the fork. Than it will lie to stay in that pool. Hence the revolution. Now Buddhism teaches that this is the transition point. One must transit this point. After all, given enough time, all is transitory. Even being stuck. Hence the evolution. The evolution is one of mind over self and non-self. It is the joining of the two such that the melding perpetually moves forward until something else occurs because this is also transitory. (Or maybe "transitory" transits itself). The mind becomes the balance of non-self and self, both acting on each other to progress (the positive position which is also the domain of the non-self. The Unity). So what is positive? Well one would consider that killing is a negative, so that. What about happiness. That is an obvious positive. What about standing by? Well its not nuetral because our positive self also knows that it is wrong. We feel bad. We feel sad. Or we try to turn away from it. Blot it from the mind. Destroy the feeling. The negative self again. But that implies that any killing is bad because we feel the same way left undisturbed. Of course if an external stimuli allows us to adjust to that bad, in a virtual sense, than it takes a lot more reality to prove to us that it is bad. Hence the new war and warriors. The negative self now is especially subtle. You know it is bad and you will get to that realisation, but you wonder if it can be that bad. How far would you go. Self, albeit the negative self, being empowered. Killing is bad so fighting is bad. If martial arts teaches one anything, it is self restrained power. The positive self will use that power to not harm physically. It will find the fastest positive path if no negativity is allowed. What is negativity? Well, anything like killing and destruction in the physical domain. So for instance, one can bear arms and if one does not kill, maim, harm or do anything else that one generally considers a negative, than that is the positive path. If we bear arms and kill that is the negative path. If we change arms so that it does not kill but it is terribly good at causing positivity, even the negativity may be challenged. The question arises. How can we be positive all the time. Well for us humans, usually by guessing what may be good, than trial and error and learning. The negative self always wants the negative so it will prolong the period of negativity until the positive self discovers it is almost finished. Hence the revolution. Is fighting for survival negative or positive? A fork in the road. Well it is always positive for self to survive otherwise there is no self, or in other words, non-self. So the positive self is always self too. It wants to survive because it is self. Notice also that the negative self also wants to survive, but it does so by revolving first backwards, than forwards again that backwards etc. It is in a revolution. In a periodicity. A frequncy. A trap. It may be, but I think it is unlikely (a possible bias or self), that a positive self can destroy self. I think it is unlikely as destruction is a negative. As shown above, the negative self only causes revolution eventually, a frequncy. The positive self will create an evolution, for want of a better word. It is actually a progression. Progressing to what, it is impossible for me to say. It is impossible to say if this is just a rationalisation that this is a bias. But then, that would in itself create a rationalisation that this is a bias which is of course occillating. But than that would in itself create a ... and so on. Notice a periodicity. The negative will always go backwards, even against itself. In the physical world, this leads to a bifurcation. The positive self wishes to move forward all the time. The negative self wishes to occillate. The fork in the road again. To occillate or to progress. The point of choice. Which points to will. What is will? I speculate, because I wish to sleep now, that this is a joining of self and non-self. The rational with the spiritual. The choice of which fork to take. At this point one begins to learn again. H ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Buddhism is a philosophy of life preached by Gautama Buddha ("Buddha" means "enlightened one"), who lived and taught in northern India in the 6th Century B.C. The Buddha was not a god and the philosophy of Buddhism does not entail any theistic world-view until after it was introduced into China. Renowned Chinese gods in Buddhism like Guanyin (Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara) and Milefo (Maitreya) were actually humans who came to China to preach. Buddhism stresses the teaching of no self (Anatta). There is a famous saying, 'where can dust be collected if there is nothing to start out with.' Thus attachment to the idea of substantial and enduring self is only an illusion ('like the reflections of moon in the water and flowers in a mirror'), which can only lead to suffering. Therefore, suffering is a consequence of one's volitional actions. This is consistent with the Buddhist doctrine of causes and effects. ('If one sows melon seeds, one harvests melon; and if one sows beans, one reaps beans'). One is thus responsible for all the consequences of his own psychological states and volitional actions (karma). These good or bad actions or karma can be carried from one life to the other. Your well-being in this life is affected by your karma in your previous lives, and your karma in this life dictates your well-being in your future lives. The Chinese believe that if you are a good person, you may become a good person in your next life. However, if you are a bad person in this life, you may end up reincarnating into an animal or even an insect. Buddha taught the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path. On God: The original Buddhist philosophy does not entail any theistic world-view. Godly figures were introduced later.
True and not true. The value to one studying the Buddhist principle and its ancillary path is that of enlightenment. What is enlightenment? Well lets take what we know about it already. It is deemed positive. It is deemed to be a goal or objective. It is deemed to be a good. The question asked is why is this a good. In fact, why do good at all. As mistakenly proposed, the Buddhist appear not to believe in a god (not true). So in answer to this, it is very clear to me what I am thinking. If you wish for clarity, find the answers to your question yourself. I can only share my information with you. I am not you.
PS. Brevity is for the benefit of some social order. It is not for human benefit. Otherwise throw away your books and watch a commercial (but you won't achieve much information from that). Human being communicate. To communicate fully, the human must explain all its insights fully in its way and the listerners job is to try to understand what that meaning is.
By the way. The article appears to me to be a form of mind control over the Chinese people and over the other people. It is a trap and is static. Move past it.
I'm not sure which part of your post was an article, but it seems it refers to the Sixth Patriarch's Sutra. There is a story in there about how he was chosen. The Fifth Partiarch had to find a successor, and he had in mind a new monk, who's insight was greater than all the veteran monks, but who appeared rough and uneducated. The Fifth Patriarch did not want to insult the older monks, one in particular, and cause resentment, so he held a poetry contest. Whoever could express the essence of Buddhism better, would inherit the title, and the symbols of office, the bowl and robe. The veteran monk wrote a poem, but was unsure of his own insight, so he wrote it anonymously on a wall. He (Shen Hsiu )wrote: The body is the wisdom-tree, The mind is a bright mirror in a stand; Take care to wipe it all the time, And allow no dust to cling. The new monk, Hui Neng saw this and wrote beneath it: Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists, Nor the stand of a mirror bright. Since all is empty from the beginning, Where can the dust alight Because he had demonstrated his greater insight, Hui Neng recieved the badges of office. But, to avoid lingering resentment, he recieved them in the middle of the night, and left the monastary. The first poem, Shen Hsiu meant the we must be vigilant not to let impure thoughts cloud our original nature, which is perfect in itself. In the second poem, Hui Neng meant that the self is illusory in the first place, and once this is realized, clarity is everywhere, requiring no effort. In other words, Buddhism is not a test of will. Enlightenment is neither positive or negative. It is not the goal, it is the starting point, which is rediscovered. Doing good as a principle creates evil and bad karma. Act out of your own nature with no thought for good and evil. Why do you say Buddhists believe in God? It is a useful metaphor for teaching those with the idea of God already. Buddhism can be explained using a variety of terminology including Christian, Hindu, and Scientific. It is adaptable, since original nature is universal.
This is interesting. However now I wish to explain the postive path a little more. It is obvious that somehow a negative plus a negative can become a positive. For instance, the cultural revolution was extremely bad, yet has allowed China to stay in one piece. Obviously the concept of China outweighed a static point (ie. a negative). So it took a large negative to create the change fast enough. The negative self even attacks itself. As mentioned, it is self sustaining. And it can make a positive change. However, the positive self can only make a positive change. But it must do this by measurement of all the individuals around it. We are not even questioning the idea of individuality here. It must not rely on itself as it must realise that self includes the positive and the negative self. Does a positive and a negative change mean that it is becoming more positive. This is a question. My answer to that is that yes, it does. Positive must always be positive by definition and so must always head in a direction, and whats more, in a positive direction too (a semi positive concept - like progress). Therefore there are always positive ways that may be more efficient (positive again), and more humanist (positive) than negative ways to achieve progression, and of course to ensure that we are not stuck in an ever increasingly complex trap.
I'm not sure which part of your post was an article, but it seems it refers to the Sixth Patriarch's Sutra. There is a story in there about how he was chosen. The Fifth Partiarch had to find a successor, and he had in mind a new monk, who's insight was greater than all the veteran monks, but who appeared rough and uneducated. The Fifth Patriarch did not want to insult the older monks, one in particular, and cause resentment, so he held a poetry contest. Whoever could express the essence of Buddhism better, would inherit the title, and the symbols of office, the bowl and robe. The veteran monk wrote a poem, but was unsure of his own insight, so he wrote it anonymously on a wall. He (Shen Hsiu )wrote: The body is the wisdom-tree, The mind is a bright mirror in a stand; Take care to wipe it all the time, And allow no dust to cling. The new monk, Hui Neng saw this and wrote beneath it: Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists, Nor the stand of a mirror bright. Since all is empty from the beginning, Where can the dust alight --------------------------------------- Beautiful response. The question was asked whether God exists, and the answer was well explain this. The first poem asked the question how is it that there is a need for God when the mind can be controlled in this way. It can do amazing things. The body itself is a wondrous machine and for learning, working in harmony. Make sure that it is well maintained. The second poem retorted that the gains that the Buddhist has made in mind is just another transition. Eventually it will be background ability. More importantly, the Buddhist still must answer the question. Is there a God? What created this? Who are we? Or to some, What have we become? The both thinkings are correct of course, but as usual, the negative self will interweave itself through the thought. ----- Because he had demonstrated his greater insight, Hui Neng recieved the badges of office. But, to avoid lingering resentment, he recieved them in the middle of the night, and left the monastary. The first poem, Shen Hsiu meant the we must be vigilant not to let impure thoughts cloud our original nature, which is perfect in itself. --------------------------- I don't think he mentioned thoughts. I think he mentioned dust. Anyway, if he were alluding to a thought, than it must be that he was discussing transition. He simply said that even the thought of a god must be transited. Fair point. That is undeniable. But still while it has not, tell us what is the answer to the Question. "Is there a God?" Once this question is not answered, both sides are balanced. Hui Neng was the obvious successor and Shen Hsiu allowed it to happen. The fact that it did not appear at day time meant that Shen Hsiu had met his match and probably liked the character of Hui Neng. Gentlepeople. --------------------------- In the second poem, Hui Neng meant that the self is illusory in the first place, and once this is realized, clarity is everywhere, requiring no effort. --------------------------- I actually don't think this is what Hui Neng is saying - see above ---------------------------- In other words, Buddhism is not a test of will. ---------------------------- But if it is not, than why passivity? Why not rape and murder? Why not megalomania? Why not vampirm? All life for humanity is a test of will. We may be on auto pilot, but its still a test of will. Just choose the postive path. ----------------------------------------------------- Enlightenment is neither positive or negative. It is not the goal, it is the starting point, which is rediscovered. Doing good as a principle creates evil and bad karma. Act out of your own nature with no thought for good and evil. ---------------------------- So why is Enlightenment associated with positive. It is true that you should understand your own nature. To act it out where you create a negative is not following the positive path. Remember that the negative self is also self. So project the positive path outwards. If it makes others happier, and you happier, it must be a positive. Or at least somewhat more positive.The negative self is very subtle. --------------------------------- Why do you say Buddhists believe in God? It is a useful metaphor for teaching those with the idea of God already. Buddhism can be explained using a variety of terminology including Christian, Hindu, and Scientific. It is adaptable, since original nature is universal." ---------------------------------------- I think Buddhist believe in God and have the Question "Is there a God?" at the same time. I believe that they would say that a God is positive.
Positive and negative are not absolute values, but abstract concepts. The same thing that is considered positive by one person, will be considered negative by another. In Taoism, there is the concept of Li, a word which originally described the markings in jade or the grain in wood. The highest skill is to be able to live your life as though cutting with the grain, not against it. The only way to do this is act appropriately at the appropriate time, according to the situation, not to act the same way in every situation. Fixed ideologies, such as following a "positive" path are too rigid and fixed to be adaptable, and therefore have no place in the mind of an enlightened person. Certainly Buddhism contains numerous lists of right and wrong behavior, but keep in mind that these are designed for beginners, designed to point the way towards an enlightened state, where such rules are no longer necessary. Note that Buddhism is a negative technique. It does not seek to fill you with knowledge, but to remove obstacles that are within you. Especially in Zen, the question is asked, show me your self, and the answer is always, no, not that, not that, until one realizes self is an artificial concept. You can't use your mind to see your mind any more than you can bite your own teeth, or look directly at your own face. No, the question of God is a western one, the concern of Buddhism is the nature of self, the nature of mind. The first poem was totally wrong; appealing to those trying to use their will against themselves, but wrong. The second poem contains the greatest wisdom, since there is no self, there is no technique to find it, return to the original mind will happen spontaneously when illusions are dropped. Dust is a metaphor for thoughts, worries, everyday concerns, illusions, delusions, etc...God has nothing to do with it. The Buddhist view is that existence is a unified, interconnected body, with no separate God. Nature is indifferent to your individual plight. I think this story points out the victory of immediate, spontanious intuition over book knowledge, the jealousy of inferior people to superior ones, the lack of ego of the Sixth Patriarch who did not wish to show off his superiority, the difficulty of maintaining vitality in institutions, and the rareness of true insight. Rape, murder, meglomania, vampiric tendencies are all the result of an illusion-that there is a separate self. If one thinks there is a separate self, then one accumulates things, experiences, pleasures, wealth. Once you know the world is also your body, how would you treat it? You think Buddhists are agnostics? Perhaps so, but I think the idea of a Christian God is foriegn to Buddhism. The Hindu idea of Brahman is not entirely foreign to Buddhism, though- the idea that our own nature is devine, that we are God who plays the game of pretending that he is a universe full of separate things.
...This is very similar to saying that there is no "god" at all. If god is everything, then such a concept is meaningless, it's just that everything exists.
You have made an error here. Positive and negative by common terms are opposites. They are absolute in reference to each other. ie. Positive is an absolute in relation to negative and vice versa. You are right in saying they are not absolute terms, but only in relation to something else outside of positive and negative. That something else is the interface, or the middle path (for want of a better concept). You have unfortunately contradicted yourself here. I can explain how positive and negative only appear to be absolutes in relation to each other, but can also be seen as non-absolute in relation to the whole. That in itself is a contradiction if one sees in a short sighted manner. But I won't. It is simpler to point out the inconsistencies in your argument and let you follow the path. Why is it so important to cut with the grain. Well simply because if you do not, the wood or jade will become weak and break. Obviously the breakage is negative. Your term appropriate is in itself positive again, so acting appropriately at the appropriate time is 2 positives so it must be positive. Beware of the insidious nature of the negative self here. On the one hand, you rail against the abstraction of positive and negative, yet you use an abstraction such as "appropriate", or "appropriately" and so on. Acting the same way in every situation is of course negative as this is robotic and without humanity. A negative. If I use the motions and actions that make drinking a cup of water, while I am standing next to a pit full of lava, holding a soup ladle, than I will surely suffer. I do not see the positive path being unadaptable or rigid. In factm unadaptable and rigid are usually seen as negative. So that can't be the positive path all the time. In some situations, it may be correct. Using your mind to constantly choose the positive path, whatever the actions of that choice is positive. It may require rigidity now and flexibility a few seconds later. The action is only the implementation of your decision. One has to begin somewhere and in that respect, we are all beginners. No reason for pride or shame. Question yourself instead as to why one starts out on a positive path and not a negative one. Why not say something like, kill, murder and destroy and eventually you will see the wrong in it. Why begin positively? I don't see Buddhism as a negative technique. Where does it say kill or murder. In fact. I think that is a myth. Buddhism has always said follow the positive path, and while you are, the four noble truths are the markers along that path. Notice that the first is direction, the other is the road markings. As mentioned previously, your understanding of the poem is in doubt. Please refer to it again. The idea of the one God is actually dated from the Egyptians at present. Not sure what Western means, but I am sure that by common terminology, perpetuated by the Judeo Christian northern originating people, it does not include the Egyptians. Something about skin colour as usual. Going back to the Western thing. Now that is an illusion. We are all Western and Eastern and Northern and Southern in culture. That is one interpretation. Dust can also be dust. Dust can also ask the question of what is the origins or termination of that dust (as mentioned in the poem). As has been said. It appears that a bias to interpretation has been set up with of course the usual negatives associated with that bias. I don't think it showed the superiority of anything over anything else, whether it be spontaneous intuition over book knowledge or of the Sixth Patriarch (SP) over the Fifth Patriarch (FP). All of it is important as long as it is the positive path. As mentioned previously, the FP gave the SP an opportunity to show his insight. The FP has also insight. The SP asked, but not answered the question from the other branch of Buddhism. The question of God. The FP, using the same insight, agreed with the SP, and hence, agreed that the SP was worthy of his post. The SP also showed ego. The FP also relinquished ego. The fact that the ceremony occurred in private, and at night, just indicated that the FP and the SP both agreed that they were equal in their insight. If the SP had provided a confirmation as to the question of god, he would have had a ceremony during the day with full pomp and regalia (otherwise why have a ceremony at all). This last statement is difficult to answer as it weaves the illogic with the logic. The negative self weaving itself in the positive self. It is true that one is not separate from the universe and hence the concept of a self contained self is an illusion. It is not the result of an illusion but is the illusion itself. The negatives of rape etc. are instances of the negative self. But there is also a positive self. Creativity, humanity, love, compassion, happiness, peace. The accumulation of anything is in itself not positive or negative but is contingent on the results of that accumulation. Does it create more positivity? I never said that I think Buddhist are agnostics at all. As mentioned. There are emphasis in the Buddhist paths. It is time to share information and understand the journey better. There is no difference between the Christian concept of God and the Brahman concept, although I admit my knowledge of Brahman's is still being developed. However by your statement, and assuming you have studied it closer than I, I see no contradiction
Even here the negative self has a place. My pride comes before me. You are right but my belief is that you may be unbalanced. As said. Choose the positive path.
Even in a negativity, our positive sides have effect. The solution is in the creativity. Which can mean time.
Is peace always positive? To achieve peace, it is sometimes necessary to fight. If not, the Buddhist monks would never have learned martial arts. Is creativity always positive? Doesn't that depend on what you create? Someone used their creativity to make weapons. Is love always positive? No, it can lead to jealousy and broken hearts. Yes, in relation to the whole picture, the meaning of positive and negative become clouded. That is why I use the term "appropriate", because it includes the idea of context. It also does not include any hint about what sort of thing is appropriate, because that could be anything, or nothing. You don't. Buddhism is about understanding the nature of mind, not right and wrong. Some things have been shown through experience to lead to harmony, and lessen suffering, and create an atmosphere conducive to enlightenment, and these were written down. Also, Buddhism is traditionally studied in a temple, where it was important to maintain order. Are you refering to the biblical reference about "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? Please explain why you think Buddhism has anything to do with the concept of God. What branch of Buddhism is concerned with the question of God? I know there is a female deity in Tibetan Buddhism, but her powers have limits. As Buddhism adapted to different cultures, it incorporated some more ancient ideas, but these are not central to the teaching. The difference is, among Christians, if you said, "I am God", they would think you are crazy, and a heretic. If you say "I am God" amongst Hindus, they would say, congradulations, you finally found out. I think you might interpret this to mean that something should be collected, and futhermore, that this is a reason to start with something (ie. will, rationality, reason, logic, practice). This is a common analogy used in Buddhism. It means that the goal is a mind like a mirror that reflects reality clearly without the "dust", or the mind's inner chatter, that usually obscures our perceptions. Another analogy is a drop of dew on a leaf, that reflects the entire moon, but retains nothing. The mind, in this case, is not the physical brain, but the collection of ideas that control our perception of reality. Since these ideas have no reality of their own, we can drop them as if there were nothing there at all. Where can anything settle in such a mind? That is why I say Buddhism is essentially negative. In cultivating this kind of perception, one eliminates the need for any system, such as that based on positive and negative values, or the God-based systems of legislated morality. When your actions are entirely spontaneous, and not based on memory of right and wrong, you are truly free. Incidently, this is why Asian martial arts rose to such superior levels, because they did not stop to think about technique, their actions flowed directly from the opponent's actions without delay.
I feel only a need to cut in here to say that I agree with SpiderGoat. specifically in reference to this statement: "It is obvious that somehow a negative plus a negative can become a positive. For instance, the cultural revolution was extremely bad, yet has allowed China to stay in one piece. Obviously the concept of China outweighed a static point (ie. a negative). So it took a large negative to create the change fast enough. " That is only because you are attempting to assign unilateral labels to each step in the process. instead of saying that revolution is a negative, try and think about is in a more constructionist view: revolution is both negative and positive at the same time. It causes suffering in the short term, but can bring about less suffering in the long term. If revolution is triggered by great suffering, then the short suffering revolution causes is less than the suffering endured without revolution. Revolution has both good and bad within it. the circumstances, the employment, and the perspective of the individual will determine if the revolution is "good" or "bad". it is neither in of itself. An applicable kaon which I might have read here on sciforums: A lion was captured and placed into captivity in a concentration camp. He was surprised to find other lions who had been there for years, some had even been born into captivity in the camp. He caught on to the social structure of the lions in the camp very quickly. They had banded together into various groups. One group was very social and spent their time socializing. Another was into show business and performing and kept themselves busy entertaining others. A third group was cultural in its nature and their purpose was to preserve traditons, customs and the history of the times when lions roamed free. Other groups were religious, when they gathered they sang uplifting songs about a time in the future when there would be no fences in the jungle. Some of these groups attracted people who were creative and artistic. Other groups attracted revolutionaries and they gathered to plot against their captors or against other groups with revolutionary aims. Occasionally a war would break out and one group would wipe out another or the guards would be killed and replaced by a new set of guards. The newcomer also observed one lion, often near the fence, who always seemed to be in deep contemplation. He was a loner who kept to himself, joined no group and avoided associating with the others as much as possible. He commanded the admiration and the hostility of everyone, for his presence created fear and self-doubt among the others. He told the newcomer "Join no group. These poor fools are busy with everything except what is essential." "And what do you think is most essential?" asked the newcomer. "Studying the nature of the fence."
If the self is an illusion how can it 'reason', or choose any 'path' to go down, for that matter. Besides Karma is Karma, and you go down the path you have to go down. That is the paradox of Buddhism; it teaches you the 4 noble truths, the twelvefold causal chain, and the eightfold path, but you are, in terms of Buddha's own teaching about illusion, unable to do anything about it at all. "The moving finger writes, And having writ moves on, Nor all thy piety or wit, Will change half a line of it." Rubaiyat of Omar Khyam
The illusion of self, or, ego, has it's purposes, we wouldn't be human without it. We wouldn't know where to put our food, for instance. It's like the idea of a nation- usefull for accomplishing certain purposes, but still an idea, not a permanent reality. It's not that we give up ego totally, just recognize it for what it is. The implication of recognizing ego as a social construction is that we take it less seriously, we can be more playfull. There are actions, but no actor, there are paths, but no one who takes them. Ikkyu, 1471 A.D.
When one realizes that self is just a concept, an illusion - who or what actually does the realizing?
This question is a product of our language, which demands that we separate the action from the object of action. There is no who or what, that is the realization.
