Please forgive my if this in-correct. I was reading The Dao of Physics the other day, and i came across the section on Buddhism. We are acctualy the same person? Is it simply an idea to promote the the absense of ego and to free ones mind from the myraid world, or is it supposed to be a deeper representation of absolute truth?
We Are All The Same Person
- Thread starter Empty Dragon
- Start date
kmguru
Staff member
There is an "Aha" factor to it. Most philosophies have similar Aha factors. Absolute truth? Nay!!
Absolute truth is beyond our understanding. If you free your mind away from all sensory input from birth...what do you get? A vegetable?
So, we are vegetables too? Perhaps....but if you are one, what are you understanding?
Absolute truth is beyond our understanding. If you free your mind away from all sensory input from birth...what do you get? A vegetable?
So, we are vegetables too? Perhaps....but if you are one, what are you understanding?
I don't think it means we all have the exact same personality and such... Look at it as islands on the ocean. Two seperate islands seem completely seperate (islands being individual people), but they only seem like seperate things cause we can't see under the water line (consciousness), but under the water, all islands are connected... So we are all the same person BEHIND our consiousness, under what we concider "me". This is the collective concsiousness theory. Our sub-consiousness is where we are all the same person, all linked... The consiousness is our own personal view on the world, which everyone else has access to through their subconcsious... Dreams being a portal to the spiritual internet, so to speak. Suddenly we see that maybe we are not learning what the color red is, but remembering... Grasping the knowledge of "red" not from the world around us, but from the collective concsiousness... "Red" was put in the collective concsiousness the first and only time it was learned.
Things we can gain from this style of belief:
- Not death of ego, but seperation from
- Acceptance and tolerance of other people
- Comfort in knowing after we leave the material world behind, we still exist in everyone else, in the collective concsiousness
- The possibility of lost loved ones communicating to you through dreams
- An explanation for deja-vu
- Re-incarnation, in a less individual way
Things to be lost by having this style of belief:
- True identity, individuality, personality
- 99.9% of your accomplishments
- Heaven (if u believed in it)
- Creativity
Things we can gain from this style of belief:
- Not death of ego, but seperation from
- Acceptance and tolerance of other people
- Comfort in knowing after we leave the material world behind, we still exist in everyone else, in the collective concsiousness
- The possibility of lost loved ones communicating to you through dreams
- An explanation for deja-vu
- Re-incarnation, in a less individual way
Things to be lost by having this style of belief:
- True identity, individuality, personality
- 99.9% of your accomplishments
- Heaven (if u believed in it)
- Creativity
We are the buddha nature. The buddha nature is the absolute truth. You cant know the absolute truth because "knowing" indicates a subject/object relationship, you can BE the absolute truth as in complete identification with it.
Acccording to buddhist belief we are all the buddha nature, notwithstanding superficial appearances to the contrary. Realization of your true nature trancends duality. Im not the expert though.
This is a question you might want to ask here:
http://www.cloudwater.org/askamonk.html
Ok
Maybe I expressed that badly and as I said Im not the expert.What Im trying to say is that I have been in states of conciousness in which I felt that I was god-nature of some kind. Being in that state and talking about that state are two completely different things. Conventional ways conveying knowledge are no good at all in giving info about it or in helping one to get there. Its a place where the subject/object boundary is in a way exposed as a convienient fiction. in zen they say "not one, not two". Its a state that cant be known in the convientional sense because the distinction between knower and known is blurred, if for no other reason than that if one is completely identified with the totality of all things, there can necessarily be no object outside of that frame of reference to be known in any conviential way.
Unless we gasp the infinite can we say anything is out of bounds?
Interesting thread. Good points notme.
If not, you risk apathy and passivity.
Have you?
These are all nice, but do not seem all that great as to warrant a leap of faith. What is the ultimate benefit/goal in this belief?
Ive had a taste. LSD, meditation, a couple of sponteaneous events.
Im not sure that youd gain anything, maybe some compassion for your fellow beings, when everyone you meet wears your face you tend to be a little more interested in how things are going for them. You might gain some freedom from feeling driven, judged or boxed in. You can also gain freedom from compulsion of just about any kind.
Its a tough nut to crack, though. Usually people are driven to this only by great faith, great scepticism, emotional trauma, desperation or some extreme life circumstance.
Most humans cant muster the necessary quality and depth of surrender that it takes except through practice or desperation. Its like death. You have to give up everything including your concept of who you are. Actual death might even be easier because it at least allows you to keep your illusion of independent ego right up till the very end.
Last edited:
I my self Practice Taoist meditation and Qi gung. And I know the states that you speak of. But be aware that it is very possible, that they are nothing more then figments of your own imagination. It is completly possible that the really is nothing.It si completly possible that this universe is nothing more then a simple machine and we are nothing more then dust bunnies. But that doesn't mean its true. All I am saying is be carefull. Illusions can happen when you meditate. Don't be deceived.
But does death shatter the ego? Can you hold on too your illusions at the point ot death? If illusions and over indulgence in ego are only defenses to hide from reallity. Can you really hold on to them when you are confronted with the enivitible?
But does death shatter the ego? Can you hold on too your illusions at the point ot death? If illusions and over indulgence in ego are only defenses to hide from reallity. Can you really hold on to them when you are confronted with the enivitible?
Last edited:
I have seen permanent and positive changes in my life because of meditation and prayer. If what Ive experienced is illusion its an extremely good illusion with lasting objectively verifiable consequences. But your right. It is possible to decieve oneself, you should always keep in touch with a teacher of some kind when doing any spiritual practice.
kmguru
Staff member
I remember a boy who tried to fly out of a Chicago high rise apartment building. Luckily, he jumped from a 4th story window and broke his legs rather than losing his life.
Limitations and boundary is physical, including Bullshit I can see from my office window when I look at the cow pasture nearby...
It is allways use full to have a teacher. But a Teacher is only a guide she/he is not the path themself. Its easy to mistake the map for the terrain. The terrain is out in front of you and it allways has. All a guide can do is point you in a direction and tell you about the quick sands along the way. But if you have your wits about you you just might find your way through. It might take allot longer and the chances are much slimmer but hey you might still get there. Just don't forget its your journey.
Hey Kmguru If the Boy prepared in advance an got a hang glidder he would have flown
There is a difference between delusion and realization.
So what are you saying? That we should ignore the examples weve been given, the things spiritual teachers tell us, even our own experiences and just be complacent?
Thats pretty dreary.
Hey m0rl0ck it the boy would have prepared in advance he would have been capable to fly. But since he didn't he fell.
Those examples can be wrong and very well could be. Mistaking the map for the terrain.
Those examples can be wrong and very well could be. Mistaking the map for the terrain.