According to the Buddha, "Who am I?" is an inappropriate question to ask

[Flow With Life]

These are known as the "unanswered questions" which the Buddha always refused to answer because they do not lead to liberation from the stress & suffering of existence, but only to entanglement.

He puts aside questions of identity:

Quote

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

-- Sabbasava Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 2

He puts aside questions about the nature of the cosmos, and of the soul:

Quote

"...what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life"

-- Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

Instead, the Buddha focuses only on questions dealing with stress & suffering, and how they are caused by actions (conditioned by intentions), without reference to who/what is doing the actions, or who/what is experiencing the entailing stress & suffering.

Quote

"...inappropriate attention frames the issues of the mind in terms of abstract categories, whereas appropriate attention frames them in terms of things that can be directly pointed to in immediate experience as "This... This... This... This."

...

However, suffering is something directly knowable: preverbal, private, but universal. In framing the issues of the mind around suffering, the Buddha bases his teachings on an intention totally trustworthy — the desire for his listeners to put an end to all their suffering — and focuses on something not dependent on definitions. In fact, he never offers a formal definition of the term "suffering" at all. Instead, he illustrates it with examples — such as the suffering of birth, aging, illness, and death..."

-- Thanissaro Bhikku in "Untangling the Present"

This is the ultimate compass. This is how to not get lost in the infinitely-recursive rabbit-holes of self-delusion. To not get lost in contrived pragmatically-impotent philosophical conceptual Towers of Babble. To not get lost in equally ridiculous Zen riddles and paradoxes. To not get lost in indecision due to trying to blend together contradictory worldviews and paths.

Zoom in on what this is really all about: putting an end to stress & suffering. Something we all know.

 

I'm posting here because I'm curious what this community thinks about the above ideas, which seem to run counter to the main theme of this forum.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Flow With Life

[Solace]

The silence after the question is the answer. That's who you are, and is also why, focusing on the silence is more effective than asking a question and waiting for God to reply.

 

[Flow With Life]

18 minutes ago, Solace said:

The silence after the question is the answer. That's who you are, and is also why, focusing on the silence is more effective than asking a question and waiting for God to reply.

The Buddha speaks about non-duality as also a mental fabrication. Something to not cling to, to let go of:

Quote

"...when one perceives the consciousness-totality above, below, all-around: non-dual, unlimited. And there are beings who are percipient in this way. Yet even in the beings who are percipient in this way there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that."

-- Kosala Sutta, AN 10.29

EDIT: Also see:

Quote

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

-- Alagaddupama Sutta, MN 22

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Flow With Life

[who chit]

17 minutes ago, Solace said:

The silence after the question is the answer. That's who you are, and is also why, focusing on the silence is more effective than asking a question and waiting for God to reply.

 

@Solace Well said.

"Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation." Rumi

[Barry J]

I don’t see any contradictions

[Solace]

@Flow With Life There is three core aspects of us. There is the consciousness, which is ever-present, does not change, is formless presence. It is the container in which all of life is within. And then there is the creative energy of Love which is the first form of manifest reality, from which all other forms are created. Finally there is also an infinite intelligence which "drives/guides" all of creation.

This is also known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

33 minutes ago, Flow With Life said:

After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change.

Yes, the Buddha is right in saying this is foolish. For there is no such thing as death, because you are always exist as the creative energy, as well as the consciousness whether on this planet or not.

 

33 minutes ago, Flow With Life said:

when one perceives the consciousness-totality above, below, all-around: non-dual, unlimited. And there are beings who are percipient in this way. Yet even in the beings who are percipient in this way there is still aberration, there is change.

When we realise ourselves as unchanging stillness we don't stop creating here on Earth. This is because we are the creative energy as well as the consciousness, therefore there is no contradiction.

The Buddha is not saying that the consciousness is a mental fabrication from what I understand, he is just saying that although we are the formless Consciousness that is the container for all the forms, we are also the creative energy of life, the first form in manifestation. It is the yin and yang, the divine feminine and divine masculine, the alpha and the omega, the energy and the awareness. Buddha's point is that it's important to realise both to fully understand our true nature  And you can find both by focusing on one. That is why focusing on the Hearts Love, or focusing on yourself as this space of awareness both lead you to self-realisation. 

Hope this helps explain things more to you.

Namaste.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Solace

[Haumea2018]

Buddhism is the path of negation.

It is suitable for some and not for others.

The end goal of liberation can be reached by various means. Different strokes for different folks.

You can reach it despite having a shitload of concepts all along the way.

For example, surrender to guru's grace.

There are many atheists, e.g. who take up Buddhism because their ego requires they reject all deities and avatars.

Many will fail to reach enlightenment because they are rejecting something which is in actuality a part of them.

You do not get to persistently reject something which is really a part of yourself and become awakened.

It is not about the vehicle, grand or lesser.

It is about the passenger.

 

 

 

[Flow With Life]

8 minutes ago, Solace said:

There is three core aspects of us.

Just there, you have forwarded a view/definition about what the self is. This is precisely the "inappropriate attention" mentioned in the OP.

Buddhism hard-rejects the notion of eternalism:

Quote

...the positing of some eternal entity or spiritual principle, i.e., a substantial self or soul, as the essence of the individual, and the positing of an eternal entity, such as a creator God or metaphysical Absolute, as the ground or source of the objective universe... their teachings, according to the Buddha, are not free of an erroneous grasp of actuality. They spring from a deep clinging to the notion of a permanent self, which issues in an edifice of doctrine designed to substantiate that idea and guarantee the immortality of the imagined self

-- Bhikku Nanomoli, in "The Lion's Roar"

 

[Barry J]

@Flow With Life  what is your point? Are you saying that different enlightened teachers have different ways of teaching?

[Flow With Life]

8 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

Buddhism is the path of negation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean the path of dispassion towards all forms of craving & clinging? Then I would agree.

Quote

The end goal of liberation can be reached by various means. Different strokes for different folks.

You can reach it despite having a shitload of concepts all along the way.

Good 'ole "different paths up the same mountain". Are they talking about the same mountain though? Intention is everything. Things get subtle when you go deep... and if your starting questions and initial assumptions are different, then I'm driving west and you're driving east.

[Flow With Life]

5 minutes ago, Barry J said:

@Flow With Life  what is your point? Are you saying that different enlightened teachers have different ways of teaching?

I don't really have a specific point here. I'm just curious to see what people in this community think of the ideas I presented. I see an irreconcilable contradiction in the popular themes put forth on this forum, with the ideas in the Buddhist doctrine.

[Solace]

@Flow With Life I understand what you are saying The imaginary self cannot be eternal, it is the no self, or absence of a "imaginary self" that is the Truth.  

It was a matter of terminology. I was coming from the perspective that the eternal self and no self were the same, so just replace the times I referred to eternal self with no self, and what I said will be coherent with the Buddha's teaching. We are referring to the same thing after all, the consciousness which is realised in perception of the stillness and silence.

Namaste.

@Barry J All genuine spiritual teachers refer to the same thing: the Consciousness, and the Unconditional Love. There are many different paths to realise this, one is the Buddhas. 

With Love.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Solace

[who chit]

 

39 minutes ago, Flow With Life said:

the positing of some eternal entity or spiritual principle, i.e., a substantial self or soul, as the essence of the individual.They spring from a deep clinging to the notion of a permanent self, which issues in an edifice of doctrine designed to substantiate that idea and guarantee the immortality of the imagined self

If there is "no positing of some substantial self or soul" then what is reborn or not reborn.
"Rebirth, friend, is painful; non-rebirth is pleasant".AN 10.13: 

And also here which implies both a "self" or soul that is reborn to an "eternal abode": he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.
AN 9.36 Jhana Sutta

Edited September 18, 2018 by who chit

[Leo Gura]

No contradiction. Just the usual nondual jibber-jabber.

You can slice the same cake a hundred ways.

[Barry J]

@Solace  yeah that’s what I was getting at. Lazy comms 

[Haumea2018]

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Negation of all ontological concepts: the Self, God/Gods, etc.

Quote

Are they talking about the same mountain though?

Unless you believe that only Buddhists fully awaken (which in itself is a concept to surrender), then definitely "yes".

Edited September 18, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Barry J]

1 hour ago, Flow With Life said:

I don't really have a specific point here. I'm just curious to see what people in this community think of the ideas I presented. I see an irreconcilable contradiction in the popular themes put forth on this forum, with the ideas in the Buddhist doctrine.

So what man? Do you think that the Buddha was more enlightened than other enlighteneds? Would you consider that Buddha was not even real? Don’t you find all of this stuff boring and predictable?

[who chit]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 Just the usual nondual jibber-jabber.

Haa. I fully agree.

[Shin]

Who am I sucks because your mind will automatically make the connection:

Who = personality

 

What I am works better.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Shin

[Barry J]

@Shin  I like to use “where is who right now?” with my students