>Granted, the ego-I is non-exisitent, but so is everything else non-existant.
Oh boy. :) This is some dangerous doctrinal turf you're treading on. If you want to call everything "non-existent" .... I don't think this is a useful concept, first of all. And secondly, even if we grant this, the point is that unless "non-existent" grasping is ended, which gives rise to the "non-existent" ego-consciousness, the "non-existent" 12-fold chain will continue to operate in it's "non-existent" manner lifetime after lifetime after "non-existing" lifetime unceasingly, creating all kinds of "non-existent" suffering. lol It's the same as saying "everything is empty". Yeah... ok. And? What conclusion do you draw from this? You might be drawing a disastrous one. > For a moment let's look at dreaming. I would contend dreams don't exist > without a dreamer. Dreamer and dream begin and end together. Speaking completely non-metaphorically, but in relation to actual dreams when the body is asleep: The dreamer is just the aggregates. The dream arises in dependence upon *this* dreamer, but this dreamer does not end when the dream ends. In other words, the body does not die when it stops dreaming. Nor does it arise when dreaming arises. We could talk about a "dream body" arising - that is, the image of a dream body running around in the dream world, which arises and ceases with the dream. The dream arises in dependence with the aggregates being in a certain *condition* namely, sleeping. And even further more subtle conditions which I don't even know what they are. But dreams end and sleeping still continues sometimes. Dreamless sleep. So if we're going to use the principle of dependent origination to explain arisings, we have to pick out precisely what arises with what; and what exactly ceases when some other thing ceases. Fire arises dependently upon oxygen and fuel. If fuel or oxygen cease, fire ceases. However, it would not be correct *necessarily* to say that if the fire goes out, there is no further fuel, or oxygen. As for example when we simply stamp out a campfire. The ceasing of the fire does not necessarily mean the log has ceased to exist. The log disappears with the fire only if it has been completely consumed by it. Similarly, the body and consciousness continue, and function within the waking sensory realm, without grasping. This is because once a birth has arisen it continues until it expires, ceases (dies). Therefore the body and mental faculties continue even after the cessation of grasping and ignorance. And, sense experience happens without grasping being part of it. Fire's gone, log remains (for awhile) until it comes to it's natural cessation. >I contend the same view holds for waking life: waking dreamer (ego)/waking >dream (samsara). The delusion of samsara doesn't "exist" without the >deluded ego. It all dependently co-arises and co-subsides. Ok, here is the question of samsara and nirvana. Are you calling samsara the realm of sensory experience, and nirvana - ? something outside of waking life? The definition of nirvana is the cessation of grasping. If grasping has come to *complete* cessation, then ignorance has come to complete cessation. Therefore there are *no further conditions* upon which it can again arise. Therefore it cannot again arise, whether we are talking about sensory experience or some other non-sensory realm. Therefore, after enlightenment, the Buddha and other enlightened folks did not experience grasping within sensory experience. If grasping arises within sensory experience, the 12 fold chain is still operational. Cessation has not been completed, the path has not been completed. There will be rebirth. The bedrock foundation principle of Buddhism is that nirvana is the cessation of grasping. Without this, a non-sensory meditation experience is *itself within the realm of samsara* and does NOT necessarily end the cycle. This is precisely why the Buddha was not satisfied with the teachings of his original meditation teachers, through whom he had learned to attain all the following non-sensory, concentration-based meditation states (jhanas): Four form jhanas: 1) 1st jhana: complete bliss (joy) and happiness with mental movement 2) 2nd jhana: complete bliss and happiness with no mental movement 3) 3rd jhana: happiness only 4) 4th jhana: pure equanimity Four formless jhanas: 5) infinite space 6) infinite consciousness 7) nothingness 8) the realm of neither perception nor non-perception All 8 are profound meditation states far removed from ordinary sense experience. After his enlightenment, the Buddha wanted to go back to his teachers and explain the truth of liberation to them, but they had been reborn in a formless realm in which it is impossible to teach or learn anything. "They" will remain there for eons. Alas, they will return to suffering, since they did not attain liberation. Since the essential insight of anatta, anicca, and dukkha were missing, simply going into these states was just the attainment of a conditioned, temporary (if supremely "pleasant" and long lasting) state. Along with contemplation of anatta, anicca, dukkha, the attainment of these states can be part of the path, but not a *necessary* part. This is made perfectly clear in the Dhatu Vibhanga Sutta, which is one of my very favorites, available here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn140.html The essential points, relative to what I am saying is this: "One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated." and further: "Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.' Apologies for the length, for anyone who made it this far. Whew. Also I am sorry if anything I said here is inaccurate or wrong in some way. Ian ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
