Comments on: Death of the subject “I”… http://zenshredding.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/death-of-the-subject-i/ Bliss blog of michael sean symonds ~ u n p l u g g e d . . . Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:56:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: zenshredding http://zenshredding.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/death-of-the-subject-i/#comment-85 zenshredding Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:57:26 +0000 http://zenshredding.wordpress.com/?p=23#comment-85 ... thanx for having the courage to express your opinion/perception! To expand, it is the “I” only that comes up with the stories ~ all of them. Labels, descriptions, purposes, not purposes,reasons, all of it is story. It was and is the “I” that writes in “my” blog, has an opinion and perception, agrees or disagrees, loves or fears. It is the “I” that imagines it is this way or that way... I do not state anywhere that Being is a vacuous state, if “I” were to speculate a story, the “I” would say in fact that “it” is the womb of all creation, the potential and possibility for creation itself, but it’s still a speculation and story. Being is not conceivable or perceivable by the “I”, until realized, it remains a speculation, a belief, a story. The “I” does not want to experience nirvana because it results in its extinction. The “I” does not like nihilistic teachings because the “I” assumes that nihilism means “nothing’, “emptiness”, “unpleasant”, “meaningless”, “something to be feared”, “something to be avoided”. The “I” has fused a negative assumption, association, perception, thought, feeling, memory to something that falls outside of the duality of thinking (positive or negative). How does the “I” feel about its extinction? What does the “I” assume when it is faced with it’s imagined loss? Why does the “I” fear its ultimate demise? Thank you for your comment! mss … thanx for having the courage to express your opinion/perception!

To expand, it is the “I” only that comes up with the stories ~ all of them. Labels, descriptions, purposes, not purposes,reasons, all of it is story. It was and is the “I” that writes in “my” blog, has an opinion and perception, agrees or disagrees, loves or fears. It is the “I” that imagines it is this way or that way…

I do not state anywhere that Being is a vacuous state, if “I” were to speculate a story, the “I” would say in fact that “it” is the womb of all creation, the potential and possibility for creation itself, but it’s still a speculation and story. Being is not conceivable or perceivable by the “I”, until realized, it remains a speculation, a belief, a story.

The “I” does not want to experience nirvana because it results in its extinction. The “I” does not like nihilistic teachings because the “I” assumes that nihilism means “nothing’, “emptiness”, “unpleasant”, “meaningless”, “something to be feared”, “something to be avoided”. The “I” has fused a negative assumption, association, perception, thought, feeling, memory to something that falls outside of the duality of thinking (positive or negative).

How does the “I” feel about its extinction?

What does the “I” assume when it is faced with it’s imagined loss?

Why does the “I” fear its ultimate demise?

Thank you for your comment!

mss

]]> By: Ned http://zenshredding.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/death-of-the-subject-i/#comment-84 Ned Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:38:07 +0000 http://zenshredding.wordpress.com/?p=23#comment-84 I do not think that the ultimate purpose of meditation is the elimination of the self or ego. I don't know anything particular about you or what you teach, so don't take this as a personal judgement: the people who suggest removing your ego are generally the most egotistic of them all. An ego death is part of the spiritual process, but it is hardly the end of the story. In Buddhism, the self dies to reveal the Buddha you have always been. In Vedanta, the atman merges with the Brahman. In Christianity, one dies and is reborn in Christ. Buddha, Brahman, Christ... these are not vacuous states of being. This type of nihilistic teaching only serves to create cults and is no better than the saccharine new age "law of attraction" teachings you mention. I do not think that the ultimate purpose of meditation is the elimination of the self or ego. I don’t know anything particular about you or what you teach, so don’t take this as a personal judgement: the people who suggest removing your ego are generally the most egotistic of them all.

An ego death is part of the spiritual process, but it is hardly the end of the story. In Buddhism, the self dies to reveal the Buddha you have always been. In Vedanta, the atman merges with the Brahman. In Christianity, one dies and is reborn in Christ.

Buddha, Brahman, Christ… these are not vacuous states of being. This type of nihilistic teaching only serves to create cults and is no better than the saccharine new age “law of attraction” teachings you mention.

]]>