The Four Denials of Buddhism – and an unspoken 5th?

Lao Tzu often uses the term “ling” or “soul” to describe the unfolding of the Tao, and also refers specifically to the po soul. So I am not clear as to what you are trying to generalize here.

Immortality does not imply “separation” or “duality” – it is part of the fabric of the Tao. Just as “individualized” phyusical human body-minds are essential to its process. You are avoiding the issue of Selfhood here, which does not imply separation or duality when seen in the context of Self being an evolutoinary process rather than a fixed item.

It appears you are somehow translating Tao as undifferentiated state rather than as a Way or Process that includes everything, including Selfhood.. I suspect this is a error, perhaps engendered by Chan use of Tao terminology in a different way that is goal or fixed state oriented. One of the Four Denials I believe would exclude making wuji into a fixed eternal state.. …

But you cannot use generalized translations of Lao Tzu by chan types (such as Cleary or Stephen Mitchell) to make thiese conclusions.

Get Jonathan Star’s word by word index of Lao Tzu to examine the common use of “soul” and “soul chi” in the Lao Tzu. Even the Redpine translation which I think you have includes a commentary on the Po soul useage in one chapter, an allusion to it traditionally being associated with negative personal desire. This undermines your contention that completion of the soul cannot be possible since Lao Tzu does not talk about it in that language of us having different souls.

I think the Selfhood question remains an open one, the key issue that cannot be avoided or glossed over as a linguisitic anomaly or a temporary burp in the wuji.

smiling to your Self,
michael

Thanks Fajin,

The passage you’ve posted pretty much sums up my understanding of the foundation of Buddhism, regardless of its many cultural forms, but I wanted it to come from a practicing Buddhist. It confirms that there is a Fifth Denial, the Denial of Selfhood.

Whenever I try to point this out to Bagua, that Buddhism is fundamentally an absolute state oriented metaphysic rather than process oriented, he fudges and claims for him that Chan is processual in nature, like Daoism. I can fully accept that modern western Buddhists want to modify the orignal Buddhist philosophy to bring it in line with their experience, no problem. But we need again to separate useful meditaiton techniques from foundational metaphysics.

What you’ve posted from Wikipedia is a process that TERMINATES human consciousness, i.e. the process itself is illusory and not permanent once Nirvana is attained. This impies a separation exists between the state of Change (Creation, Incarnation) and Nirvana.

>4. The “Worthy-One” (Arhat) is completely pure and free from desire. That person has experienced Nirvana and will know it fully at death, when all matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness will disappear forever.

There is a “fuss” because from my point of view this philosophy is fundamentally flawed and dualistic, the result probably of a desire to escape the problem of human suffering by leaving the Wheel of Incarnation rather than solving the problem of suffering within the context of human consciousness, either during physical life or afterwards in other dimensions (concept of immorality).

Ironically, even such a temporary Buddhist human process of achieving Nirvana implies a process of soul COMPLETION, even though it has an end state in which completion is final by eliminating the self.

At core, I feel any absolutist philosphy such as what you have posted leads to a denial and/or an underming of the evolutionary reality of Selfhood. Selfhood can be viewed on a evolutioniary spectrum from personal self (physical human) all the way up through levels of the collective Self (whether seen as Humanity, Earth, or Heaven).

Buddhism posits that Selfhood is the problem, the flaw, rather than the solution, and thus we need to be devolved out it.

Selfhood doesn’t deny the original mystery (call it what you want, wuji, hundun, Emptiness, but it is something other than Self or Humanity). This focus on eliminating Self is unique to Buddhism. Other primordial philosophies, such as you find in HInduism, do not believe in the elimination of Self – that was the very point of Buddhism’s radical departure from Hinduism.

Just for perspective, let me quote here a comment on “realizing the true nature of the Self, or real God, based on the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi”:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Self

Q: How can we find the Self?

M: “There can be no real investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be made into the non-self. It is only possible to eliminate the non-self. As the Self is always self-evident, it will shine of itself. “Knowing” means “Being.” It is not relative knowledge.

Progress can be spoken of in reference to things to be attained, whereas here it is the removal of ignorance, and not the acquisition of knowledge. ”

————————–

This is completely the opposite view of Buddhism, which gives primacy to Non-self over Self. Ramana’s approach is essentially that the underlying Original Self is Immortal, and cannot be destroyed, and that human awareness can only be expanded to include the nature of Original Being. That while the wuji (in my definition) or non-self, is critical to expanding our sense of Self, and gives us the freedom and boundary to understand Self, non-self is not something that Self can ultimately merge into. We can only expand our awareness of the “space” previously occupied by non-self. Don’t misinterpret the phrase “Return to Origin” as meaning end of consciousness – it means a human can simultaneously experience the full cycle of Life and Death. But only an immortal one Or God-self can have that perspective, not a Non-Self!

Beingness is the foundational definition of self, in the Taoist tradition it would be defined by the Three Ones that emerged from hundun, the Primordial. I have never seen any suggestion in my readings that suggest the Three Ones ‘die”.

The reason that the distinction about Selfhood vs. non-self is important, and not merely linguistic, is because I am aware of lawful streams of divine consciousness that ooppose the development of the Self and believe it was a mistake, even as they participate in supporting Creation (as they must, as part of the Creating Collective of Tao mind.

They want to DEVOLVE the self, rather than evolve it. This is the essence of the “War in Heaven”, whether to evolve or devolve the Free Will that results from Selfhood. The Buddhist position is a reflection of that position, it ultimately seeks an elimination of the Free Will choice to continue living after death and evolving and creating.

If you resonate with that devolution of free will, it has, in my opinion, probable consequences in the subtle planes that you may not be aware of. These may not be apparent until the moment of death, when you may find it difficult if not impossible to reverse a lifetime of belief and be unable to choose to continue evolving the Self, even though the option is presented. The lifeforce will always give you what you ask. But best to investigate deeply before you “vote” your Self out of existence.

That’s the fuss.

Smiling to your Self,
Michael