Who is God?

[godnotgod]

But this line of thought is leaning toward the surrender of who you are...where you are....and where you are going.

"Where you are going" is nothing more than a notion that you have been indoctrinated with. In actuality, you have no idea where you are going. In fact, since you resist living in the present, you cannot possibly know where you are going. To accept as truth this indoctrination, and then to put your faith in it, is but a substantial, delusive idea. What you really should be looking at is why you bought into the idea in the first place.

Take another look in the mirror. You are an assembly.
Mind, body and soul.

No, I am not an 'assembly', like some mechanism that winds down and undergoes entropy.

That notion is a delusion of the rational mind. I am a conscious, living manifestation of the universe that was never born, and will never die.

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

Understand?

NO MOVING MIND.

NO MOVING PARTS.

You can lose your mind....that's bad.

Now tell me: what "mind" is there to lose; and who, exactly, is it that loses it?

You can lose your body...you will.

"Who" loses? What is "lost"? Einstein tells us that nothing is ever lost, only transformed from one state to another, ie: energy to matter; matter to energy.

If you lose your soul....you cease to exist.

Did you ever exist in the first place? And if you did not, so what?

The real question is: ARE YOU HERE...NOW?

Did you ever consider that if the self exists, then the not-self also must exist?

 

[Dezzie]

Maybe he has a really embarrassing, uncool name. If I wanted people to follow me, I wouldn't tell them that my name was Leslie. "Praise be to Leslie!" It just doesn't sound right.

My apologies to anyone named Leslie.

Hey! haha that's my Mom's name!

 

[Thief]

Hey Godnotgod....
The delusional part of this discussion isn't mine...it's yours.

The body has an obvious function. It feeds information into your head.
This process stops when your body stops.
You are here to learn all that you can, before you die.
There is no mystery to life.
The body is the means to form individual spiritual life.

Your speech indicates you believe the opposite.
That the person you are becoming will dissipate at the hour of your last breath.
That is a realistic possibility.
If you don't believe in life after death, it is unlikely you will have consideration toward doing so...
and will not be able to.
If your essence continues...and your mind does not....then your soul empties...back into Source from which it came. The body will disassemble back into the dust from which it came. The 'person' that you have become, will cease to exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Hey Godnotgod....
The delusional part of this discussion isn't mine...it's yours.

I am not the one who is forming concepts of God, self, mind, soul, or body, so where is 'my' delusion? In fact, there is no "I' which forms such concepts; therefore, "I" cannot be deluded. One necessarily needs to form and maintain some concept of reality that is false in order to be deluded, right?

For example: We live in the present moment. Of this there is no question. We KNOW this to be so. However, some people talk about 'another realm' of existence beyond our experience of the present moment. There is no evidence that such a realm actually exists, yet, those who believe it does treat it as if it were real. What they have done, in effect, is to treat their belief as if it were Absolute Truth. This is a substantial, delusive idea.

This applies also to the concept of mind, which is, in effect, a self-created principle. "I" confirms its own existence. "I" know that "I" exist. How convenient.

The body has an obvious function. It feeds information into your head.

Your head is not part of your body?

This process stops when your body stops.
You are here to learn all that you can, before you die.

...in order to carry all that baggage with you into the after-death state? :biglaugh:
Perhaps it is the opposite of what you think: that we should un-learn all that you can before you die, so that you might return to your true nature.

There is no mystery to life.

Glad to hear you have it all figured out.

The body is the means to form individual spiritual life.

Really? That's a new one. Are we spirits trying to be human, or humans trying to be spiritual?

Your speech indicates you believe the opposite.

I am not making the distinction between body and spirit. Those are concepts, only.
All I have been saying is that true reality lies within the Present Moment. If it does not lie within the Present Moment, where else do you expect to find it? Just be here, now. That's all.

That the person you are becoming will dissipate at the hour of your last breath.

There is no more 'becoming' when you live in the Present Moment. Becoming ends here and now. When I die, I will also die within the Present Moment, but in effect, there is no death in actual reality. There is only transformation from one state to another.

If you don't believe in life after death, it is unlikely you will have consideration toward doing so...
and will not be able to.
If your essence continues...and your mind does not....then your soul empties...back into Source from which it came. The body will disassemble back into the dust from which it came. The 'person' that you have become, will cease to exist.

I am like an orange on an orange tree. The orange itself cannot exist without the orange tree. I am an outgrowth of the universe. When the universe decides it no longer wishes to manifest my being, it will no longer be manifested in my present form. That is all. No death occurs; no birth occurs. There is simply a continuation. Fundamentally, neither I nor the orange existed to begin with, nor will we exist eternally. The only eternal existence to become part of is this eternal Present Moment, which goes on forever and forever. It is Timeless and Deathless. Awaken to your being in the Present Moment, and birth and death, and the "I" that claims them, are no longer of any consequence.

The 'person that I have become' does not exist anyway. There is no person who has become, so there is no person who either began to exist, nor ceases to exist. Since there is no person to exist or not-exist, there is no one to form a concept of a God, nor to name him.

All we know for certain is that we are here, now.

There is only the experience of being here, now.

There is no experiencer of the experience.

No soul to save, or not save.

No mind that thinks, or not thinks.

No individual ego that acts upon the world.

No self, and therefore, no other.

All of these are frozen concepts of reality.

If you disagree with me, can you show me where you believe this experiencer called "I", which has a soul, a mind, and a body, actually dwells?

 

[Thief]

Well gosh......
'I' am talking to 'you'.
Two egos having a conversation.
This ego believes in life after death, and this life...with all of it's 'baggage'....is the product of living as an individual, in an individual body.

'You' can be an orange if you want to be.
But I think that would be delusional.

 

[godnotgod]

Well gosh......
'I' am talking to 'you'.
Two egos having a conversation.
This ego believes in life after death, and this life...with all of it's 'baggage'....is the product of living as an individual, in an individual body.

'You' can be an orange if you want to be.
But I think that would be delusional.

Did I say I was an orange? No. I said I was LIKE an orange, such that my "orange-ness" is dependent upon the tree that I grow from, in the same way that your human-ness is totally dependent upon the universe that grew you. No one exists as an individual ego or body acting upon the world. That is your delusion, is it not? :yes:

You emerge from the universe in the exact same way that an orange emerges from an orange tree.

Where is this "I" that you refer to that is "having a conversation"?

I see a conversation, but I fail to see any 'conversationalists'.

What is the basis of your belief in life after death? The baggage you believe you will carry forth into the after-death state may instead come to an end at the moment of your physical death, so why do you prefer the opposite scenario?

The fact that you believe yourself to be an ego acting upon the world is the key to why you conceptualize a God acting upon the world as well. Naming that God gives security and comfort to the conceptualizing mind. Such a conceptualized and named God is now predictable, and a predictable God is one which can be used to control others with. It is the oldest con game in the books. The priests used it to telling effect against a believing and frightened congregation as a means of extracting tribute from them.

 

[Thief]

Actually...I believe very little the items you last posted.

But I do believe in life after death.
I do believe in God.
I believe "I think...therefore I exist."

"I" am unique.

If you actually believe what you have posted, 'you' would not be using the word "I" in reference to 'yourself'.

Comparing humans to fruit...is....fruity.

 

[godnotgod]

But I do believe in life after death.
I do believe in God.

Yes, those beliefs have already been established, but what I am asking you is why you choose to believe them.

I believe "I think...therefore I exist."

Yes, I am quite familiar with that old line, but do not buy it. Can you answer my question: Who is this "I" which thinks?

"I" am unique.

Who says so? "I"? Do you see the problem with this, or not?

If you actually believe what you have posted, 'you' would not be using the word "I" in reference to 'yourself'.

That is not so. I am only using it as a matter of convenience and convention.

Comparing humans to fruit...is....fruity.

It is obvious that you have completely missed the point of the metaphor. That is a pity.

Is it conceivable to your ego-oriented view that you emerged from the universe?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I am that I am.

 

[godnotgod]

"I am that I am"

and

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

do not say the same thing as:

"I think, therefore I am"

The first two statements are confirmations of conscious awareness in the Present Moment, without thought. It is the orange recognizing its interdependent connection with the orange tree, and the wave recognizing its source, the ocean.

The last is a confirmation of the ego's existence of and by itself, via of the thinking mind. The ego is self-created, and then goes on to confirm that it exists. It does, but it is only a temporary existence, like a wave upon the surface of the ocean, but it does so thinking itself to be independent of its environment.

Western philosophy hangs a lot on the idea, "I think, therefore I am".
Zen however says: "I think I am, therefore I become."

....and it is in becoming that we set up a series of cause and effect waves that are the source of our suffering. The orange and wave want to be separate and independent from the tree and the ocean.

The question remains: Where is this "I" which claims: "I think, therefore I am"

If it's existence cannot be verified, then it not only does not think, it does not exist. It is a hallucination, but a convincing one.

To date, no one has ever been able to locate its whereabouts, try as they might.

Western man has the notion that "I" exists somewhere in his cranium, but that notion, strangely enough, is held by "I".

Now there are two of you...

"Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky,
like a patient etherized upon a table....

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us and we drown."
TS Elliot



Eastern man sees the head as empty, and the center of his consciousness in his hara, just below the navel.

 

[Smoke]

Can someone please explain to me why the God of most Abrahamic religions is just called "God" instead of calling Him by a name? To me that is kind of like naming your child "Child."

Simple question. No debating about who's God is real. No fighting about who has the cooler name. No religion disrespect. Just, why? Why is there no name?

There is a name, but it is too holy to be pronounced. Devout Orthodox Jews don't say "God", either.

In the Orthodox Church, people don't usually go around talking about "Jesus" or "Mary" as if they lived down the street, either. More often, the former is referred to as "Our Savior" or "Our Lord" (or, more formally, "Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ") and the latter as "the Mother of God", "the Theotokos" (Birthgiver of God), or "Panagia" (All-Holy).

It's all about reverence -- sort of the way you never refer to a Puerto Rican's mother as tu madre. If you know what's good for you, you'll say tu señora madre.

One of my favorite memories of somebody I love very much is from when he was a little boy and wanted to know why his sister was named Miriam.

"She was named for Panagia," said his mother.

"Panagia's name is Maria," he replied.

"Panagia's people called her Miriam."

 

[godnotgod]

It's all about reverence --

That reminds me of a little spiritual joke I read once:

"Shall I, a gnat, which dances in Thy Ray, DARE to be reverent?"
Coventry Pratmore; The Rod, The Root, and The Flower
*****

 

[Thief]

"I am that I am"

and

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

do not say the same thing as:

"I think, therefore I am"

The first two statements are confirmations of conscious awareness in the Present Moment, without thought. It is the orange recognizing its interdependent connection with the orange tree, and the wave recognizing its source, the ocean.

The last is a confirmation of the ego's existence of and by itself, via of the thinking mind. The ego is self-created, and then goes on to confirm that it exists. It does, but it is only a temporary existence, like a wave upon the surface of the ocean, but it does so thinking itself to be independent of its environment.

Western philosophy hangs a lot on the idea, "I think, therefore I am".
Zen however says: "I think I am, therefore I become."

....and it is in becoming that we set up a series of cause and effect waves that are the source of our suffering. The orange and wave want to be separate and independent from the tree and the ocean.

The question remains: Where is this "I" which claims: "I think, therefore I am"

If it's existence cannot be verified, then it not only does not think, it does not exist. It is a hallucination, but a convincing one.

To date, no one has ever been able to locate its whereabouts, try as they might.

Western man has the notion that "I" exists somewhere in his cranium, but that notion, strangely enough, is held by "I".

Now there are two of you...

"Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky,
like a patient etherized upon a table....

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us and we drown."
TS Elliot



Eastern man sees the head as empty, and the center of his consciousness in his hara, just below the navel.

You're lost.
You're over lapping numerous topics and notions and the coherency is gone.
Waves do not 'recognize' anything. Neither do oranges.
"They" would need to possess an "I", that 'they' would be able to do so.

Locating the "I", is not the point. As for attempting to do so.....
My "I" is right here....typing on this keyboard....close enough.

If 'you' insist that 'you' are an illusion....and apparently 'you' do....
Then the illusion will go away when 'you' stop responding.

Note: To have hallucination you need an "I" to see it.
No pun intended.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'll end this here. I am God. Worship me.

 

[godnotgod]

You're lost.
You're over lapping numerous topics and notions and the coherency is gone.
Waves do not 'recognize' anything. Neither do oranges.
"They" would need to possess an "I", that 'they' would be able to do so.

You misunderstand: If the wave or the orange had the ability to form a concept of itself as an individual ego, it would think of itself as separate from the ocean or tree. Of course neither have this ability, but man does, and so forms such concepts of individuality and separateness. I believe you called it "uniqueness".

Waves and oranges do not recognize anything separate from themselves because they are not waves and oranges: they are manifestations of orange tree and ocean. They have no idea of being separate entities from the source from which they both emerge.

The fact that both wave and orange do not have an "I", and yet still continue on without it, is proof that no such "I" is required. You, too, can continue on without the additional baggage called "I". Therefore, "I think, therefore I am" has no validity, because there is no "I" which thinks: there is only thinking, without a think-er.

"Orange" and "wave" do not, in fact, actually exist in reality: they are merely conceptual representations of reality. Orange and wave (and man) are part and parcel of the background from which they all emerge. Figure cannot exist without ground. The ego wants to make figure separate from ground. That is not possible, and is totally delusive.

Locating the "I", is not the point.

If its location is of little import, then you should have no trouble pointing to it, something you so far have failed to do, even though you continue to claim its existence.

As for attempting to do so.....
My "I" is right here....typing on this keyboard....close enough.

Excuse me: "MY" "I"?

'YOU', [who is "I"], is 'owner' [ie-'my'] of another "I"?

Are you now saying that there are TWO of you?

If 'you' insist the 'you' are an illusion....and apparently 'you' do....
Then the illusion will go away when 'you' stop responding.

There is no "I" that is responding; there is only response. Ka-ching!

Note: To have hallucination you need an "I" to see it.
No pun intended.

Ah, that is the dilemma! Because "I" is a self-created hallucination! "I" IS the hallucination itself!

It is "I" that is responsible for creating itself as a separate ego acting upon the world, and for creating, as a result of its own creation, the concept of "other". Having set up its view of reality in this manner, it then proceeds to create a concept of an otherness it calls "God". Because "I" thinks of itself as "special" and "unique", it sees 'other' as special and unique as well. In the case of God, special and unique becomes VERY SPECIAL and VERY UNIQUE, which translates into something we call HOLY. Not satisfied with that, it then proceeds to create the concept NOT-HOLY, resulting in the creation of polar extremes of SUPER GOODNESS and SUPER EVIL. It crowns this achievement by personifying them (via of the very clever technique called 'projection') in the forms of JESUS CHRIST and SATAN, pitting them one against the other, with all accompanying forces also iinvolved. Not satisfied with these personified polar extremes, it projects itself onto the personification of Goodness and then proceeds to worship that personification. In psychological circles, this Egotistical State is the well-known phenomenon known as 'Idolatrous Love':

I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indescriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

from Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9

 

[Thief]

So..."I" get the jest of your viewpoint.
But "I" still don't buy it.

This existence has a scheme to it......and there are 6billion participants. Each with a unique face, each having a name, and each one living out his linear existence.

A tool is known by it's use.
The body is a learning device.
There is no mystery to life. "You" are here to learn all that you can before "you" die.

The body fails...but the soul does not.
Crossing over into the next life...in the spirit...is more likely... than not.

"If not"....then there is no point or purpose in breathing. No point or purpose to the creation of Man.
There would be no consequence (not necessarily punishment).
No consequence at all. Nothing awaits 'you' when you die.

Oh that's right! "You" don't exist.

But here we are. I know my purpose. And I will cross over.
Apparently...'you' will not.

I might as well talk to an orange.

 

[Onkara]

So..."I" get the jest of your viewpoint.
But "I" still don't buy it.

This existence has a scheme to it......and there are 6billion participants. Each with a unique face, each having a name, and each one living out his linear existence.

A tool is known by it's use.
The body is a learning device.
There is no mystery to life. "You" are here to learn all that you can before "you" die.

The body fails...but the soul does not.
Crossing over into the next life...in the spirit...is more likely... than not.

"If not"....then there is no point or purpose in breathing. No point or purpose to the creation of Man.
There would be no consequence (not necessarily punishment).
No consequence at all. Nothing awaits 'you' when you die.

Oh that's right! "You" don't exist.

But here we are. I know my purpose. And I will cross over.
Apparently...'you' will not.

I might as well talk to an orange.

Hi Thief and Godnotgod.
The hardest thing to understand is how division appears if there is no division i.e. how there appear to be many people yet we are told that there is only one unity.

The division is reinforced by the experience of your body. You recieve sense data and that sense data confirms that there is something to be sensed. This reinforces the belief in the body. Also it reinforces the belief that there is something independent that exists to be expreienced (sensed). I then become divided between that which senses (my finger tips) and that which is sensed (the smooth keyboard, for example).

It is similar with other people, we sense them e.g. we see, hear, touch, smell and even taste others.

I would add that it is not that it isn't real, but rather it depends on your personal sense to confirm that life is real.

I don't think this detracts from the fact that something "crosses over" however in this model something is removed i.e. the sensing body. That which knows the sensing body is that which "crosses over". Crossing over implies movement, where as something that already exists is more likely to disolve or return or to merge with God. It is more a limitation of language, which is not wrong, but useful to recognise when communicating sophisticated concepts.

 

[godnotgod]

So..."I" get the jest of your viewpoint.
But "I" still don't buy it.

If you really got the jist of it, there would be no need to "buy" it; you would simply see the truth of it.

This existence has a scheme to it......and there are 6 billion participants. Each with a unique face, each having a name, and each one living out his linear existence.

Ah! So now you want this "I" to have a purpose, do you? There may be a pattern, but not necessarily a scheme. There is no evidence that such a scheme or purpose exists to our being here, or to the universe, for that matter, other than being itself (and its accompanying joy).

Underlying the uniqueness you speak of is a sameness common to the entire phenomenal world. Attaching yourself to being unique is to think of yourself as a separate ego; connecting with the sameness (the source) is to see all things with a universal mind. It is this sameness, this universality, that was never born, and can never die. It has no beginning and no end. Awakening to it is to be here, now; to see beyond your temporary "uniqueness". It is to see the orange tree instead of just the orange. One then realizes there is nothing to cross over to. You are already there.

We can think of "uniqueness" simply as great variety. The creative force* responsible for the way you see the world being manifested at this moment is obviously a mind of great variety. But the background, the field, against which this uniqueness is being projected is all the same. It is unborn, odorless, tasteless, invisible, and silent. It is beyond the perceptive apparatus of the body. To become aware of it, one must transcend sight, sound, taste, and smell. The rational mind must become quiet, so that the intuitive mind comes into play.

The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this.
Tao te Ching, Ch 12

['racing and hunting' refers to the mind of action, as compared to being still.
'precious things' can be thought of as 'unique things' sought after via of desire.
'feels" refers to intuition, and not to tactile perception.
'sees' refers to intuitive insight, and not to visual sight.]

A tool is known by it's use.
The body is a learning device.
There is no mystery to life. "You" are here to learn all that you can before "you" die.

Who is dictating that? If there is no mystery, why the need to learn anything?

The body fails...but the soul does not.
Crossing over into the next life...in the spirit...is more likely... than not.

What "soul"? What "next life"? You know of no such "next life". All you know for certain is that you are here, now, in this life. There is no other. To formulate concepts about a "next life" is a delusive idea.

This is merely a belief. What are you basing your belief upon?

"If not"....then there is no point or purpose in breathing. No point or purpose to the creation of Man.

What "point or purpose" do you want there to be?

The geese, flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their shadows;
the pond does not intend to reflect them.
Zen aphorism

There would be no consequence (not necessarily punishment).
No consequence at all. Nothing awaits 'you' when you die.

There may be consequence, but it may be due to your thinking yourself unique. Being unique, you want to "make a mark" on the world for yourself. In making a mark for yourself, you create cause and effect. You cause waves upon an otherwise still pond. By stilling your mind, you realize that "I" does not actually exist; however, the realization also occurs that something still remains. You do not suddently vaporize. This realization is to know at last that you have been with the One Source all along; that you have never been separated; that the idea of your separation was due to the hallucination of being a unique "I". Then, there is nothing to do in regards to "consequence" because there is none. You are already at your destination, which is this eternal Present Moment. There is nowhere to go after death because there is no death. The Source that you now find yourself at one with is Unborn, and therefore, Undead.

Oh that's right! "You" don't exist.

Once again: can you show me where this "I" that you claim exists, dwells within your body? If you are so certain that "I" exists, you should have no trouble pointing to it.

But, then again, who is it that is pointing to this "I"?

But here we are. I know my purpose. And I will cross over.
Apparently...'you' will not.

Oh? And what do you suppose your 'purpose' to be?

I might as well talk to an orange.

You talk to yourself in claiming "I" to exist from the standpoint of "I" itself, so why not? Which is more delusive?
******

*Now, what if you and I and the other "6 billion participants", along with the entire phenomenal world, is the creative force itself playing a grand game of Cosmic Hide and Seek, in which it is hiding within its own "creation"? That who you think you are is but a mask being worn by a great actor, one who has forgotten that the drama he or she is acting out is not real, and who has become so absorbed with the role that he has lost contact with his real self? This is what we call Identification; it is life on the Third Level of Consciousness, that of Waking Sleep, in which one firmly believes oneself to be real and awake, but in reality, is not. One is spiritually asleep. Only when one remembers that it is all just One Big Act that one realizes he is the creative force itself. This is the Hindu view, wherein one does not think of oneself as a separate ego acting upon the world, but as a moving drama.

 

[godnotgod]

I would add that it is not that it isn't real, but rather it depends on your personal sense to confirm that life is real.

Yes, and it is that 'personal sense' that is responsible for formulating a concept of what we see as real. "Man" is still a concept. When we actually go deeper into the concept we call a man, we find that a "man" is totally interdependent upon the environment in which it lives. So where does a man leave off and his environment begin?

't think this detracts from the fact that something "crosses over" however in this model something is removed i.e. the sensing body. That which knows the sensing body is that which "crosses over". Crossing over implies movement, where as something that already exists is more likely to disolve or return or to merge with God. It is more a limitation of language, which is not wrong, but useful to recognise when communicating sophisticated concepts.

One of the aspects of crossing over is that no trace is left behind. Where is that which crossed over, and where has there ever been a crossing over? "Crossing over", too, is but a concept. Since there never was a separation from God to begin with, where is there any returning or merging with such a God?

Was there ever anything from the beginning that crossed over into anything?
*****

One day, the Fifth Patriarch, Hung Jen assembled all his disciples and said,"Go and seek for Prajna in your own mind and write me a stanza (gatha) about it. The one who understands the reality of Buddhist nature will be the Sixth Patriarch." The head disciple, Shin Shau composed his stanza and wrote it on the wall of the corridor, so that the Patriarch might know what spiritual insight he had attained. The stanza read:

• Our body is the Bodhi tree,
  And our mind is like a bright mirror with stand,
  Diligently we wipe them all the time,
  And let no dust alight.
  

Later, Hui Neng who worked in the kitchen heard a young man reciting the stanza. At once, he realized that the stanza did not reveal the reality of Buddhist nature.
As he was illiterate, he asked people to scribe his stanza, which reads:

• There is no Bodhi Tree
  Nor the stand of a bright mirror,
  Since all is void,
  Where can the dust alight?
  

Eventually, Hui Neng received the robe and Dharma from Hung Jen, and became the Sixth Patriarch of Zen Sect in China.

 

[godnotgod]

When you spontaneously burn your finger on a hot stove, in that very moment, there is only "Ouch!" There is no idea of an "I" who burns one's finger. It is only in the seconds immediately afterwards that one thinks: "Oh. I have burned my finger!" You have done no such thing. Burning one's finger never was a willful act to begin with, so there cannot have been an "I" involved. True, a finger was burned, but no "I" was responsible for it. There was only finger burning, without the unnecessary luxury of a finger burner.

There is only a universe without a universe-creator, let alone one with a name.

In fact, there may not even be a universe. There is a view, even a scientific one, which states that the universe is but an apparition. What it states is this:

"....the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation.....time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

The Equations of Maya

The metaphor for such a view is that of seeing a rope on the road at dusk moving in the wind, and mistaking it for a snake. In the first moment, one firmly believes one is seeing a snake, as one recoils in horror. Immediately afterward, one realizes the "snake" is only a rope, and is relieved.