You Cannot Step into the Same River Twice Options

[0moksha0]

You Cannot Step into the Same River Twice

Osho: The Hidden Harmony, Chapter 11


Into the same rivers we step and do not step.
You cannot step twice in the same river.

Everything flows and nothing abides.
Everything gives way and no thing stays fixed.

Cool things become warm, the warm grows cool.
The moist dries, the parched becomes moist.

It is by disease that health is pleasant;
by evil that good is pleasant;
by hunger, satiety, by weariness, rest.
It is one and the same thing to be living or dead,
awake or asleep, young or old.
The former aspect in each case becomes the latter,
and the latter again the former,
by sudden unexpected reversal.
It throws apart
and then brings together again.

All things come in their due seasons.

Into the same rivers we step and do not step...

[babu]

that's not true, if you walk downstream at the pace of flow of the river, you can step into the river many times

[0moksha0]

that's not true, if you walk downstream at the pace of flow of the river, you can step into the river many times

just make sure its not white water rapids

[babu]

hence canoes, kayaks and whitewater rafting... to stay in the flow

[0moksha0]

just wanted to say the reason I posted You Cannot Step into the Same River Twice was it has the best explanation I have ever read of why sakyamuni buddha taught the doctrine of anatta.

[babu]

what's that anatta thing?

[angrezi]

It means this:

[babu]

what is this:

[0moksha0]

It means this:

not really thats a common misconception.

[angrezi]

I'll keep my flaming sword of knowledge and everybody else can figure out what anatta is. metta

[0moksha0]

by all means. if your knowledge of anatta is full of fire please share.

[evakurvan]

I don't really have flaming knowledge but I will post because this is a scary topic where anything you can possibly post is wrong, and what better reason to say anything than that?

Ignoring the fact that there are no rules of thumb, the rule of thumb is every time you see no-self in the mahayana or vajrayana texts, that should not be read or conceptualized as no self, but should be read as that which is "beyond" the conceptualizations of either self or no self. So that is what anatta really means which is the pali version of anatman. It does not literally mean no self as is often misperceived.

Unrelated to Angrezi here is why some Buddhists take issue with answering with "silence." Ever since someone asked, what is the truth of the dharma and then all of these disciples started saying smart answers, and then this one disciple raised a flower and smiled in silence, and the Buddha said that it is -this- disciple who understands the dharma best, people have been mimicking this silence thing, usually followed by some comment about how dharma cannot be encapsulated in conceptualizations and words, and then some praise of experiential understanding. This is so common like a cliche so this is why such reactions are said to "stink of zen" because they have turned into expected responses as opposed to spontaneous perfomartive expressions of one's intimations (which is what the silence thing was initially intended to be).

In the Buddhist Holy Sutra of Vimalakirti there are two silences that occur, the silence of Sariputra before the goddess and the silence of Vimalakirti with Manjusri. Sariputra is the character in the Sutra that is used to poke fun at the lameness in Buddhism, in an amicable affectionate way, and it is showing look even Sariputra can answer with the so-called "wisdom" of silence. The idea is to avoid relying on the security-blanket-refrain of saying that dharma is beyond words, because it is not totally true although partly true. And also because in the Buddhist communities, -silence- is the New Smart (Aleckyness) to replace the Smart (Alecky) overwordyness of the disciples of the Buddha (during that flower story mentionned above).



This post has been edited by evakurvan: Sep 12 2005, 03:14 AM

[0moksha0]

Ignoring the fact that there are no rules of thumb, the rule of thumb is every time you see no-self in the mahayana or vajrayana texts, that should not be read or conceptualized as no self, but should be read as that which is "beyond" the conceptualizations of either self or no self. So that is what anatta really means which is the pali version of anatman. It does not literally mean no self as is often misperceived.

very nice evakurvan. did you read oshos words here i posted the link to?

[evakurvan]

yes i did skim through it

[0moksha0]

many people have difficulty with the buddha's teachings of anatta especially those from a vedantic background who are used to the idea of an eternal fixed atman. at the same time they can easily understand and relate to the buddhist concept of impermanence which is easy to recognise when we look at the world around us. all things must pass, our bodies, our friends and loved ones the trees the stars. what is difficult to conceptualize is impermanence in relation to more subtle things like our innermost being or soul if you will. what the buddha was saying by anatta was not that we do not have a lasting existense but we are not a static fixed thing that is unchangeable for eternity, but we are like that river that flows and flows always in a flux, a constant state of change forever and ever. buddha taught that the nature of reality is change, permanence is illusion on all levels. every moment everything is changing there is no permanent thing.

metta

[angrezi]

many people have difficulty with the buddha's teachings of anatta especially those from a vedantic background who are used to the idea of an eternal fixed atman. at the same time they can easily understand and relate to the buddhist concept of impermanence which is easy to recognise when we look at the world around us. all things must pass, our bodies, our friends and loved ones the trees the stars. what is difficult to conceptualize is impermanence in relation to more subtle things like our innermost being or soul if you will. what the buddha was saying by anatta was not that we do not have a lasting existense but we are not a static fixed thing that is unchangeable for eternity, but we are like that river that flows and flows always in a flux, a constant state of change forever and ever. buddha taught that the nature of reality is change, permanence is illusion on all levels. every moment everything is changing there is no permanent thing.

metta

Yeah, thats what I thought concerning anatta, until some Buddhists on another forum told me that the idea of anything static, changing, permant, impermanent or otherwise is false.

What you have said here Moksha could be said by a true Hindu monist as well, and is more discussing impermenance rather than anatta. If there is least no temproarily fixed atman in Buddhism, than Pureland, reincarnation of Lamas etc. would seem inconsistent. After sayujya-moksha/nirvana there is no 'self' granted, so what is the difference between Buddhism and Monism concerning moksha/nirvana, other than terminology and emphasis? Can somebody explain this to my one-eyed flaming sword of knowledge?

[angrezi]

From the farcical 7th cen. play Mattavilasa:

The ideas he stole, that thieving Tathagata,
From the Upanishads and Mahabharata,
He brazenly claimed as original thinking,
While foolish brahmans stood there blinking.

[0moksha0]

Yeah, thats what I thought concerning anatta, until some Buddhists on another forum told me that the idea of anything static, changing, permant, impermanent or otherwise is false.

well thats what I said here "what the buddha was saying by anatta was not that we do not have a lasting existense but we are not a static fixed thing"

What you have said here Moksha could be said by a true Hindu monist as well

not really as a hindu monist believes in a the concept of atman which is eternally fixed brahman. even if it merges it is an eternality merging into another fixed eternality.

Pureland, reincarnation of Lamas etc. would seem inconsistent.

In buddhism the term reincarnation does not quite fit therefore rebirth is more frequently used. there no re-incarnation of an eternal fixed self but a continuum of the present flow.

[0moksha0]

angrezi- I don't know if you read 'You Cannot Step into the Same River Twice' that I posted here but it explains anatta in the best manner I have every read. anyway here is a small piece from there that may be helpful.

"Into the same rivers we step and do not step.

It simply appears that in the afternoon you are the same self. It simply appears. Where is the self of the morning when you were so happy, and you could sing with the birds, and you could dance with the rising sun? Where is that self? By the afternoon you are already sad; the evening has already descended on you. In the middle of the afternoon it has already become night -- you are sad. Is this the same self? When you hate and when you love, do you think it is the same self? When you are depressed and when you reach a peak of joy, is this the same self? It is not, it simply appears to be. It appears the same, just like if you go the Ganges: in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening, it appears the same Ganges -- but it is not. It is constantly flowing.

Heraclitus loves the symbol of the river, Buddha loves the symbol of the flame. That symbol of the flame is even more subtle. The flame appears to be the same but it is not. Every moment it is disappearing; the old is going and the new is coming. Buddha says that in the evening you light a candle, and in the morning you blow it out -- but never think that it is the same candle. It cannot be. The whole night it burnt and burnt and burnt. The whole night the flame disappeared and disappeared and disappeared, and a new flame was constantly being supplied. But the difference between the two flames -- the old going out and the new coming in, the gap -- is so subtle that you cannot see it.

Buddha says: "The self that is born will not die -- it has died already. The man you were born as and the man you will be when you die are not the same." Buddha says: "It is the same continuum, but not the same thing." The flame in the evening and the flame in the morning constitute the same continuum, the same series of flames, but not the same self. The Ganges looks the same; it is not the same. And everything is changing"

[angrezi]

so there is no eternality? that's kind of a bummer