Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism [Archive]

Paulclem

05-09-2010, 12:38 PM

Well we all know the "self" in its present form does exist because we are evidence of it, so I have no clue why that statement was made except... possibly... they mean just that "in its present form", which is just as my personal spiritual awareness leads me to believe, that WE are NOT this present "mortal self or current soul" we are in fact an Old Soul or an Immortal Soul who returns in reincarnation as per the rest of this website states. What other reason can there be for it, because the website makes reference to Rebirth and Karma often in connection with reincarnation into new lives to cleanse bad karma? It could mean that they are classifying the mortal "self" and "soul" as the same thing.

In terms of Buddhism, you've hit the nail on the head with this post. The usual view of self is that we have one - clearly. I'm me, you are you, we're all individuals. This idea has been reinforced a lot with the cult of the personality, and individualism in the west.

The teachings say that what we think of self is actually a collection of mental and physical phenomena, which is not a complete whole - as in a soul, but is a collection of aggregates that the mind then sees as a complete being.

I'm not asking you to believe this, as it is not the way to go about it. That's what the meditations are for. To examine questions like this as they pertain to the self. The Buddha's instructions refered to difficult concepts like this and invited the practitioner to check it out for themselves.

It seems counter intuitive at first, especially as we are so infused with ideas of self and individuality, that we find it difficult to let go.

It does make sense though. Why don't we resemble more fully our youger selves? Why do people with alzheimers seem to lose their personality if that is enscoced in their self or soul - an immortal element of the body?

dizzydoll

05-09-2010, 12:41 PM

As I see on one of the links you provide, they say: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." Why is this so if the Buddhists are getting their teaching across clearly? What would be the point of not having clear cut guidelines for everyone to understand?

I dont know it just seems as tho they add all these guidelines and steps to appear mystical perhaps. I cannot see how old the Theravada Buddhism practice is, but I note Mahayana Buddhism is 2000 years old. This means they have taken their ideals from other older faiths and then added their twist to it. For this reason I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

Probably the most important thing which stands out is Buddhists claim we must rid ourselves of the ego. That is impossible, one can only "tame" the ego they cannot get rid of it. I believe its delusional to even attempt to stamp out the ego. After all, the ego is needed for self-improvement and personal growth.

Furthermore, I enjoy reading Buddhist stories of guidance until it comes to the suffering bit... at that point I stop reading because my views are entirely different. To my mind when one tries to control "anything" it will evade you. I believe thats one of societies problems, constant attempting to control everything.

Thanks Paul for posting this thread, others might find it more valuable than I, but you havent stated how Buddhism fits into reincarnation tho? Can you oblige. If Buddhists believe we dont have soul what is the purpose of reincarnation? Or do they believe we are reincarnated as an entirely different person the next time round? I am more confused now about Buddhism than before.

Personally I think the key to life is to just keep it as simple as possible, forget all the hype and do your best. Learn compassion and unconditional love. Offer support where you can. Live in the present now and believe in yourself and your dreams. I believe good karma is repaid to us in this life and future lives and the same applies to bad karma. I believe we choose our lessons before we are born into this body and we are judged by how we deal with life's challenges rather than being judged by the challenge itself. By showing appreciation and gratitude will bring more to be grateful for.

I believe we are an old soul who is using this mortal body to develop further on a spiritual level with the purpose to get closer to pure unconditional love -- source, were we are all connected in oneness.

Become aware of cause and effect and accept how it affects each of us. This means situations like bearing a disabled child might be for the purpose of teaching us and society something rather than only viewing the child as a hopeless burden to society, for example. In other words all dire conditions bestowed upon us should be viewed as more than just personal grievances.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity, as they themselves state in one of the links you provided: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." If the Buddhists are not clear in their own teaching what value can we learn from it? And surely if we are to follow Gods guidance He would be a fool to make it difficult for us to understand it.

dizzydoll

05-09-2010, 12:43 PM

I see you posted your first comment to the OP at roughly the same time as I did. Give me time to read and respond on it, if I feel it necessary... but you might find my views are not compatible to Buddhism as stated in my post above.

Why do people with alzheimers seem to lose their personality if that is ensconced in their self or soul - an immortal element of the body?

People with Alzheimer's lose their Soul, they lose their personality self but they cannot lose their Old Soul which is immortal. The shell that holds them in this life has no bearing on their immortal being or old soul.

We choose challenges like this in advance because there is learning/teaching to come out of it. Others will learn from caring for an individual with alzheimers, and this could be the reason why the patient chose this condition. We should be careful before we judge any condition because all have their purposes. One day we might come back blind, I can see much learning coming from that even tho I dont like the thought as I sit here and type to you.

This is the only way life makes sense to me, otherwise what would be the purpose of any suffering. We learn and teach each other and in connectivity we all grow from it. If we do injustice to others it might take many lives to repay that karma. There is always a reason why the suffering is there to start with even tho it may seem cruel to us on a practical level.

If you think of someone who is incorrectly convicted of a crime and they go to jail for life. That seems grossly unfair. But stop and go through it your mind and wonder why this happened. We can never know for sure, but perhaps they will teach existing convicts something of valuable, perhaps it will teach their family members lessons too. It could even mean that he never paid for his crime in a previous life. There could be any number of reasons why this could happen but its not up to us to speculate, cos if we do, invariably we would be wrong.

You might find this interesting Paul:

[B]No Self
The state of no self is actually a pure manifestation of inner spacious reality, Being in its openness, we experience it as empty space, immaculate and pure, light and clean, empty of everything structured by the mind. However the self reacts to the sense of no self in many ways -- as a loss, as a deficiency, and so on, plus the associations, memories, and feelings that go with these interpretations. All this psychic content pervades the inner spaciousness so that we lose sight of its lightness, purity, immaculateness, and freedom. Instead, we feel it as deficient emptiness, dull and flat, heavy and dark. Only when we allow this emptiness to be, without judgment or rejection, without reaction or opinion, does it shed its obscurations and reveal its inherent truth: the state of no self, the freedom and openness of our Being. (The Point of Existence, pg 337)

There is consciousness and a kind of emptiness, a void that has no sense of self and no need for a sense of self. The step after that is the loss of consciousness of no-self, and when that consciousness is gone, there is no consciousness of self, or no-self and no knowing that there is no consciousness of self or no-self. This is the absence of mind, consciousness, and sensation. When that happens, it is then possible to be truly spontaneous because there is no self there to reflect on.

If you reflect on yourself in this state, the only thing that happens is that you realize your head is turned around and that you are looking outside. There is nothing else to look into; you can only look outward. The main barrier to all these transitions is the belief that you are the person that is connected to the body. You’re taking what we call the shell (because it functions as a defensive shell) to be you. Identifying with the shell brings the terror that you are going to lose the sense of being a person. But what you actually are is not a person; you are a window to the universe. (Diamond Heart Book 4, pg 131)

Paulclem

05-09-2010, 04:07 PM

I dont know it just seems as tho they add all these guidelines and steps to appear mystical perhaps. I cannot see how old the Theravada Buddhism practice is, but I note Mahayana Buddhism is 2000 years old. This means they have taken their ideals from other older faiths and then added their twist to it. For this reason I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

2554 years ago for Therevada Buddhism. All the schools are consistent with the teachings, but there are debates about aspects of the teachings such as no self.

Hinduism was the Indian religion around the Buddha's time. They had a meditation tradition, but had also developed the caste system through the use of rituals and animal sacrifice. This is one of the things the |Buddha rejected, along with the idea of a permanent self or soul.

I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

You have to go with what you feel drawn to.

And probably the most important thing which stands out is that they claim we must rid ourselves of the ego. That is impossible, one can only "tame" the ego they cannot get rid of it. I believe its delusional to even attempt to stamp out the ego. The ego is connected to self-improvement.

It goes very nicely along with the idea that there is no self. Taming the ego is mentioned in a series of pictures about taming an elephant. It's not about giving up drive and endeavour, but the Buddhist focus is about getting rid of negative egoistic states of mind - such as greed and anger, and replacing them with positive states of mind such as compassion and giving. The idea that the self is not a solid entity or soul, but that it is dependant on other factors means that a person can take control of their mind and make the positive changes they want.

Furthermore, I enjoy reading Buddhist stories of guidance until it comes to the suffering bit... at that point I stop reading because my views are entirely different. To my mind when one tries to control "anything" it will evade you. I believe thats one of societies problems, constant attempting to control everything.

I think you've got something else in mind here. The Buddhist view is that we are all in a state of suffering whether we are rich, poor, ill or whatever. The nicest, longest lived, happiest, richest person will at some point lose it all. hat's the deep suffering that we all have to go through. The Buddha's path is an attempt to solve this conundrum.

I can understand your dislike of control, but I don't think it's about control in the way you see it. It's more about self control - limiting the suffering for yourself and others by developing positive states of mind and doing positive actions.

Personally I think the key to life is to just keep it as simple as possible, forget all the hype and do your best. Learn compassion and unconditional love. Offer support where you can. Live in the present now and believe in yourself and your dreams. I believe good karma is repaid to us in this life and future lives and the same applies to bad karma. I believe we choose our lessons before we are born into this body and we are judged by how we deal with life's challenges rather than being judged by the challenge itself. By showing appreciation and gratitude will bring more to be grateful for.

I believe we are an old soul who is using this mortal body to develop further on a spiritual level with the purpose to get closer to pure unconditional love -- source, were we are all connected in oneness.

Become aware of cause and effect and accept how it affects each of us. This means situations like bearing a disabled child might be for the purpose of teaching us and society something rather than only viewing the child as a hopeless burden to society, for example. In other words all dire conditions bestowed upon us should be viewed as more than just personal grievances.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity, as they themselves state in one of the links you provided: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." If the Buddhists cannot even agree on their faith what value can it teach us? And surely if we are to follow Gods guidance He would be a fool to make it difficult for us to understand it.

There is a lot of crossover between you views and Buddhism - being positive, views on disability etc.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity

I haven't found this to be so Dizzy. There are debates, but the thing about it is it's not about blind faith You can have discussions etc. The basic tenets still run through Buddhism.

I see you posted your first comment to the OP at roughly the same time as I did. Give me time to read and respond on it, if I feel it necessary... but you might find my views are not compatible to Buddhism as stated in my post above.

No worries Dizzy. I hope you don't thnk I'm trying to convert you. Buddhists aren't allowed to proselytise - and it doesn't work anyway. I hope you see it as an exchage of ideas.

People with Alzheimer's lose their Soul, they lose their personality self but they cannot lose their Old Soul which is immortal. The shell that holds them in this life has no bearing on their immortal being or old soul.

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

We choose challenges like this in advance [before we are born] because there is learning/teaching to come out of it. Others will learn from caring for an individual with alzheimers, and this could be the reason why the patient chose this condition. We should be careful before we judge any condition because all have their purposes. One day we might come back blind, I can see much learning coming from that even tho I dont like the thought as I sit here and type to you.

It is a compassionate view that you have.

This is the only way life makes sense to me, otherwise what would be the purpose of any suffering. We learn and teach each other and in connectivity we all grow from it. If we do injustice to others it might take many lives to repay that karma. There is always a reason why the suffering is there to start with even tho it may seem cruel to us on a practical level.

It is a conundrum. The Buddha's answer was that we are ignorent of our true state, the causes of our suffering, but that there is a way to escape from this.

As for finding the reasns for suffering - often there seems no rhyme or reason. I watched a programme on the Tsunami in Indonesia a few months ago, and I was struck how many people managed to explain the events in terms of punishment from God or to teach the survivors. The positive side of this is that they were able to carry on and try to make some kind of sense. I know I would strugle with that explanation, and the whole lessons/ teachings explanations. This was the problem with God for me - and one that means I wil not be someone who believes in a loving creator God. In a way, my attitude to this is more horrible - that it was just a set of unfortunate circumstances that caused the deaths of many thousands with no rhyme or reason to explain it. Buddhism explains it by saying - yes very very bad things happen. It also says that bad conditions, as well as good are subject to change, and there is a path to escape.

If you think of someone who is incorrectly convicted of a crime and they go to jail for life. That seems grossly unfair. But stop and go through it your mind and wonder why this happened. We can never know for sure, but perhaps they will teach existing convicts something of valuable, perhaps it will teach their family members lessons too. It could even mean that he never paid for his crime in a previous life. There could be any number of reasons why this could happen but its not up to us to speculate, cos if we do, invariably we would be wrong.

You're right about not understanding the impications of Karma. It is said only a Buddha has the full awareness to do that.

I also agree about learning from suffering. This is a very positive aspect of Buddhism. In our tradition it is called Transforming Negative Conditions into the Path. I know that you have a problem wit the suffering aspect, but here you've hit the nail again - it is only through the suffering that humans are motivated onto spiritual paths. It provides the impetus. As humans we suffer, but not so much that we can't progress if we have the right conditions. Animals, hell beings and hungry ghosts are unable to progres in their states because of the intense suffering. Again though, all these conditions change.

Thanks for the extract. I hope I made the position clearer and can I say that I do respect your views.

I think you mentioned a few other things in the thread - re-incarnation for one - which I will return to later.

Also sorry for the length of the post. I felt I needed to respond to it in full.

:D

dizzydoll

05-09-2010, 04:47 PM

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

Before I go, this doesnt make sense at all. Can you rephrase?

I know I would strugle with that explanation, and the whole lessons/ teachings explanations. This was the problem with God for me - and one that means I wil not be someone who believes in a loving creator God. In a way, my attitude to this is more horrible - that it was just a set of unfortunate circumstances that caused the deaths of many thousands with no rhyme or reason to explain it

But there is a reason, we choose conditions like that for a reason. No good questioning it, the answers will not come to our mortal souls but our immortal souls know so much more. There are certain things we will never know in our current consciousness. If you think about it technology advances alongside with these disasters, it could simply mean we are on route to mastering our weather conditions and there will be causalities along the way. There is no point looking for answers to this, its not our business... those Old Souls chose to die or live through those harsh conditions for a reason, which will always elude us because we dont have the bigger picture.

it is only through the suffering that humans are motivated onto spiritual paths.

I am not sure I would buy into that so much, but I do feel the suffering people are subjected to are always for a reason beyond our understanding, but if one sits and allows your mind to look for reasons for these sufferings one will invariably find at least two or three probable causes.. but of course it could only be speculation, because we dont have all the answers. We never do know the answers while in our mortal bodies, only our immortal soul knows... and that is all that is important to our personal growth and progress on the Old Souls journey.

Good night, I am really out of here now. Look forward to reading your commentary on how reincarnation fits into Buddhism and why.

Paulclem

05-09-2010, 05:21 PM

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

I'm sorry Dizzy It's my poor exposition. The Hindu tradition that the Buddha came from has the idea of a soul. What Buddhism says is that on examining the body through meditation, no permanent self can be established. It is just a collection of bits - including sense perception touch taste sight etc. Thus how can something immortal be made of things that are transient? They can't be as their nature doesn't last.

It's not a very good description, so apologies. It is a difficult topic.:D

dizzydoll

05-10-2010, 11:53 AM

Paul the immortal being is not transient, the word immortal means it never dies -- so to say immortal is transient is a contradiction right there.

As I said I know precious little about Buddhism but I am sure Buddha said we all grow at our own pace and so therefore must follow what makes us feel comfortable, or something to that effect.

The Hindu tradition that the Buddha came from has the idea of a soul. What Buddhism says is that on examining the body through meditation, no permanent self can be established. It is just a collection of bits - including sense perception touch taste sight etc. Thus how can something immortal be made of things that are transient? They can't be as their nature doesn't last.

The way you have worded this fits in exactly with my beliefs on reincarnation -- what you write here is true: "no permanent self can be established", this is because we are not ever permanent, we will die and we will be reborn. Today I am white, next life I might be black or Chinese or whatever! So what you say is absolutely true... when you look at yourself in the mirror, that is not you. The real you is your "old soul", which is permanent and it will select different bodies to return to life.

Taste, sight etc is all part of this life we live and hopefully part of our next life unless we choose to be blind for example. If you do chose to come back as a blind person, there is learning and teaching to be shared in this condition. Learn to see the advantages of adversity and your scope life will dramatically widen.

The only part of your comment I didnt understand was your thoughts that the immortal being [old soul] is transient. It certainly is not... your old soul is the "real you". The shell that your life is sitting in right now is not the real you, it is just a stepping stone on a wonderful journey to many future lives...

What if, the things we think today will manifest in our future lives? Personally I think that is happening right now as humanities thoughts unfold to new horizons. I remember being told when I was young... "if you can think it, its possible". People thought they could fly and they did.

All we have to remember is that we choose whatever we face. If we live in a village and are killed by an earthquake it was meant to be, we chose to be the dummies to help other people by way of technology build homes better to withstand natural disasters. As I often say, I believe we are at the very early stages of human evolution and we will eventually learn to master the weather one day among other amazing things in the not too far distant future.

Paulclem

05-10-2010, 12:24 PM

so to say immortal is transient is a contradiction right there.

That's the point that is being made. Buddhist meditators have found that the self is made up of transient bits. if this is the case, then an immortal soul cannot exist.

this is because we are not ever permanent, we will die and we will be reborn. Today I am white, next life I might be black or Chinese or whatever! So what you say is absolutely true... when you look at yourself in the mirror, that is not you. The real you is your "old soul", which is permanent and it will select different bodies to return to life.

Not permanent - this is true. The question still arises how can a permanent or immortal soul come from this.

From the buddhist view this is idealistic, in that humans are merely one form that exists in samsara. if a person is karmically propelled to the human realm, then that is condsidered to be rare. its a scary thought that our next life could be as an insect/ animal etc.

What if, the things we think today will manifest in our future lives? Personally I think that is happening right now as humanities thoughts unfold to new horizons. I remember being told when I was young... "if you can think it, its possible". People thought they could fly and they did.

I think there is mileage in this thought in that the idea of say the internet - unthinkable 50 years ago - have taken off. It does accord with Buddhist thought - mind creates reality.

All we have to remember is that we choose whatever we face. If we live in a village and are killed by an earthquake it was meant to be, we chose to be the dummies to help other people by way of technology build homes better to withstand natural disasters. As I often say, I believe we are at the very early stages of human evolution and we will eventually learn to master the weather one day among other amazing things in the not too far distant future.

This view assumes an element of control by the being which, unless they are highly realised, doesn't exist for beings. The Buddhist view is that beings are ignorant of the true reality, and this precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths.

dizzydoll

05-10-2010, 12:26 PM

Buddhist meditators have found that the self is made up of transient bits. if this is the case, then an immortal soul cannot exist.

Firstly lets think of this clearly, in those days the vocabulary in all languages was simpler. Trouble with todays writers they are all concentrating more on their creative writing skills than getting the true message across. Not only that but translations from one language to the next and books retranslated as time goes on to produce more works. So lets put all that aside and keep it simple shall we.

Bits and pieces - covers a big grey area. One can see our various lives as "bits and pieces" which will eventually make up the whole. So the current self is transient but our old soul is NOT transient. Our old soul is immortal.

Transient:

1. short in duration: lasting for only a short time and quickly coming to an end, disappearing, or changing
a transient emotion
transient sunlight on an otherwise cloudy day

2. not permanently settled in place: staying in a place for only a short period of time transient workers

is quite the opposite to...

immortal:

1. never dying: able to have eternal life or existence
2. famous: very famous and likely to be remembered for a long time

Your sentence contradicts itself and if you have read it somewhere, its must be a bad translation.

The Old Soul cannot be seen with the naked eye, it can be felt... because its your inner self, your intuition, your guiding Light... its what gives you a sense of purpose. We cannot see it but we know its there. Its our inner child. From one life to the other, we dont recall our memories from before. But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives. The Old Soul is connected to Infinite Source -- where it all began.

We are Not permanent - this is true. The question still arises how can a permanent or immortal soul come from this.

Come from what? Our Old Soul came first then it chooses to lives in living bodies over many incarnations. The old soul doesnt arise from anything, our current little self is used by our old soul to progress on many levels, by way of intellectual growth, spiritual growth , emotional growth , physical growth. And I would add intuitive growth too.

if a person is karmically propelled to the human realm, then that is condsidered to be rare. its a scary thought that our next life could be as an insect/ animal etc.

You see Buddhism was derived from other older faiths and they added their own bent into their teachings. Its not rare at all to die and be reborn, it will happen to all of us forever. Reincarnation never ceases, its like energy. Energy never dies, it just changes form. I know some Buddhists seem to think we only get reincarnated until we have learned whatever we are supposed to learn and then we are never reincarnated anymore. This is simply NOT true, energy never dies and nor does our Old Soul... it will continue to be reborn into the lives we choose. I dont believe we come back as insects or animals, in fact we dont come back as anything except another human being to my knowledge.

This view assumes an element of control by the being which, unless they are highly realised, doesn't exist for beings. The Buddhist view is that beings are ignorant of the true reality, and this precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths.

You would have to reword you first sentence, I dont understand it.
The second sentence is true, "we are ignorant of true reality" because true reality is our Old Soul.. in which lies all truth.
I dont understand this section: "precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths" because we are all reborn, sometimes into less fortunate conditions than others.

The Atheist

05-10-2010, 02:08 PM

But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives.

What a strange use of the word "proof".

The part I always struggle with is how one person - say Napoleon Bonaparte - has been reincarnated in so many different people. There are dozens of people who used to be him, apparently.

dizzydoll

05-10-2010, 02:26 PM

What a strange use of the word "proof".

The part I always struggle with is how one person - say Napoleon Bonaparte - has been reincarnated in so many different people. There are dozens of people who used to be him, apparently.

Well you probably wouldnt care two hoots about my proof but I went to Omega Institute to do a Regression Course with Dr. Brian Weiss. Author of Many Lives Many Masters among other books. He was also head of the psychiatric dept at a Miami University, I cant recall the name of the university but he is a well known credible doctor. Many people have been regressed around the world, not only he offers this service. Long before him spiritual swamis were accustomed to regressing themselves and others for many years before hand, but the practice was never taken seriously [or believed for that matter] until a doctor of one of the disciplines became enlightened to its potential.

As far as Napoleon Bonaparte is concerned he could have come back as Idi Amin Dada for all I care:

Idi Amin Dada (c.1925[A] – 16 August 2003) was the military dictator and President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles, in 1946, and eventually held the rank of Major General and Commander of the Ugandan Army prior to taking power in a military coup of January 1971, deposing Milton Obote. He later promoted himself to Field Marshal while he was the head of state.

Or any other equally evil despot leader to curse this earth. One thing is for sure, he is a prime example of "a being" who would have to return to many, many incarnations [perhaps millions] to repay his dept to society. You have to admit, the world is not short of evil... but even they will eventually cleanse their Old Souls through reincarnation. Maybe he is in Ethiopia right now as a starving child and will not live too long but will live in suffering... and then come back to more suffering etc, until the debt is paid.... Or else he could still be an evil leader somewhere in the world.

We will never know, its not our business... only our personal growth is our business.

NikolaiI

05-10-2010, 02:47 PM

I cannot help but think that Paul, your reasons against a permanent self are very little different from the kind any person who doesn't believe in Buddha-nature would use to say that it is simply made up, a fantasy. Buddhism has done a good job of creating a working system of ontology, one which is far better at dealing with phenomena and existence than what the televisions tell us is real. And yet, the ideas of selflessness of phenomena and forms, and other cornerstones of Buddhist ontology are not merely abstract ideas, with no relation to anything else in life. Indeed, another core tenant of Buddhism is inter-dependence. None-the-less, the idea of selflessness of phenomena and forms is not merely an idea which is meant to be abstract and forever remain that way. Rather, it is very intimately connected to the concepts of interdependence, and of unity of opposites. They are related and connected and form part of the "whole" picture of the goal of Buddhist's inner path; that is, enlightenment or realization of reality and mind.

Your constant refusal and rejection and negation of the term of self is not as deep as you think. A simple look at terms will show why. Why is it that you reject absolutely when someone speaks of self, when in any Buddhist scripture or text or writing, the term mind is used throughout. Why do you not pick apart the writings of those masters at every point, and try to correct them, to tell them, "Ah, but Buddhism teaches us that every form's real nature is selflessness - so there is no such thing as 'mind.'" Well you would be correct, legalistically, but you'd be missing the point, especially if these masters were indeed enlightened and had valuable lessons to teach you.

The real nature of self is selflessness - but I will tell you the meaning of this. It is that self has no existence independent of all other forms and phenomena. So here we find the meeting of the concepts of selflessness, inter-dependence, and unity, in a very direct way. If you fail to grasp this, and if you treat these ideas as abstracts and not parts of the mind which can experience enlightenment; then you will miss it as well. If you focus exclusively on the concept of selflessness without context, you will not understand it truly and it will not be ultimately helpful to you. For without discernment of the real meaning of the concept, or knowledge of its context and purpose, its reason, then how will you discern where it should be applied? If you use it for itself alone, without its connection to the rest of Buddhist ontology, it loses its meaning and value. Then it could be used merely for an argument, or an unrelated inquiry, for example to try to understand an isolated case of whether a tree is a tree.

A tree is a tree, yet in another level of understanding it can be seen as inter-dependent with all other living and non-living forms. The selflessness of the tree has no meaning without understanding the creative energy which is the tree's essence - and it is the same energy which is our body, our clothes, our mind, and all life. As I have said before... it is not only every living being which has Buddha-nature as its real nature, but it is every non-living form of existence as well. This is the sphere of questioning which is related to determining what the quality of energy is - whether it is a personal or an impersonal type.

The important thing is that everyone must discover for themselves what is reality. I engage you in this way, with words, but argument itself is a failed past time. The reality of existence is far, far simpler than you would ever believe. It's such a simple thing and it has nothing to do with any of this. Yes all of these things we discuss have their place - but it's in the back. Again, the reality of experience in Buddhism is Gate Paragate, Beyond, Completely beyond everything else, yet it's also more simple than anything. It may be a paradox to some that the ultimate prize, that experience of reality which is clearest and fullest, which having these qualities is also the most valuable - that this principle of reality is also the simplest and most basic. It is the most universal and it is not kept within Buddhism only.

Not only on our planet does all of this exist or apply to. We are attempting to discover universal and absolute truth. And what the conclusion is - it is a very beautiful thing, and so utterly simple as to escape notice almost always. No, it isn't a simple word, because a word is a concept in itself; and I will suggest you read that book by Inada to get a good understanding of the limitations there involved. Well the conclusion has to do with evolution, peace, harmony, beauty, happiness, and absolute perfection. Perhaps it has to do with knowing the quantum field, as Diz might attest.

Peace.

The Atheist

05-10-2010, 04:37 PM

Well you probably wouldnt care two hoots about my proof but I went to Omega Institute to do a Regression Course with Dr. Brian Weiss.

Dear old Brian; I know lots about him.

Even his fellow reincarnation "researcher", the late Dr. Ian Stevenson rubbished hyponotic progression - a procedure well known to be dangerously flawed.

I like the way he doesn't let things like science stand in the way when the proof is requested, because it is factual that Weiss has never used blinding, let alone double-blinding in his "tests". or any other form of control, for that matter. You can't let the scientific method interfere with a priori reasoning.

As far as Napoleon Bonaparte is concerned he could have come back as Idi Amin Dada for all I care.

Sorry, I was probably unclear through being facetious. (I also know all about Idid Amin as well.)

My point was that a study of the "research" undertaken by people like Weiss and Dean Radin shows an amazing preponderance of people who believe they were the exact same person in a past life.

Does the "soul" spilt up into little bits so that a dead dude can be reincarnated as several people at the same time? These people are all 100% convinced that they were that person in a past life, so that must be the only answer. None of them could be wrong or misguided, could they? After all, they all used identical techniques to get in touch with their former life/lives.

Interesting stuff.

We will never know, its not our business... only our personal growth is our business.

Then why are you making such a big deal out of it all? You seem to be contradicting yoruself with that statement - on one hand, it's all very personal, but on the other, you're prepared to argue that you're right.

The Atheist

05-10-2010, 04:48 PM

... The selflessness of the tree has no meaning without understanding the creative energy which is the tree's essence - and it is the same energy which is our body, our clothes, our mind, and all life.....

I'm not going to argue any of your premises, but it seems to me that the true definition of "selflessness" would only apply if there is choice involved. A rock can't be selfless because it's a rock and cannot change into anything else.

Are you saying seeds have choices on whether or not they become trees?

Paulclem

05-10-2010, 05:25 PM

Firstly lets think of this clearly, in those days the vocabulary in all languages was simpler. Trouble with todays writers they are all concentrating more on their creative writing skills than getting the true message across. Not only that but translations from one language to the next and books retranslated as time goes on to produce more works. So lets put all that aside and keep it simple shall we.

Bits and pieces - covers a big grey area. One can see our various lives as "bits and pieces" which will eventually make up the whole. So the current self is transient but our old soul is NOT transient. Our old soul is immortal.

Transient:

is quite the opposite to...

immortal:

Your sentence contradicts itself and if you have read it somewhere, its must be a bad translation.

The Old Soul cannot be seen with the naked eye, it can be felt... because its your inner self, your intuition, your guiding Light... its what gives you a sense of purpose. We cannot see it but we know its there. Its our inner child. From one life to the other, we dont recall our memories from before. But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives. The Old Soul is connected to Infinite Source -- where it all began.

Come from what? Our Old Soul came first then it chooses to lives in living bodies over many incarnations. The old soul doesnt arise from anything, our current little self is used by our old soul to progress on many levels, by way of intellectual growth, spiritual growth , emotional growth , physical growth. And I would add intuitive growth too.

You see Buddhism was derived from other older faiths and they added their own bent into their teachings. Its not rare at all to die and be reborn, it will happen to all of us forever. Reincarnation never ceases, its like energy. Energy never dies, it just changes form. I know some Buddhists seem to think we only get reincarnated until we have learned whatever we are supposed to learn and then we are never reincarnated anymore. This is simply NOT true, energy never dies and nor does our Old Soul... it will continue to be reborn into the lives we choose. I dont believe we come back as insects or animals, in fact we dont come back as anything except another human being to my knowledge.

You would have to reword you first sentence, I dont understand it.
The second sentence is true, "we are ignorant of true reality" because true reality is our Old Soul.. in which lies all truth.
I dont understand this section: "precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths" because we are all reborn, sometimes into less fortunate conditions than others.

Thanks for that.

Paulclem

05-10-2010, 05:26 PM

dizzydoll

05-11-2010, 06:06 AM

I almost missed the last comments on page 1, my thread opened on the last page.

And yet, the ideas of selflessness of phenomena and forms, and other cornerstones of Buddhist ontology are not merely abstract ideas, with no relation to anything else in life. Indeed, another core tenant of Buddhism is inter-dependence. None-the-less, the idea of selflessness of phenomena and forms is not merely an idea which is meant to be abstract and forever remain that way. Rather, it is very intimately connected to the concepts of interdependence, and of unity of opposites.

The real nature of self is selflessness - but I will tell you the meaning of this. It is that self has no existence independent of all other forms and phenomena. So here we find the meeting of the concepts of selflessness, inter-dependence, and unity, in a very direct way.

I agree with you 100%, inter-dependence is most important, just like the tree cannot survive without rain. And as you say about abstract ideas, thats all they are until one puts them into practice. When one studies architecture for example they take that abstract knowledge to work within the parameters of the different circumstances on building sites. One cant call himself an architect until he can ensure his building will stand unhindered.

Nikolai do you believe that other souls can infiltrate your body like Paul seems to believe, unless I have misunderstood him? This leads me to think of the statement "the devil made me do it". We, and we alone are responsible for our actions, no-one else is responsible for us and we are not responsible for others. imo

Then why are you making such a big deal out of it all? You seem to be contradicting yoruself with that statement - on one hand, it's all very personal, but on the other, you're prepared to argue that you're right.

I am simply sharing my beliefs. Paul and I moved to this thread to discover similarities in beliefs, if I come across as argumentative during a debate I dont mean to and I am sorry for it. I understand more of what he believes now, mainly due to his reply to Satan on the Heaven and Hell thread. I dont believe anyone can infiltrate our soul. Like with nature, an Oak tree will remain an Oak, no aspect of our soul will cross purpose, its our journey alone we are responsible. imo. We are on our own journey and we believe whatever makes us feel comfortable. We have a choice in how we think and deal with matters in life., while I prefer to see the roses others might only see the thorns.

I accept your beliefs Atheist, in fact my most recent ex is an atheist.. we just never spoke religion which I am more than happy to do in company, but occasionally I will poke my head in religious forums to read. I dont even know how Paul and I got wrapped up in this discussion, I think it was after I presented my view on the Heaven and Hell thread, in which I only entered very late into the discussion. Anyway I think its a good thing to share our beliefs with others, its certainly better than waring over them and the best way to find tolerance is to be open to others beliefs. You will never remove the faiths that most people adopt as their beliefs.

Paulclem

05-11-2010, 12:12 PM

Nikolai do you believe that other souls can infiltrate your body like Paul seems to believe, unless I have misunderstood him? This leads me to think of the statement "the devil made me do it". We, and we alone are responsible for our actions, no-one else is responsible for us and we are not responsible for others. imo

No I don't believe that - I'm a buddhist, and therefore souls don't exist. they are - in the Buddhist view - a symptom of the misguided view about our natures. The whole basis of suffering depends upon a misguided view about a permanent self.

It's also not about belief. the cornerstone of Buddhist ideas is investigation by meditation. Now of course i'm not very far along the path, but what I have been told and practiced has proved to be true in my experience. It's not about wordplay, or philosophical deduction. it's about the experience passed on by Masters. The idea then is that if a master teaches it, they don't say - I've said this so it must be true. They say - this is what i've found - here's a method to investigate it. Find it for yourself.

I find that to be a sincere approach. You can't present proof as such to a person, but you can say, try this and see what you experience. if it is valid, then it is trustworthy. I've found enough validity in the teachings to make me take the stuff I don't know and understand yet on trust.

Mere words and associations are meaningless without a method to test them out in my view. In some ways it is easy to adopt a set of beliefs and then live by them. I'm not saying it is negative - the religious traditions share very positive views on many things, but many people, including myself, cannot accept a worldview that will affect the way they live theri life on faith alone.

This is an important facet of the teachings that I have neglected to mention before.

For me Buddhism rocks - in a calm way. :lol:

dizzydoll

05-11-2010, 12:28 PM

The karmic impetus takes a being to their next reincarnation, which may be fortunate of unfortunate. So the state of mind at death is seen as very important. :biggrin5:

Sorry Paul, I misunderstood this quote on Heaven an Hell thread. I thought you would take over other "beings". I misread it, I must have been tired. It seemed to me you meant we must be careful to protect our state of mind due to this. lol. Damn sorry there mate! What was I thinking? Thanks for clearing this up, I was quite taken aback in my misunderstanding, thats why I asked Nikolai to clear it up. lol. Gosh what a dufus! Please forgive me.

Paulclem

05-11-2010, 06:16 PM

Sorry Paul, I misunderstood this quote on Heaven an Hell thread. I thought you would take over other "beings". I misread it, I must have been tired. It seemed to me you meant we must be careful to protect our state of mind due to this. lol. Damn sorry there mate! What was I thinking? Thanks for clearing this up, I was quite taken aback in my misunderstanding, thats why I asked Nikolai to clear it up. lol. Gosh what a dufus! Please forgive me.

No worries. :biggrin5:

Paulclem

05-12-2010, 03:33 PM

Reincarnation in the Buddhist worldview is represented by The Wheel Of Life. This is a Tibetan representation, but it is similar to earlier ones.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=785&pictureid=7043

The 6 realms are - going clockwise from 12 o'clock is the Heavenly realms, the Demi-God or Titan's realm, the Hungry Ghost realm, the Hell realm, the Animal realm, the Human realm.

Three are fortunate - Human, demi-god and Heavenly God realm. The human realm is the most fortunate , as it is said that here humans suffer enough to be able to realise the unsatisfactory nature of this wheel of life. Gods live a very peaceful happy life, until the positive karma runs out and they again are subject to rebirth in a lower realm. Titans are engaged in fights and disputes constantly - a bit like the Greek or Norse gods.

Three are unfortunate - animals live in fear, and often lack food, water and warmth. they cannot learn the Dharma, as they do not have the capacity in their minds. They can receive blessings though. The Hungry Ghost realm is characterised by terrible hunger and they suffer too much to be able to receive the dharma. The hell beings undergo intense suffering, so much that they cannot focus upon anything else.

The literality of these realms is often the subject of discussion. Are they real places, or do they represent states of mind? The modern westerner finds it difficult to accept the actuality of hell and such suffering. Clearly hellish conditions do sometimes appear on earth with fire quake flood war etc. They can also manifest in the minds of people with mental health concerns where they really do suffer and cannot break from this without help.

The figure of the Buddha standing to the right represents the Enlightened One's escape from samsara.

The whole worldview is being consumed by Mara - represented as a demon - death/ ignorence.

Paulclem

05-13-2010, 06:06 PM

The process of reincarnation is said to begin with a dissolution of the self, as this has no permanent prescence beyong the life of the person. Tibetans have contributed the view that there is an in-between state called the Bardo, which traditionally lasts up to 49 days, but not necessarily.

In fact - the circumstaces of death - perhaps in a sudden accident- may mean that a person may leave after breakfast and be in another life by lunchtime. This Buddhist view of reincarnation is downright uncomfortable, but contains the uncomfortable truth that you or I may die today.

Having died, the being is "directed" by their Karma to their next life - which may be fortunate or unfortunate. (See Post above).

The aim of the Buddhist is to at least avoid an unfortunate rebirth in Hell, the Hungry Ghost realm or in the Animal realm. To do this requires a grasp of the effects of negative and positive actions upon oneself, and a weakening of our ignorent inclinaton towards cherishing ourselves above others.

NikolaiI

05-15-2010, 07:04 PM

Paulclem

05-16-2010, 04:15 AM

Any real mystical knowledge gives first and comes first from the experience of a peace beyond anything felt before. Non-duality with it itself contains this peace; for if the self is the same as the other, the heavens, the earth, and everything, then there is no death, no pain, and no suffering. This is what is contained in the Heart Sutra. This is the peace which comes before everything and takes the highest impotance of anything. It is the peace which by its very being begs to be remembered, to be shared, to be given and lived. It's not the final experience but merely the first real one. It's what Buddhist masters achieved, those such as Tilopa, Naropa, Seng Ts'an, etc. In other cultures it comes as the Divine, as a message from the Divine saying, "Do not have any fear, all is mine." And in the Buddhist sense, it may not have a personal Divinity saying this, and yet it is the same awareness and experience. In the words of Black Elk, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe, will they know peace in their souls."

Not self means in this sense, not the self we think: I see a computer, in reality there is a Lotus-throned Buddha. It is related to inderdependence, and Buddhist logic in geeral. Things are not static; there are no independent things. Everything is flowing and everything is connected; when one part changes the pattern of the whole is also changed, as the parts and the whole are one identity.

Everything is flowing towards the Ideal, which is the Source. There is no death in this reality. One is never separated from reality. The branch is never separated from the tree; and you are never cut off from the Source. How can you be?

It is not that those who jokingly say they would not like to live again after this life will suffer because they didn't get what they wished. The reason any of us suffer is ultimately, our own choice. It is possible to be free of many types of suffering merely by one's own effort.

The key to suffering is ignorence of our state. Beings are deluded into thinking that they are a complete entity in the perception of themselves. This leads to the three poisons hatred, attachment and the key poison of ignorence. This is not to say that merely thinking that one has no self will solve it. It has to be realised at a deeper level than th intellectual -through meditation.

It is also such a hidden idea. You only have to reflect upon how the Western celebrity culture for example builds up the idea of the individual. But every being is subject to this pervasive myth, and as a result of this clings to their own idea of self - at a fundamental level. It is due to this that negative karma is created - the protection of the self, the promotion of the self above others. It leads to attachment to worldly things such as places, people, jobs etc which are subject to transience and in which no permanence will continue. This leads to much suffering as we cling to situations etc that have moved beyond us.

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc. Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory? Clinging to the idea of a permanent self can also seem to excuse negative traits such as anger in a person with such thoughts like - "I'm an angry person like my father", or "it's just me". This is just an excuse as we are all rsponsible for our own actions.

The idea that there is no self is liberating in the sense that there is no self to defend. The ideals of compassion and putting others first can thus be enhanced by this. It is an interesting take on self sacrifice. There is no self to be offended, no self to promote in an egotistical sense. Thoughts like "What about me" and "My time" and "My space" cease to have meaning. There is no need to grasp after possessions etc because who would they be for? It doesn't mean you give away your stuff or start living oddly in society, but mitigates against unnecessary acquisitiveness - which is often a round of getting the next, better, best, biggest, newest thing.

To approach the idea of reducing suffering and increasing happiness is the aspiration of beings - human or otherwise. To approach this ideal realising non-self is quite a difficult achievement, but the awareness of the idea is helpful, as are the consequences of actions with karma, an awareness of transience and the interconnectedness that Nik mentions. You do not need a mystical awareness for this. That may be the result of the practitioners efforts, but the everyday practice of Buddhists is much more grounded in our everyday experience. Otherwise Buddhism would only be relevant and accessible to the practising elite - the Monks and Nuns - and be difficult for the ordinary person to engage with.

dizzydoll

05-16-2010, 05:03 AM

Paulclem

05-16-2010, 09:25 AM

After reading just the first short bit, I definitely await Nikolai's response. Here we look at the difference between theory and practicality. Its should not be forgotten we live in a practical environment and theory must be equated to "idealistic" conditions. Oh boy if only we lived in an ideal world, who knows one day we just might. I'm interested to know Paul, what are your your views on living in denial? I believe to deny any aspect of life is the most delusional choice of all. Lucky me, I look to nature and if something isnt consistent with nature... its not real, its a man-made concept. Nature embraces everything which comes its way, it doesnt cling to ideals or "get in its own way" as humans tend to do. Nature desires life and adapts to all living conditions, fortunate or otherwise.

Its a good discussion and even if we agree to disagree, what is revealed opens our minds a little further, hopefully that is, unless one has already decided they are Mr. or Ms. know-it-all's before they read others views.

I think you're right about theory and practice. there is a danger that theory takes precedence over practice, and it just becomes an intellectual pursuit. From the Buddhist point of view, there has to be a good balance - study that depens your practice.

As for denial, then it is clearly a negative thing if you mean the willful attempt to avoid problems, situations, events illness etc. The problem with life is that situations, people etc change, and so events eventually move even if a person does not. Denial in this case is just suffering waiting to happen. Clearly a person in denial is trying to avoid suffering, but may in fact make it much worse by doing so. Life's sometimes a tough deal.

NikolaiI

05-16-2010, 01:44 PM

The key to suffering is ignorence of our state. Beings are deluded into thinking that they are a complete entity in the perception of themselves. This leads to the three poisons hatred, attachment and the key poison of ignorence. This is not to say that merely thinking that one has no self will solve it. It has to be realised at a deeper level than th intellectual -through meditation.

It is also such a hidden idea. You only have to reflect upon how the Western celebrity culture for example builds up the idea of the individual. But every being is subject to this pervasive myth, and as a result of this clings to their own idea of self - at a fundamental level. It is due to this that negative karma is created - the protection of the self, the promotion of the self above others. It leads to attachment to worldly things such as places, people, jobs etc which are subject to transience and in which no permanence will continue. This leads to much suffering as we cling to situations etc that have moved beyond us.

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc. Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory? Clinging to the idea of a permanent self can also seem to excuse negative traits such as anger in a person with such thoughts like - "I'm an angry person like my father", or "it's just me". This is just an excuse as we are all rsponsible for our own actions.

The idea that there is no self is liberating in the sense that there is no self to defend. The ideals of compassion and putting others first can thus be enhanced by this. It is an interesting take on self sacrifice. There is no self to be offended, no self to promote in an egotistical sense. Thoughts like "What about me" and "My time" and "My space" cease to have meaning. There is no need to grasp after possessions etc because who would they be for? It doesn't mean you give away your stuff or start living oddly in society, but mitigates against unnecessary acquisitiveness - which is often a round of getting the next, better, best, biggest, newest thing.

To approach the idea of reducing suffering and increasing happiness is the aspiration of beings - human or otherwise. To approach this ideal realising non-self is quite a difficult achievement, but the awareness of the idea is helpful, as are the consequences of actions with karma, an awareness of transience and the interconnectedness that Nik mentions. You do not need a mystical awareness for this. That may be the result of the practitioners efforts, but the everyday practice of Buddhists is much more grounded in our everyday experience. Otherwise Buddhism would only be relevant and accessible to the practising elite - the Monks and Nuns - and be difficult for the ordinary person to engage with.

At least you are writing now. I guess first let me say you are certainly right that understanding these ideas can help one have more effort to be more tolerant and a better person. But I have several points of contention still. First you say it is difficult - this is a relative type of thing to say. For one it may be difficult, and yet for a Tulku it may be easy. And what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment, and yet had to go back into the illusion, knowingly, yet unable to prevent being conditioned into thinking again about "I and mine?"

Again you talk of theory a lot, and you disregard what I said about mystical experience as being the "extras," but I will flip this on you. You are the one who is speaking about ideas and concepts, abstracts, without the direct, and thus practical experience, of these concepts. After all, experience of reality is the goal, for oneself and others. Although I will admit that this is always counter-balanced by the relief of more basic sufferings. Ideally all should be free of delusions, sickness, and as well they sould be able to experience enlightenment.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas.

Only - be careful about making forgone conclusions. For instance

It causes anger and negative actions including murder of former partners etc.

It would be helpful if you were more specific as to who you are talking about when you are detailing the negative emotions and how they result in terrible actions. (When you say what leads to murder). My reasons for this are 1) it is almost impossible to prove causality in philosophy, anyway, and 2) be careful not to come to too negative of a conclusion about the world, and 3) you should specifically say who you're talking about, as in, beings which are suffering in hell, or those who are experiencing hellish conditions in this life because of their own actions, or perhaps, not because of their own actions.

If you are mindful of these, you might not as casually throw in a statement how the mind-set of one who commits a heinus crime will come about. I'm not saying never talk about something like that - in Milarepa's songs he describes the sufferings of beasts, and people who do evil - but be clear about who you are talking about and why.

After all, even when Buddha Shakyamuni spoke the Dhammapada, in the twins, the first chapter for example, every time he gave a negative statement he gave a positive one as well.

Often the quest for personal happiness is pursued through attachment to ideals of the past - how many times have we gone back somewhere, or tried to repeat happy circumstances, only to find that it doesn't match up to our memory?

Well - again, you should realize that even your very words, every single word!! - affects reality. For me, when I go back to a happy place of my beginning, or I try to repeat happy circumstances - it usually works! I usually have a wonderful feeling of nastalgia, or a very glad feeling of satisfaction.

You see! Even your own experiences and everything you say - everything is connected. And if you did try to go back to a place of beauty from your childhood, and you did not experience joy but sadness, then what is the way out of this! The way out is to find and create within yourself the space for the joy you wish, and to create within yourself all the conditions necessary for you to attain whatever joy, peace, love, you desire. The more successful one is at doing this... the better. :p

And the only reason I comment! is because I believe that everything you say has an effect, whatever suggestion, formation, or thought or action - and in fact this is an integral part of life and spiritual seeking, and the success of those.

Paulclem

05-16-2010, 03:48 PM

At least you are writing now. I guess first let me say you are certainly right that understanding these ideas can help one have more effort to be more tolerant and a better person. But I have several points of contention still. First you say it is difficult - this is a relative type of thing to say. For one it may be difficult, and yet for a Tulku it may be easy. And what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment, and yet had to go back into the illusion, knowingly, yet unable to prevent being conditioned into thinking again about "I and mine?"

What I am referring to is the fact that realising non self is difficult because it is a hidden wisdom. Ordinary people need the teachings because the idea is counter-intuitive. It seems to go against all sense. As for Tulkus, they may rediscover the methods and find it easier than ordinary people, but not necessarily. Steven Segal is supposed to be a Tulku, as is HH The Dalai Lama's brother, who did not follow the ordained path. I don't know about Steven Segal - perhaps he has this attainment, but I know that HH The Dalai Lama's brother found the path difficult.

what about one who has seen the highest enlightenment

The highest Enlightenment consists of te realisation of The Two Truths, and being able to perceive ordinary and ultimate reality at the same time. This can be seen in the mudra of The Buddha below where his hand in his lap represents meditative equipoise, whilst his raised hand and finger gesture indcates teaching. he is simultaneously perceiving Emptiness and the ordinary world.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=785&pictureid=7054

After all, experience of reality is the goal, for oneself and others. Although I will admit that this is always counter-balanced by the relief of more basic sufferings. Ideally all should be free of delusions, sickness, and as well they sould be able to experience enlightenment.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas.

It's true that an appreciation of the goal is necessary to make a commitment to the path, but the main focus has to be on everyday experience. This is where the teachings really come to life for the practitioner - in solving the problems we make for ourselves.

Ideally all should be Enlightened - sure, but people have to start somewhere. The reason for taking up the path is that we are full of delusions, and will definately experience sickness and death. It is uncertain as to when a person will attain Enlightenment. It depends upon individual conditions. It took The Buddha many lifetimes.

I will say that I don't think you are so off on your ideas

These are not my ideas - they are what I have learned from attending teachings, and they can be read by anyone in Buddhist texts.

It would be helpful if you were more specific as to who you are talking about when you are detailing the negative emotions and how they result in terrible actions. (When you say what leads to murder). My reasons for this are 1) it is almost impossible to prove causality in philosophy, anyway, and 2) be careful not to come to too negative of a conclusion about the world, and 3) you should specifically say who you're talking about, as in, beings which are suffering in hell, or those who are experiencing hellish conditions in this life because of their own actions, or perhaps, not because of their own actions.

Everyday experience and access to the news gives us plenty of examples of disgruntled men - usually - who kill their partners, their children and themselves, for example. What causes this? How can a man kill his own family? The Buddhist view is that his own self cherishing- his own feeling that; I can't be happy in different situations; and perhaps the deluded view that his family would suffer without him; or even anger at his family for taking away his stability.

Negative conclusion about the world - well the Buddha's first teaching to his former ascetic friends detailed the Four Noble Truths - that all life is suffering in Samsara. I'll go with that, though it is a pretty negative view except that it contains the path to liberation Perhaps you mean be cheerful? I am that also. :D

If you are mindful of these, you might not as casually throw in a statement how the mind-set of one who commits a heinus crime will come about. I'm not saying never talk about something like that - in Milarepa's songs he describes the sufferings of beasts, and people who do evil - but be clear about who you are talking about and why.

There has to be reasons for improving the mind, and giving examples of what the results of different minds may result in is how you do this.

Well - again, you should realize that even your very words, every single word!! - affects reality. For me, when I go back to a happy place of my beginning, or I try to repeat happy circumstances - it usually works! I usually have a wonderful feeling of nastalgia, or a very glad feeling of satisfaction.

I'm glad your nostalgia works for you, but it doesn't for everyone. It's just an example of attachement to former happiness and how it is often unsatisfactory.

You see! Even your own experiences and everything you say - everything is connected. And if you did try to go back to a place of beauty from your childhood, and you did not experience joy but sadness, then what is the way out of this! The way out is to find and create within yourself the space for the joy you wish, and to create within yourself all the conditions necessary for you to attain whatever joy, peace, love, you desire. The more successful one is at doing this... the better.

People need instructions to be able to achieve inner peace - thus The Buddha's path was explained. Saying it is not enough - there has to be a method and a practice.

The Atheist

05-16-2010, 04:31 PM

People need instructions to be able to achieve inner peace - thus The Buddha's path was explained. Saying it is not enough - there has to be a method and a practice.

Fascinating discussion you have going here, but I'll just take issue with this one bit at this stage, because it doesn't add up.

How did Buddha find the path without instruction?

If it can be done once without instruction, what changed to make the path invisible to others?

It seems very similar to the circular reasoning of theists:

The bible is the word of god.
How do we know he's god?
The bible says so.

Paulclem

05-16-2010, 05:41 PM

It's a good question.

The Therevada view is that The Buddha was a man who attained Enlightenment through his own efforts. He rediscovered The Path as there had been Buddhas on earth previously, but the Dharma had died out.

The Mahayana view is that he was a Buddha already and manifested in order to demonstrate the Path through his effort.

It is considered that the age we are in makes it more difficult than it was in The Buddha's time to realise Enlightenment. Nevertheless, although I did say we needed a teacher, it is still through your own efforts that the Path is realised.

By definition then, it is possible for a human to attain Enlightenment themselves, though this possibility does presents pitfalls. There have been people who have self declared themselves to be Maitreya - The next Buddha. For most of us a teacher is best.

Paulclem

05-18-2010, 01:33 PM

One of the most important events in a being's life is their death. Preparation for "a good death" is seen as an important part of the practice. This is because within our mindstream we have both negative and positive karma, either of which may manifest with the onset of the corresponding mind.

The logic for this - as I posted above - is that it is true that you, or I, may die today. The time of anyone's death is very uncertain.

It is not morbid, but is an important meditation to encourage dedication to the path. It is also based upon the idea that if you familiarise yourself with death, and the process of death, then the actual experience will at least be familiar. It will go some way towards mitigating the pain and fear we will experience.

In fact death presents the opportunity for Enlightenment during the process - The Buddha's final Parinirvana. Untrained beings will not recognise this opportunity - in fact you have to be an advanced practitioner - and so the danger is that the minds of fear, anger and attachment will arise and direct the being towards a lower rebirth. Thus a calm mind - even a positive mind - at the time of death will help to direct a being towards a positive rebirth. A compassionate mind - still thinking of and praying for others is even better.

NikolaiI

05-18-2010, 03:19 PM

Paulclem

05-18-2010, 06:15 PM

These are not my ideas - they are what I have learned from attending teachings, and they can be read by anyone in Buddhist texts.

You should speak your own ideas, and not others'. Trust me. And if you really think about it, you'll see why.

For instance, this:

The highest Enlightenment consists of te realisation of The Two Truths, and being able to perceive ordinary and ultimate reality at the same time.

How can you say this? If you have experienced this - and I would not doubt you a second if you said you have - then by all means please share your experience. But if you have not then you are speaking about others' experiences. There are some very good reasons to only speak on your own experiences!

This is a thread on Not self and reincarnation in Buddhism. I have a little practical experience of the path, but I have heard and read about it more. I can talk freely about the ideas in general, but I can honestly say that I have not added anything to the Buddhist canon. All I have been able to do is practice and make observations that relate to the teachings. As such I'll leave the ideas to others with more experience.

For the same reason I can say that Buddhas who are fully Enlightened can perceive ordinary and ultimate reality at the same time because it is a well known part of the teachings. I have not experienced this, or claim to. I trust my teachers though. As I said earlier or on the other thread - instructions can be given to try out. If the instruction works, then you can deduct that the instructions for further teachngs are also valid. As you test the teachings, so you can make assumptions about the further path.

Paulclem

05-18-2010, 06:27 PM

Just to add a note about Reincarnation. We were taling tonight in our group about the Buddist path, and my friend was telling us about a monk he'd read about who worked closely with HH The Dalai Lama. (I've forgotten his name, but he is well known). The Monk said that as he had been ordained and travelled the path that he didn't really believe in Reincarnation. Yet thirty years later after beng a Monk, he saw some reasons to believe it. In thirty years he looked at what he had achieved as a Monk, and then compared his achievements to the achievements of HH The Dalai Lama. He said his realisation was that to develop such a depth of compassion as HH The Daliai Lama has, there must be the influences of a past life in action. His conclusion was that in this present life, he had started at a different point to his teachers.

I thought it was an interesting observation.

dizzydoll

05-19-2010, 08:53 AM

This is a relief to hear this Paul, http://serve.mysmiley.net/happy/happy0064.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net) the reason.. when we become complacent within our existing "beliefs" we stop searching. No matter in religion or science, the same applies.

If you have experienced this - and I would not doubt you a second if you said you have - then by all means please share your experience. But if you have not then you are speaking about others' experiences. There are some very good reasons to only speak on your own experiences!

Agreed, Nikolai again you show that you are a teacher yourself.

A teacher shows the way he doesnt want your mind. A teacher shares your journey and in doing so becomes a student, and vise versa, it flows back and forth between both. A teacher wants you to find your own mind, in your own way.

NikolaiI

05-19-2010, 06:26 PM

I'm not going to argue any of your premises, but it seems to me that the true definition of "selflessness" would only apply if there is choice involved. A rock can't be selfless because it's a rock and cannot change into anything else.

Are you saying seeds have choices on whether or not they become trees?

Sorry for the late reply -

Well I used a term which wasn't clear... I have read it in another writing... The way I meant 'selflessness' was ontologically rather than morally. This is one presentation of the Buddhist analysis of it:
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=5_aggregates

However I somewhat doubt the value of abstraction. I think that it loses value if practitioners reapat these things which they have been taught but not experienced.

Paulclem

05-20-2010, 01:42 AM

Sorry for the late reply -

Well I used a term which wasn't clear... I have read it in another writing... The way I meant 'selflessness' was ontologically rather than morally. This is one presentation of the Buddhist analysis of it:
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=5_aggregates

However I somewhat doubt the value of abstraction. I think that it loses value if practitioners reapat these things which they have been taught but not experienced.

This is incorrect. Here the Buddha was talking about sentient beings, of which trees and rocks are not included.

NikolaiI

05-20-2010, 02:17 AM

This is incorrect. Here the Buddha was talking about sentient beings, of which trees and rocks are not included.

But what is your conclusion, that trees and rocks have a self, while sentient beings do not? I hardly think so; and yet if it is not, then I don't know what your conclusion is.

Paulclem

05-20-2010, 04:31 AM

But what is your conclusion, that trees and rocks have a self, while sentient beings do not? I hardly think so; and yet if it is not, then I don't know what your conclusion is.

No, sentient beings are deluded into thinking they have a self. Rocks and trees don't have minds, so the matter doesn't arise.

This is the idea of non-self. Due to the aggregates - which you provided the link for.The accumulation of the senses, and the mind appraising these, deludes a person/ being into thinking that that they have a permanent self.

NikolaiI

05-20-2010, 06:25 AM

No, sentient beings are deluded into thinking they have a self. Rocks and trees don't have minds, so the matter doesn't arise.

Okay I see what you mean.

However, Not-self does apply to rocks and trees as well. The matter only comes up to us conscious questioners, I suppose. Yet I'd say it's somewhat important to know that it applies to everything, and not just sentient beings.

Reality is really so beautiful. When you take the core teachings and when they interact.

Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. This ever elusive paradox from the Prajna Paramitam.

And that state... or that existence... or whatever you may choose to call it, though unnamable - that "It" - it is Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate - beyond everything. I suppose that "It" could be accurately called reality, because there's nothing beyond reality, when you want to find the most real. The most real is reality. And that reality I suppose is not just beautiful, or very beautiful, but infinitely so.

Paulclem

05-20-2010, 10:48 AM

I think not self is meant to be a denial self being there rather than a description of when a consciousness is not involved.

NikolaiI

05-20-2010, 02:25 PM

I disagree completely.

It is about understanding. It's a simple matter, too. I'd say it's important to understand that non-sentient beings also do not have a self. I'm see much room for discussion (from you side), but... It's like the whole "You never enter the same river twice." It is important.

Alan Watts describes it very well. He explains how everything we think is a permanent thing, like a tree, or a house - rather it is an occurrence, a happening. He uses the example of a whirlpool. We look at a whirlpool and call it that, but as he explains, rather insightedly, it is not a whirlpool, so much as a whirlpooling. The water in the whirlpool is different from one minute to the next. The same is true with a house. It's not a house, so much at is a housing...

Arising and ceasing... an event rather than a thing... it is this which we must recognize, in inanimate objects as well as living forms.

A further point to back up my case is the core idea that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness, as we see it in the heart sutra. This is another yet similar angle to the idea of Not-self.

Paulclem

05-20-2010, 03:50 PM

We may be talking at cross purposes.

I'd say it's important to understand that non-sentient beings also do not have a self.

They don't have a self, and I wasn't trying to say they were. The point about rocks trees etc is that they don't - in the Buddhist view, have minds. Therefore a self is not an issue. Is this what you are saying?

Humans, and all other sentient beings, have a mind, and perceive a self where there isn't one.

I was thinking today about how a very cursory experience of meditation will challenge Weatern ideas of the mind. The basic preparation for meditation - focusing upon the breath - helps the practitioner to see that they are not in control of their minds, and random, sometimes bizarre thoughts will arise without any prompting.

The fact that you can be trying to focus upon your breath, and along comes tomorrow's shopping list, or a re-run of a dispute with a shop assistant from years ago, points to an unruly mind and a process that is little understood by Westerners.

When you can observe your thoughts like this, then it also begs the question as to where they are arising from. My consciousness is "over here", (in this psychological space), trying to focus upon the breath, and these thoughts are flowing from "over there" unprompted by myself.

It is fascinating, and is precisely what Buddhism is about - understanding your own mind.

NikolaiI

05-20-2010, 06:10 PM

If they do not, then Not-self is absolutely an accurate description.

Paulclem

05-20-2010, 06:44 PM

If they do not, then Not-self is absolutely an accurate description.

I know what you're saying, but I am uncomfortable describing non sentient things as not self. Buddhism is quite precise about non-self referring to the falsly cognised self. In this sense trees etc do not cognise anything having no mind.

I'm thinking about this carefully because this precision is absolutely crucial to understanding, and I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression about such an important concept in Buddhism.

The thinking on it has clarified it for me though.

NikolaiI

05-20-2010, 08:12 PM

Do you think Buddhism has not changed in the whole time it's been around? Of course not. In fact, if it had not, it would be utterly useless. Think about this. Also just use simple logic. Sure, in Buddhism Anatta is directed toward sentient beings. But - if a rock has no self, then it has no self, it is Anatta. In fact, this is understood in Buddhism. And it's one case where Western logic actually does work. A rock certainly does not have a self and not have a self. In fact, Paul - a rock is the constant, if it were an experiement. It is the very template. It is the absolute best and most logical fit of Anatta. It's how we might even understand Anatta.

Thinking about it has clarified it for me as well. To say that a rock has no self is the very same thing as to say it is Anatta, and it is a much more than necessary paragraph I just wrote to get at such a simple fact. There is no reason to deny that fact as far as I can tell, and it shows inflexibility when Buddhism in its real sense is very much a flexible religion. In fact that is one of the main points, that it is about understanding a dynamic and always-in-change universe; a better framework for understanding such a universe. It is why in Buddhist logic there are four possibilities as opposed to Western logic's two. Because in the Buddhist framework it is necessary to explain certain things. Like how I am the same person I was as a baby, yet I am also not. One never enter the same river twice.

Paulclem

05-21-2010, 04:15 PM

I think the logic better fits non-self with sentient minds rather than non self for things with no-mind. It then points to the distinction between self and non-self, and I think that is the important distinction.

Paulclem

05-23-2010, 04:50 PM

dizzydoll

05-24-2010, 01:09 AM

As far as Not self and reincarnation go together, just imagine the baggage from countless lives if there were such a continuation of something like a soul or personality. It is a positive boon - just imagine what you might remember - misery and heartache, bad deeds, birth ageing sickess and death. Perhaps it's a blessing not to know.

Apparenently though, it is possible to perceive one's previous lives through a particular meditation technique. This is not like regression or hypnosis, but a technique which systematically examines each moment of mind going back through this life and into previous ones.

HH The Dalia Lama described such a technique, but questioned the value of it. As with much Buddhist advice, it is seen as better to deal with the problems of here and now rather than dwell upon the unchanging and irreversible past.

I am now more confused with Buddhism than have ever been in the past. I thought Buddhists do NOT believe in reincarnation according to you, but here you say--read bold above--so am I understanding correctly, you wish to provide yet another word to replace regression/hypnosis. When will it all end? You confuse yourself with words.

And what of good memories then, is there no provision made for them? Do those ever see the light of day in Buddhism? --read bold above--

This wanton choice of living in suffering is really BS as well as controlling your desires... or rather attempt to control your desires, which is absolutely impossible and yet we have hundreds of thousands of Buddhists all restricting what is perfectly natural--to appease some dead-end philosophy. In my opinion this is the height of delusion and denial at the same time.

Paul, please when you get the chance please place a comment on the Tao Te Ching thread so I can add some inspiration afterwards when it comes to me. If I add one comment after another the Mods bunch them together and they lose all meaning. Apart from that it might be good for you to let this philosophy rest for a while, give your soul the little break it deserves.

Paulclem

05-24-2010, 08:30 AM

I am now more confused with Buddhism than have ever been in the past. I thought Buddhists do NOT believe in reincarnation according to you, but here you say--read bold above--so am I understanding correctly, you wish to provide yet another word to replace regression/hypnosis. When will it all end? You confuse yourself with words.

And what of good memories then, is there no provision made for them? Do those ever see the light of day in Buddhism? --read bold above--

This wanton choice of living in suffering is really BS as well as controlling your desires... or rather attempt to control your desires, which is absolutely impossible and yet we have hundreds of thousands of Buddhists all restricting what is perfectly natural--to appease some dead-end philosophy. In my opinion this is the height of delusion and denial at the same time.

Paul, please when you get the chance please place a comment on the Tao Te Ching thread so I can add some inspiration afterwards when it comes to me. If I add one comment after another the Mods bunch them together and they lose all meaning. Apart from that it might be good for you to let this philosophy rest for a while, give your soul the little break it deserves.

Yes Buddhists believe in reincarnation - it is one of the basic tenets of Buddhism. I differs significantly from Hinduism in that it rejects the evoluionary aspect of reincarnation - fulfil your part and you will attain the next level - and states that reincarnation is dependant upon Karma arising at the time of death.

My references to regression and hypnosis were in regard to the "romantic" idea of reincarnation whereby humans are reincarnated as humans - often from significant historical figures - how many Napoleons? etc

In Buddhism reincarnation is a much scarier prospect - the danger that a person will be reincarnated as an animal, insect, hell being or hungry ghost, if they do not develop positive karma, is a real prospect.

Your reference to "wanton choice of living in suffering" is to misunderstand Buddhism. The Buddha's investigation of "life" resulted in his perception that living is suffering. It is a radical thought - especially when Buddhists claim that happiness in this life also constitutes suffering. The reason for this is that all happiness comes to an end. Take the happiest, richest, most fulfilled person in the world, and they will at the end really have to leave it all behind. Thus all their attachment their good fortune itself leads to suffering. In reality though, very few of us are in this position and experience rounds of fortune and misfortune throughout our lives.

In actual fact - it is not denial - you remember asking about that? - it is about facing up to reality as Buddhist see it.

Morbid? depressing? its funny how Buddhist are some of the happiest people i've met. why? because within the practice is a way to achieve balance within life - no unrealistic expectations and also no plunging into depression. :biggrin5:

By the way, I won't be letting Buddhism alone. I've been a Buddhist for 20 years now. My group will be meeting tomorrow, and i will be very happily going along to it. :biggrin5:

dizzydoll

05-24-2010, 10:59 AM

Take the happiest, richest, most fulfilled person in the world, and they will at the end really have to leave it all behind. Thus all their attachment their good fortune itself leads to suffering. In reality though, very few of us are in this position and experience rounds of fortune and misfortune throughout our lives.

In actual fact - it is not denial - you remember asking about that? - it is about facing up to reality as Buddhist see it.

Morbid? depressing? its funny how Buddhist are some of the happiest people i've met. why? because within the practice is a way to achieve balance within life - no unrealistic expectations and also no plunging into depression. :biggrin5:

By the way, I won't be letting Buddhism alone. I've been a Buddhist for 20 years now. My group will be meeting tomorrow, and i will be very happily going along to it. :biggrin5:

Heavens alive Paul, not for one minute would I expect you to give up your faith of Buddhism. :biggrin5:

In fact I was just beginning to think that I must be a Buddha too then, cos I am always happy. Happiness is a choice you see.

Oh about the money. I have money Paul and believe me I dont care for it that much that it'll upset me to leave it when I die. The vultures can have it, I dont give a damn for money. Money is a means to an end, its fun making it like its fun making a cake.. but we dont need to eat that cake, thats how I see money. In fact there is another idea I have to make a little more... for the fun, but this time I want someone by my side to share, I am just waiting for their response.

You shouldnt dislike money so much Paul, its not the moneys fault for the greed we see about, its the peoples fault for allowing it to consume them. Invariably whenever we are consumed by something it eludes us, so even those who dont have money become consumed with "lack of money" and therefore it eludes them.

Paulclem

05-24-2010, 11:26 AM

Heavens alive Paul, not for one minute would I expect you to give up your faith of Buddhism. :biggrin5:

In fact I was just beginning to think that I must be a Buddha too then, cos I am always happy. Happiness is a choice you see.

Oh about the money. I have money Paul and believe me I dont care for it that much that it'll upset me to leave it when I die. The vultures can have it, I dont give a damn for money. Money is a means to an end, its fun making it like its fun making a cake.. but we dont need to eat that cake, thats how I see money. In fact there is another idea I have to make a little more... for the fun, but this time I want someone by my side to share, I am just waiting for their response.

You shouldnt dislike money so much Paul, its not the moneys fault for the greed we see about, its the peoples fault for allowing it to consume them. Invariably whenever we are consumed by something it eludes us, so even those who dont have money become consumed with "lack of money" and therefore it eludes them.

I don't dislijke money at all - in fact I wish I'd got more of it. It's not about whether or not you have money - it's about attachment to it. A poor person can be as much - even more attached to money.

As for happiness - I'm glad you're happy - and I hope you always are - but the sad fact is that it is unlikely - not that I'm wishing bad luck upon you. It's just life.

And it's not just about these transient happinesses that we have. Buddhism says that there is a pervasive dissatisfaction with life - a feeling that things never go quite right - that the happiness we have is transient and shallow - that what we thought was true very often turns out to be not so.

Depressed? Me? No - because there is an explanation and a way to cope.

dizzydoll

05-24-2010, 11:38 AM

Buddhism says that there is a pervasive dissatisfaction with life - a feeling that things never go quite right - that the happiness we have is transient and shallow - that what we thought was true very often turns out to be not so.

Depressed? Me? No - because there is an explanation and a way to cope.

I dont see it like that Paul, I am not dissatisfied with life at all because there is always a reason for everything.. I just dont need to know "it" or understand it at this time. From an early life I began looking for answers because I figured they would provide some perspective for what takes place in our lives. It took me many years to realise, we dont need to know why.. we just need to "accept" there is a deeper reason for all things. From the moment I let go, my life did around about turn.

The "why" is no longer relative in my life... allowing the universe the first move is and sometimes its uncomfortable, sometimes we cry but.. but... but, there is always a reason and it will be revealed. Just knowing this makes it easier. Certain things that made NO sense to me while I was growing up... now make perfect sense. Thats why I say, happiness is a choice, let the universe do what it must... all will be revealed in good time.

Paulclem

05-24-2010, 11:50 AM

I dont see it like that Paul, I am not dissatisfied with life at all because there is always a reason for everything.. I just dont need to know "it" or understand it at this time. From an early life I began looking for answers because I figured they would provide some perspective for what takes place in our lives. It took me many years to realise, we dont need to know why.. we just need to "accept" there is a deeper reason for all things. From the moment I let go, my life did around about turn.

The "why" is no longer relative in my life... allowing the universe the first move is and sometimes its uncomfortable, sometimes we cry but.. but... but, there is always a reason and it will be revealed. Just knowing this makes it easier. Certain things that made NO sense to me while I was growing up... now make perfect sense. Thats why I say, happiness is a choice, let the universe do what it must... all will be revealed in good time.

There's no arguing with your personal beliefs. If they hold up for you then fine. i was just stating the Buddhist viewpoint. :biggrin5:

dizzydoll

05-24-2010, 01:21 PM

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed and in such desperate enterprises? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. It is not important that he should mature as soon as an apple tree or an oak. Shall he turn his spring into summer?--Ch. 18, Walden

http://img.allposters.com/6/LRG/10/1025/M8PW000Z.jpg

Paulclem

05-24-2010, 04:51 PM

They may be fine words, but alone they don't sustain a person in difficult times. You commented earlier about Buddhism being "some dead end philosophy".

Although this forum is about words and texts, which Buddhism has for instruction, Buddhism is actually about the practice and application of the teachings through meditation, reflection, contemplation and application.

It is said in the teachings that merely learning the theory is no good, but the practice is the essence. From providing an antidote to anger to realising the ultimate nature of reality, Buddha's practices provide a way through this. This practical application doesn't come through on a forum, but that really is the point of it.

Of course, you don't have to accept this - no-one has to. I'm just trying to address what I see as a misconception you may have about the teachings.

dizzydoll

05-24-2010, 05:15 PM

I am sure the teachings of Buddha are sound Paul, I dont recall saying it was a dead end philosophy, if I did please forgive me. I have a friend who would be horrified at me calling Buddhism a dead end philosophy. Perhaps I find some of Buddha's restrictions unrealistic but for the most part Buddha taught compassion and kindness above all. Those words from Thoreau are just a bit of light hearted fun, not intended to disrespect your thread or Buddha.

Paulclem

05-24-2010, 05:28 PM

No worries. I'm choosing to engage in discussion so no problem. Being positive is definately a good policy. I wouldn't disagree. My provisos are Buddhist, but I don't expect them to be yours.

I perhaps come across as a bit teacher-y. It's just that I'm trying to be consistent with the values of Buddhism when I'm on about it, and trying to be precise.:biggrin5:

dizzydoll

05-25-2010, 02:09 AM

You know Paul, I am far more inclined to trust and relate to people who have some kind of belief, rather than those who have none. It doesnt matter what their belief is, be it Christian, Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism etc... this shows me that they have the ability to believe something outside of their ego-selves. For me, those who believe nothing are as shallow as that word "nothing", they are also party-poopers, and doubting Thomas'. I've never fared too well with critical people either thats why I dont discuss religion with anyone outside of the net..

So, Buddhism rocks and it gives you encouragement to grow as an individual on a spiritual level, thats all that counts really. I enjoy Taoism because its philosophy is so simple. I came across the Tao first time with a CD I purchased from Dr. Wayne Dyer. I'm also totally committed to the Law of Attraction, until I came upon those CD's I had been aware of "cause and effect" and how your thoughts make who you are... after all thats not a new philosophy by any means.. the Buddhists and Hindu's have been aware of this for years, they just didnt seem to focus much attention on it.

I knew someone who couldnt stand any "Knew Age" stuff as he called it. lol. Funny how people are, they get stuck in the past with past teachers like Alan Watts, and nothing can budge them to accept any new teachers. Too bad if Dyer or Hicks is New Age, their message is valuable for those who care to know more.

:wave:

edited to add: Please put a comment on the Tao Te Ching thread so I can post another after you Paul.

andrewoberg

06-18-2010, 10:23 PM

Paulclem

06-19-2010, 05:20 AM

Paul, I have read that Buddhism's take on reincarnation is more like links in a chain, whereas Hinduism's is more like beads on a string (with the string being the same soul in continuity). What is your take on that?

The analogy seems to work ok. The Buddha's teaching emhasise the middle way beween two extremes. The first extreme is eternalism whch is th idea of a soul continuing through lives. The second extreme is annihilation, the idea that everything dies with the body. The Buddha's explanation is that the energy from one life causes the next life. The classical image is of one candle flame lighting a second,and then the first being blown out. The two flames are not the same but clearly one caused the other.

The debate between eternalism and annihilation went on in the Buddha's day, and clearly i still going on today.

billl

06-19-2010, 05:33 AM

Analogy-wise, if we are (universal) fire, then we might be eternal--but if we are (the more humble) flame, then we are annihilated. Maybe something like that?

Paulclem

06-19-2010, 06:12 PM

Analogy-wise, if we are (universal) fire, then we might be eternal--but if we are (the more humble) flame, then we are annihilated. Maybe something like that?

I'm not sure Billl. I think the candle flame analogy is used because of the causal relationship between the two candles,without there being anything of the first candle flame in the second.

andrewoberg

06-19-2010, 09:37 PM

Paulclem

06-20-2010, 11:24 AM

I think that most analogies will probably fall flat for both religion's beliefs regarding the cycle of life and death. My understanding of The Upanishads leads me to think that a single continuing soul is a simplification of the actual Hindu philosophical underpinnings, and likewise my understanding of Theravada Buddhism. I think that while analogies like the above are useful as easy explanations, in some ways belie the deeper teachings.

I'm less familiar with Mahayana Buddhism's approach to this issue, but in general it seems to me that Mahayana Buddhism focuses more on practical issues than philosophical ones. I could be wrong on that, though.

I agree that the analogies serve a limited purpose, and I think that the teachings contain a much deeper aspect than is first apparent upon reading. I'm not sure about the Upanishads having had little to do with them since Uni, but you're probably right that the simple translation to the Western Soul will undoubtedly be a simplificcation. It is the same in Buddhism where one of Jesus' sayings - "As you sow, so you reap" is equated with Karma. There is a link, but the idea of Karma is a much deeper idea.

The Therevada and Mahayana are surprisingly consistent in the basic outline of the Buddha's teachings, in fact it goes across all the schools such as Zen etc. What the Mahayana did was to develop the teachings of Buddha through gifted teachers such as Lama Tsongkhapa in Tibet, Atisha and others. I'm not sure they are more practically focused, but there is a lot more of the mystical side to Buddhism.

mal4mac

06-20-2010, 12:16 PM

I agree that the analogies serve a limited purpose, and I think that the teachings contain a much deeper aspect than is first apparent upon reading.

Then why they don't they produce better teachings?

I'm not sure about the Upanishads having had little to do with them since Uni, but you're probably right that the simple translation to the Western Soul will undoubtedly be a simplificcation.
Then why don't the gurus produce a proper translation that spells things out to the "Western Soul" with full detail?

It is the same in Buddhism where one of Jesus' sayings - "As you sow, so you reap" is equated with Karma. There is a link, but the idea of Karma is a much deeper idea.

Or both might be silly ideas.

There is no evidence for heaven or reincarnation - the fact that both of these ideas are circulating shows that neither have anything much to back them. As Plato pointed out through the mouth of Socrates, in his Apology, we know nothing about what happens after death.

So why base anything on something we know nothing about? The guy next door thinks the tooth fairy takes us up to heaven if we have left at least ten teeth under the pillow. Nonsense? Why is it any more nonsense than Karma or the Pearly Gates?

The fact is, down here, bad guys often get big money and sexy women. Live with it. We cannot know if they have a bad time after death or not. On the weight of evidence, I think almost probably not!

Our consciousness is so tied up with the body that I reckon when that's gone, consciousness is gone. Voila - there is your end to suffering! I might be wrong, but I have no need of any other hypothesis, so I might as well go with this simplest, most sensible, hypothesis, until more evidence comes along...

Paulclem

06-20-2010, 05:17 PM

Then why they don't they produce better teachings?

They do - these are just some of the analogies they use. The thing with the teachings is that they are instructions for practice, not just theories, and so it is impossible to appreciate the depth of teachings without following the instructions and experiencing them for yourself.

T
Then why don't the gurus produce a proper translation that spells things out to the "Western Soul" with full detail?

Again they may have, and I may be doing Hindus a disservice to suggest that they haven't. Hinduism isn't my area, but I was surmising given my experience of Buddhist teachings.

Or both might be silly ideas.

There is no evidence for heaven or reincarnation - the fact that both of these ideas are circulating shows that neither have anything much to back them. As Plato pointed out through the mouth of Socrates, in his Apology, we know nothing about what happens after death.

So why base anything on something we know nothing about? The guy next door thinks the tooth fairy takes us up to heaven if we have left at least ten teeth under the pillow. Nonsense? Why is it any more nonsense than Karma or the Pearly Gates?

The fact is, down here, bad guys often get big money and sexy women. Live with it. We cannot know if they have a bad time after death or not. On the weight of evidence, I think almost probably not!

Our consciousness is so tied up with the body that I reckon when that's gone, consciousness is gone. Voila - there is your end to suffering! I might be wrong, but I have no need of any other hypothesis, so I might as well go with this simplest, most sensible, hypothesis, until more evidence comes along...

They might be silly ideas and you might be wrong, but it would take investigation of the ideas to find out. Buddhist teachings claim that rincarnation is a fact. This is based upon meditational experience. There is a practice whereby anyone can investigate their former lives. It is difficult, takes dedication, but can be done. Of course someone who begins with the premise that it is nonsense is never going to complete such a practice.

The thing I like about Buddhism is that it does not say believe this because I said it. The instructions are quite clear - do this practice and find out for yourself. I like that, and I think it is an honest approach.

I think you're right about the bad guys too. Does it really make them happy though in the long run? - or the short run for that matter. The obvious answer is yes yes and yes again. Money women - what more could a man want? Buddhist teachings say that we are all suffering even when we feel happy. The basis of this is that it sets up the expectation that happiness will be repeated, will continue, can be regained, when our own experience often tells us it can't. And in the end we die and leave whatever behind.

As for consciousness being tied up with the body - the teachings say not, and i don't think science has been able to nail the brain and consciousness down. It is a huge asumption to make based upon current knowledge. Yes if you stimulate the brain in a certain way, a certain thing will happen. The Buddhist explanation forthis is that the mind operates through the brain, but is not of it. So far this has not been disproved, and can be denied - it is claimed, by investigation through meditation.

andrewoberg

06-21-2010, 03:16 AM

Just a question mal4mac, why the hostility? If Paul feels that Buddhism makes his life better, why should that bother you?

If he were trying to proselytize or something, I'd understand a certain level of irritation. But it seems to me that in this thread he has taken great pains to calmly explain one aspect of his religious life in a non-offensive, non-proselytizing way.

whathappened

07-17-2010, 03:40 AM

Taking a guess on the 'self' Buddhism rejects. Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance... I fail to see how meditation as opposed to thought can clear these illusions, however, is meditation supposed to assist thought or actually a thought process?

The basis of this is that it sets up the expectation that happiness will be repeated, will continue, can be regained, when our own experience often tells us it can't. And in the end we die and leave whatever behind.

It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.

mal4mac

07-17-2010, 08:18 AM

Buddhist teachings claim that re-incarnation is a fact. This is based upon meditational experience. There is a practice whereby anyone can investigate their former lives. It is difficult, takes dedication, but can be done.

Why isn't there any objective evidence? If people could investigate their former lives they could tell archaeologists where "the treasure" is bueried, and then the evidence could be dug up. Let that happen enough times and I might start to believe in this stuff - but there is as much evidence for "former lives" as there is for the tooth fairy.

The thing I like about Buddhism is that it does not say believe this because I said it. The instructions are quite clear - do this practice and find out for yourself. I like that, and I think it is an honest approach.

But the practice takes many lifetimes, and meanwhile you give money to Chogyam to feed his alcohol and fast car addictions, and worship him as an "enlightened master".

I think you're right about the bad guys too. Does it really make them happy though in the long run? - or the short run for that matter. The obvious answer is yes yes and yes again.

The way to deal with bad guys is to improve the justice system, not escape into Buddhist metaphysics.

Buddhist teachings say that we are all suffering even when we feel happy.

This is equivalent to someone saying: "We have just had our fill of dinner, but we are hungfy even though we feel full." It's not even a paradox. It's just pure nonsense.

This is what I really dislike about Buddhism - it propounds such teaching in an attempt to seem profound. You can't understand them and think it is you that is the problem, when really the teaching is just daft.

Paulclem

07-17-2010, 07:55 PM

Why isn't there any objective evidence? If people could investigate their former lives they could tell archaeologists where "the treasure" is bueried, and then the evidence could be dug up. Let that happen enough times and I might start to believe in this stuff - but there is as much evidence for "former lives" as there is for the tooth fairy.

Objective evidence is always going to be a problem. It's not going to be there. The people who do remember their past lives have no interest in buried treasure, or of objective proof either - probably because there isn't any. A person's own expriences are the proof they need.

It's not hard to see why there's no objective proof. Most beings are born with no memory of the past, and don't feel any tangible connection, although they may detect an emotional connection to people and places. It can be hard enough to detect a past relative in geneology circles. What do they get? A name, birth, death certificate. Census returns. Probably no photograph. How much harder would it be to detect a former life?

The truth is no-one should believe in it without reason to. If it doesn't work for you, then it's not a problem.

But the practice takes many lifetimes, and meanwhile you give money to Chogyam to feed his alcohol and fast car addictions, and worship him as an "enlightened master".

It does take many lifetimes - there's no doubt.

Chogyam Trungpa is an example that anyone who doesn't control their mind runs the risk of damaging themselves, others, and their reputation. This is not generally the case though. The teachings state that no-one should receive payment for giving teachings. The teachings are free. Also monks and Nuns have rules governing what they can own. No-one should trust a teacher who is in it fo the money. It is all about the motivation.

Like any religion or organisation, there is always the risk that someone will give it a bad name. It's a human thing.

The way to deal with bad guys is to improve the justice system, not escape into Buddhist metaphysics.

I couldn't agree more. No buddhist I know advocates a softer approach than the law provides. Buddhism is sometimes regarded as a doormat religion with nicey nicey people spreading love and meditating. Ths is a misconception, and it is nothing like that at all. It is very focused in it's purposes. I blame the hippies.

This is equivalent to someone saying: "We have just had our fill of dinner, but we are hungfy even though we feel full." It's not even a paradox. It's just pure nonsense.

This is what I really dislike about Buddhism - it propounds such teaching in an attempt to seem profound. You can't understand them and think it is you that is the problem, when really the teaching is just daft.

"We have just had our fill of dinner, but we are hungfy even though we feel full."

It's more like being full, but wondering where the next meal will be coming from. Even as we experience happiness, we get to know that the night will end, the holiday will finish, the car will rust, we will get older, tireder, sicker. At the pinnacle of a glittering career, you know, I know and they know that there's only one way to go - down. It's more like this feeling.

That's not the whole story though. The experience of happiness builds an expectation - a desire for it to continue. It may well continue in the short term, but will definately end at some point, and the individual has no power to halt this. This is expressed in teachings on Impermanence. It may be the reason why the romantic hopes of many love songs are expressed in hopes for an everlasting or eternal love. Consider the politicians gripping onto power way past their time to go - like M Thatcher, or the vengefulness of the formerly happy but jilted bloke. It's about attitude and expectation. It's mine. She's mine. I don't want it to stop. Then, at the end of the happiest life - partners will part - again, and again and again with reincarnation. The Buddha wasn't trying to spoil the fun, merely pointing out the source of suffering.

And the stage for all this suffering is the fact of birth, ageing, sickness and death. There's no get out for any of us.

I hope you'll pardon my explanation.

By the way, as I've said elsewhere, Buddhism doesn't suit everyone. I don't have a problem with that.

mal4mac

07-18-2010, 06:43 AM

Buddhism is sometimes regarded as a doormat religion with nicey nicey people spreading love and meditating. Ths is a misconception, and it is nothing like that at all. It is very focused in it's purposes...

You might be right:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/zen.asp

"Richard Rumbold, an English Zen enthusiast, who spent about five months at the Shokokuji, a monastery in Kyoto, describes some savage beatings-up administered by the head monk and his assistant for trifling disciplinary offences"

Paulclem

07-18-2010, 05:44 PM

You might be right:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/zen.asp

"Richard Rumbold, an English Zen enthusiast, who spent about five months at the Shokokuji, a monastery in Kyoto, describes some savage beatings-up administered by the head monk and his assistant for trifling disciplinary offences"

Sex scandals, violence, murder. There was the case of the Thai Monk who killed a tourist and was condemned to death - in the 90's I think. I know of two "Heart Disciples" of a group who have been dropped due to sex scandals. A monk was murdered in Dharamsala over a sectarian dispute. Chogyam Trungpa succumbed to alcohol.

These things are about the people. The teachings do not promote, condone or excuse such behaviour. As I've said before, there are at least 300-400 milion Buddhists, yet despite these problems - which were around at The Buddha's time, hence the large number of rules in the Vinaya - Buddhism has a good image, and for good reason.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html

Buddhism was also responsible for the conversion of King Ashoka in India. He was pursuing a war, and winning, but the sight of the suffering caused by the war, he halted the conflict. When has that happened when a side has been winning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great#Buddhist_Conversion

Every religion has people who bring it into disrepute - catholic monks abusing children, money for followers of a certain Hindu, terrorism in Islam, fraudulent healers in Christianity. These people do not typify the religions themselves, but the delusions that power, money etc etc can bring them what they want.

whathappened

07-19-2010, 09:53 PM

Hi Pauclem, nice thread. I am interested in Buddhism and would like to ask you a couple of questions. It seems that you missed my last post, reposted below.

Taking a guess on the 'self' Buddhism rejects. Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance... I fail to see how meditation as opposed to thought can clear these illusions, however, is meditation supposed to assist thought or actually a thought process?

It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.

NikolaiI

07-20-2010, 12:05 AM

Taking a guess on the 'self' Buddhism rejects. Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance... I fail to see how meditation as opposed to thought can clear these illusions, however, is meditation supposed to assist thought or actually a thought process?

It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.

Q: What is the primary purpose of meditation?

A: (by Venerable Hsuan Hua)
The advantages to meditation are manifold.
Whether we study, work, or take care of the house,
daily meditation increases our concentration,
lessens the pressures of life, and increases our
physical health. If we honestly want to develop
our wisdom and become liberated, then we should
meditate regularly. We must be committed to
meditation so that in the long run we will be able
to transcend the cycle of birth and death.

http://www.avatamsakavihara.org/txt/wordsOfWisdom.pdf

whathappened

07-20-2010, 10:17 AM

Thanks NicolaiI. The quote seems to say that concentration and relaxation can get us wise. But what does wise mean here?

Paulclem

07-20-2010, 10:42 AM

Taking a guess on the 'self' Buddhism rejects. Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance... I fail to see how meditation as opposed to thought can clear these illusions, however, is meditation supposed to assist thought or actually a thought process?
.

Hi Whathappened - I did see your post but forgot to reply. Apologies. In the first part are you disputing the idea of no self?

Further to Nik's post, meditation enables clear and focused thinking. There are levels of concentration that can be achieved which enable the practitioner to be able to focus upon the most difficult objects of meditation such as ultimate reality and develop some awareness of the concepts.

It is also linked to the Buddhist model of the mind, which is different to the Western idea. Buddhism and meditation enables the practitioner to get to know the mind and develop an awareness of it.

There's no doubt that though/ contemplation is useful as it carries the mesage of meditation etc into everyday life. there are depths to the mind that need focus and concentration to achieve.

whathappened

07-20-2010, 12:49 PM

NikolaiI

07-20-2010, 01:20 PM

Thanks NicolaiI. The quote seems to say that concentration and relaxation can get us wise. But what does wise mean here?

Meditation is a state of mind/body which can deeply improve health. But for it to be effective, it has to be in conjunction with one's whole life - one's whole life and aim has to be focused on one ideal. That ideal may be characterized by several ideals, such as peace, deep sense of well-being and health, joy, etc. These are some Buddhist ideals.

What I mean by one's aim being single is not what they mean in monasteries. In a Zen monastery for instance, you are supposed to be wholly engaged in Buddhist training. I'm not saying this is bad, but but it isn't necessary to what I mean by saying that one's aim be single.

Rather, this means that in your life you don't do things which go against your ideals and your conscience. For instance, if your ideals are peace, a deep sense of well-being, and joy, then anything you'd do which you later regret or or have doubts over, would be going against these things and would be a setback. For instance, if you eat a bowl of ice cream, and then have an awful toothache, and then ask yourself, "Why do I keep doing this thing for immediate pleasure when it has no lasting benefit, but on the contrary has a lasting pain?"

This is an example which is meaningful to me, and if it may not be meaningful to you, then I hope you'll get what I mean anyhow. Smoking, for example, would be one of the worst things to do. But anything you do which goes against your conscience... anything you'll regret or wish you hadn't done, all of those things are setbacks.

But if you're free of all those things - and it is not difficult to be so, unless you are convinced otherwise - then you'll quickly be able to attain the joy and peace and deep sense of well-being which are the goal. It's like an accelerated process.

Paulclem

07-20-2010, 05:49 PM

Thanks Paulclem. First I would say am not interested in disputing Buddhism, because some of it makes sense and I have seen some amazing powers of it. I am trying to make sense of the idea of no self, meditation, and asceticism. My current views on them are respectively, the idea of self = confusion, meditation = improves thinking, asceticism = a kind of lack in courage.

The teaching on not-self is related to the nature of ultimate reality. The usual view of people is that either that the self is part of the body and thus dies with the body. this is the sceptical/ scientific view.

The view of eternalism is that the self is the/ or part of the soul and survives death. It may be regarded as part of God or whatever the religion subscribes to.

The Buddhist view is neither annihilation nor eternalism, but the Middle Way. There are meditations which ask the question "Where is my I" (or self), and "What is it?" Upon investigation, and through Buddhist logic, it can be percieved that there is no I or self, and it cannot be found. The conclusion of The Buddha is that there is no self, and so the thing we defend and nurture is in fact a false idea, a name only.

meditation = improves thinking,
.

I was thinking about my earlier response, and was going to add to it on reflection. Meditation of certain kinds, may improve thinking but there are many forms of so-called meditation which Buddhists would regard as relaxation techniques or preparatory practices. That's not to say that relaxation etc is bad.

The Tibetan Buddhist definition of meditation is the contempation of a virtuous object. So if you were to meditate upon overcoming anger for example, you would use analytical meditation to examine the negative effects of anger using poignant examples from your own experience.

Then having reached the conclusion that anger is bad, you would make a determination to refrain from anger, and try to focus upon the feeling that this gives at the heart. This is where poignant examples are important because you would want to be convinced of this and generate a strong feeling when making the determination to stop anger. This second type of meditation is called placement meditation and is designed to convince the deeper mind that anger is a bad thing. In doing this you are attempting to change your deeper mind by altering the habits of mind that rise to anger suddenly. It takes time and effort.

There are other forms of meditation such as Vipassana which contemplate the breath as a neutral object and "watch" the mind at work throwing up all sorts of thoughts and fantasies. It becomes clear that the mind that watches is different from the thoughts that are thrown up, which poses interesting questions about the nature of the mnd.

asceticism = a kind of lack in courage.

# the doctrine that through renunciation of worldly pleasures it is possible to achieve a high spiritual or intellectual state
# austerity: the trait of great self-denial (especially refraining from worldly pleasures)
# rigorous self-denial and active self-restraint

I've pasted a few definitions of asceticism from the web, to clarify the question for me. I presume that you are referring to renunciation of worldly pleasures, and perhas suggesting that people do this because they can't take life in some way, or are unwilling to engage in the world.

I think this is a misconception. Buddhst ascetics have achieved renunciation; the state where they see no value in the pursuit of worldly aims and so have decided upon a course of spiritual realisation. The ordinary view - which reminded me of Seal's song "Killers" - "Solitary brother - is there still a part of you that wants to live" - thinks only of worldly aims and sees no other choices. This is normal and natural given their ordinary view. Buddhism regards this view as confused, and the cause of suffering. (There's a lot of teachings on this subject)

My friend with whom I was talking tonight goes for 1 to 1 teachings from a lay Buddhist teacher in Birmingham. This teacher completed a 3 year, 3 month, 3 day solitary retreat over a decade ago. He's a westerner and has a great knowledge of Buddhism. Why did he do a soitary retreat? In order that he would deepen his own understanding of the teachings and be able to teach others. That's a real aim in Buddhist terms and comes from an ascetic way of life that he led for a while.

This kind of practice needs a lot of prep and is not for everybody - someone with a family for example.

You suggest that meditation not only improves thinking but also can open up a deep dimension of the mind different from thinking and the usual. Am I right? Now is this deep dimension the prophetic vision-seeing kind of thing? No sarcasm whatsoever.

No - I think my earlier example perhaps explains that Buddhist meditation is used to understand your own mind and effect positive changes within it. That would be the ordinary practitioner's experience of it.

That is not to say that on progresing upon the path there wouldn't be visions etc. The usual view is that these are like side effects and not the point of the meditation. I would recommend guidance from a teacher in a group if someone were thinking of doing some meditation. The group dynamic helps, and there is guidance for the inexperienced. Meditating from books is ok, but it's hard to know if you are on the right lines.

whathappened

07-21-2010, 09:59 AM

"Why do I keep doing this thing for immediate pleasure when it has no lasting benefit, but on the contrary has a lasting pain?"

This is meaningful to me too, and to most people, I hope. So you are saying that meditation + this = a condition of great peace and joy? Since I do not know what exactly a state of mind meditation is, I cannot say whether meditation should be in this formular. But I am sure doing what is healthy all the time can help us achieve the great condition, though not sure whether spending most of the time in the monestary is healthy. The body needs a variety of nutritions, and the mind also?

The Buddhist view is neither annihilation nor eternalism, but the Middle Way. There are meditations which ask the question "Where is my I" (or self), and "What is it?" Upon investigation, and through Buddhist logic, it can be percieved that there is no I or self, and it cannot be found. The conclusion of The Buddha is that there is no self, and so the thing we defend and nurture is in fact a false idea, a name only.

First thanks Paulclem for these many responses.

I cannot be satisfied with this explanation of the idea of no self. But perhaps you did not intend to explain it in detail. I offered an explanation or rather a guess a while ago, reposted below, if you (or anyone) would like to comment.

Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance.

Many thanks for the information on different forms of meditation. There seems to be a whole rich world of it. Now I find the concept of meditation much more sensible, and I think as people we all meditate and hence have a lot to learn from Buddhists who take meditation so seriously.

This second type of meditation is called placement meditation and is designed to convince the deeper mind that anger is a bad thing. In doing this you are attempting to change your deeper mind by altering the habits of mind that rise to anger suddenly. It takes time and effort.

This is the bit I find a bit unclear, as usually when 'deeper mind' is talked about.

You said a while ago that pleasures cannot last and that in the end we die and take nothing with us. You posit these as reasons for Buddhism's rejection of worldly pursuits. My reply is reposted below.

It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.

Now to reply to your new sayings on the matter.

thinks only of worldly aims and sees no other choices. This is normal and natural given their ordinary view.

The problem is I think we do not see what this 'other choice' is. People are mad about all sorts of pleasures and joys, and when you tell them that there is the greatest pleasure and joy in breathing in the breeze and feeling peaceful and quiet, you become madman even in their eyes. Or, are they missing something? Is there something else that Buddhists get pleasure from? You mentioned teaching. But this is not unique to Buddhism. Many people enjoy teaching.

Why did he do a soitary retreat? In order that he would deepen his own understanding of the teachings

If I wanted to deepen my understandings I would consider join a class for discussion, and not going on a retreat. Sure we need retreat to clear our head, but this can go side by side with joining discussions, together for the purpose of deepening understandings. I often 'retreat', but not so much as going into a monestary and doing nothing... is this necessary?

I think my earlier example perhaps explains that Buddhist meditation is used to understand your own mind and effect positive changes within it. That would be the ordinary practitioner's experience of it.

But yes this is the ordinary practitioner's experience. There are Buddhists who see prophetic visions. How do they achieve this? If you are not willing to answer in public, please feel free to do what you deem appropriate.

NikolaiI

07-21-2010, 02:33 PM

This is meaningful to me too, and to most people, I hope. So you are saying that meditation + this = a condition of great peace and joy? Since I do not know what exactly a state of mind meditation is, I cannot say whether meditation should be in this formular. But I am sure doing what is healthy all the time can help us achieve the great condition, though not sure whether spending most of the time in the monestary is healthy. The body needs a variety of nutritions, and the mind also?

There is something special about meditation. There's a decent amount of scientific research about it. Here's a short article which talks about it a bit but doesn't go into particulars or details.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779

Paulclem

07-21-2010, 07:04 PM

First thanks Paulclem for these many responses.

I cannot be satisfied with this explanation of the idea of no self. But perhaps you did not intend to explain it in detail. I offered an explanation or rather a guess a while ago, reposted below, if you (or anyone) would like to comment.

This is the bit I find a bit unclear, as usually when 'deeper mind' is talked about.

Hi Whathappened. As you have said there is much more to the idea of not-self, and it would take a teacher or some research to get a grip on.

Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance.

The Buddhist view of a person's self is that it is a misconception. If a person tries to picture their I - the self image they have of themselves - most strongly felt when embarrassed and self conscious - is said to be a mixture of image and feeling. If you think of a time when you were sorely embarrassed and self conscious - the self image appears more readily. Try it - there no particular trick to it. Then this self image - this amalgam of image and feeling - can be investigated. Where does this self reside. Buddhists say that it doesn't exist and can't be located, and yet we as people are very protective of our self/ self image. Ourselves - our I, is easily offended by the slightest thing. We look after ourselves more than we do other beings.

It is not saying you don't exist. It is saying that our perception of ourself as a substantial being is a misconception.

So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist.

No - the more you understand the mind, the more you see that you don't exist in the way you thought.

This is the bit I find a bit unclear, as usually when 'deeper mind' is talked about.

It's based upon the idea that there are different levels of mind - nothing so crude as Freud's model.

In order to change negative habits such as a preispostion to anger - it is no good just saying - I'm going to stop now. An angry person cant control their anger. What they need to do is connect in some way to less superficial level than our current thinking level of mind. If changing negative habits were as easy as talking and thinking about it for a bit, then therapy would be dead.

The buddhist view is that the modification of behaviour by oneself has to be changed at a deeper level. This is where placement meditation makes an impression upon the deeper mind. You place the feeling that I am going to stop being angry -( after having charged the feeling with real life examples) - at the heart - where it is said the mind resides - not the brain - and try to maintain that feeling to impress this affirmation.

When meditators ask about going deeper into meditation, they are connecting with a level of mind we don't see, or experience much because of what goes on "above" it - speech, chat, thoughts etc.

It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.

You're right - the ancient Greeks didn't convert to Buddhism, but they certainly knew the Buddhist ruler King Ashoka.

Happiness can be regained over and over again - true, and it does. But what happens when it stops as it surely will? The ultimate stop is death, but you know and I know that the various pleasures we have may well stop. The problem arises when expectations are thwarted. People react badly - they suffer. Things change at work and a colleague moves away. You suffer their absence. Your partner decides to move on - but that's not what you want. You suffer. The myriad circumstances of humans involve a constantly moving cycle of happiness gained, maintained and thwarted. The point is that there can be no lasting happiness from any of this. It merely ends in disappointment. Even the Gods who enjoy eons of bliss are subjected to death and rebirth in an unfortuate realm. The realisation of this causes great suffering it is said. If you translate Gods into very fortunate people like rock stars, some of them encounter loss and unhappiness well before their death.

Tabout.

The problem is I think we do not see what this 'other choice' is. People are mad about all sorts of pleasures and joys, and when you tell them that there is the greatest pleasure and joy in breathing in the breeze and feeling peaceful and quiet, you become madman even in their eyes. Or, are they missing something? Is there something else that Buddhists get pleasure from? You mentioned teaching. But this is not unique to Buddhism. Many people enjoy teaching.

If I wanted to deepen my understandings I would consider join a class for discussion, and not going on a retreat. Sure we need retreat to clear our head, but this can go side by side with joining discussions, together for the purpose of deepening understandings. I often 'retreat', but not so much as going into a monestary and doing nothing... is this necessary?

Is there something else that Buddhists get pleasure from? You mentioned teaching.

It's the realisation that the world is going to disappoint you in a big way. All worldly activity leads to suffering. Family is held in the highest regard in Buddhism, but this institution causes many people acute suffering.

That's not to say that Buddhists are gloomy, or think others should be like that. I think there is a joy in realising what our problems are. The Buddha laid out our huma problem in the 4 Noble Truths. Once you know what is the cause of suffering - then you can do something about it. There is a meditative achievement called Renunciation. Renunciation doesn't say give up the family, car, kids, and go and meditate. it says promote happiness, do the right thing etc, but don't be involved and fooled by appearances. Be aware that worldly pursuits end in tears.

If I wanted to deepen my understandings I would consider join a class for discussion, and not going on a retreat. Sure we need retreat to clear our head, but this can go side by side with joining discussions, together for the purpose of deepening understandings. I often 'retreat', but not so much as going into a monestary and doing nothing... is this necessary?

Retreat as I have used it is a specific practice of withdrawal from ordinary life in order to study and meditate in solitude. it is not necessary, and not for most people. I, for example, am a householder with a family. My Buddhism is partly expressed through the commitment I have to support my family.

A common misconception of Westerners is that there is an expectation in Buddhism that you leave society and enter a monastery. Not so. Anyone can be a lay practitioner.

The Buddhist prayer for refuge, which is repeated three times by Buddhists says:

I go for refuge to The Buddha
I go for refuge to the Dharma
I go for refuge to the Sangha.

The Buddha is the teacher, the Dharma is the teachings and the Sangha are your teachers and spiritual friends. These may or may not be monks and nuns. The role of supportive, spiritual friends is very important.

Can I just say - particularly on the not self explanatons, that if you are unsure or confused, then it is my explanation. Before you accept or reject any idea, be sure to keep it on ice and verify it with a book or teacher in a class. I try to be clear, but I may not be, and I wouldn't like to mislead anyone. :biggrin5:

whathappened

07-23-2010, 01:22 PM

NikolaiI, currently I am understanding meditation as Paulclem describes, in which case I can see why it would bring so much health benefit. Happy heart, healthy body, unmistakable. My question now is, to maintain the most and most lasting happy heart possible, should one go live in a monestary or outiside? The question is for me related to the body-nutrition question I asked earlier.

Hi Paulclem, your posts are quite clear and pleasant to read.

Where does this self reside. Buddhists say that it doesn't exist and can't be located, and yet we as people are very protective of our self/ self image.

We are talking about a self image, we also say it does not exist? If no contradiction, we must mean it does not exist as having an actual person whose state is described by it. If so then the question is of course the why, or rather the which (self image)?

This is where placement meditation makes an impression upon the deeper mind. You place the feeling that I am going to stop being angry -( after having charged the feeling with real life examples) - at the heart - where it is said the mind resides - not the brain - and try to maintain that feeling to impress this affirmation.

If we cannot easily get rid of the self image (the mind), we can at least do something about the feeing (the heart)? Once we put the feelings right (the deep), the self image would go (the surface)? Or am I going astray? This stuff begs an illustration.

btw I am sure placement meditation is not the full sleeve, otherwise Buddhism would seem to compare poorly here with the Aegis (Iliad I).

The myriad circumstances of humans involve a constantly moving cycle of happiness gained, maintained and thwarted. The point is that there can be no lasting happiness from any of this. It merely ends in disappointment.

Yep the cycle ends when we die, but the end is a franction of our life no matter how disappointing it may be. While the cycle is up and running, disappointments are made up by happiness gained and regained. No pain, no gain, fair enough. What is blissful and powerful about maintaining a state of no gain no pain? Why see avoiding pain, and not gainning, as end? Besides, since pain is created through expectation, will not Buddhists try to control expectation to effectively reduce pain? Who control themselves better than Buddhists?

A common misconception of Westerners is that there is an expectation in Buddhism that you leave society and enter a monastery.

If the Buddha saw avoiding pain as end he would not (and did not) have family etc, because he seems to believe that the happiness from faimily etc would create pain (through expectation as you suggest).

I am now under the impression that both of us disagree with the Buddha here.

Paulclem

07-23-2010, 07:50 PM

We are talking about a self image, we also say it does not exist? If no contradiction, we must mean it does not exist as having an actual person whose state is described by it. If so then the question is of course the why, or rather the which (self image)?

If we cannot easily get rid of the self image (the mind), we can at least do something about the feeing (the heart)? Once we put the feelings right (the deep), the self image would go (the surface)? Or am I going astray? This stuff begs an illustration.

.

It goes much deeper than self image, and perhaps i'm responsible for giving that impression. The I is the result of our awareness/ consciousness of self and is built by the senses - aggregates - of touch taste smell hearing sight and consciousess. The Buddha's teaching says that these are transitory factors with no permanence. The elaborate mesh of our interactions, experience, contact with people, labelling by others and self labelling etc contribute to an idea of self - I'm a father, brother, mother etc

The teachings say that we label ourself with an I, but that this is a construct which can't be found.

The I is also said to be different from the mind. The teachings say that the mind percieves - and does so through the senses, but it is not a part of the body/ brain or the I. It is said to reside at the heart, and if you check, that is where you feel when things happen and they result in sadness, fear, happiness etc. A bit like the feeling encompassed in the phrase "His heart dropped."

It's a complex subject Whathappened, and I hope I'm makng sense. If not, then you may be better reading around.

btw I am sure placement meditation is not the full sleeve, otherwise Buddhism would seem to compare poorly here with the Aegis (Iliad I).

NO, there are different types of meditation.The Zen approach is different and sometimes uses an unsolvable puzzle - a Koan - to approach ultimate reality.

Tibetan Buddhism uses visualisation exercises too, and Tantra or Vajrayana seeks to harness the various energies in the body for a spiritual purpose. (Many people have heard of Tantra through Tantric sex references, which are different to Buddhist practice).

Tantra can also involve generating yourself as a Buddha - say Avolokiteshvara, the Buddha of compassion - which is a bit like rehearsing for a part in anticipation of attaining the state.

I'm sorry. but I don't get the Iliad reference. (I haven't read it yet - I am currently reading The Odyssey though).

Yep the cycle ends when we die, but the end is a franction of our life no matter how disappointing it may be. While the cycle is up and running, disappointments are made up by happiness gained and regained. No pain, no gain, fair enough. What is blissful and powerful about maintaining a state of no gain no pain? Why see avoiding pain, and not gainning, as end? Besides, since pain is created through expectation, will not Buddhists try to control expectation to effectively reduce pain? Who control themselves better than Buddhists?

If the Buddha saw avoiding pain as end he would not (and did not) have family etc, because he seems to believe that the happiness from faimily etc would create pain (through expectation as you suggest).

I am now under the impression that both of us disagree with the Buddha here.

It's not really about pain in the way I'm assuming you mean it. Pain is a feature of human life, and is actually one of the fortunate aspects of human life in that it is not so intense - usually -that nothing else can be focused on, but it is poignant enough to spur a person to seek spirituality.

So what you say - no pain,no gain - is right. This state refers to the Gods, who are so distracted by pleasure that it is said they fritter away their fortunate existence until they die. If we regard the various samsaric profiles such as Gods or Hell beings - as psychological profiles, this works too. The Gods - relatively - are all the rich, fortunate, famous people who seem to have everything. How many of the Hollywood crowd have been a Paul Newman - charitable, modest, faithful to his wife etc etc. Very few - they are too distracted, and in the Buddhist view are actually less fortunate than someone who tastes suffering and is motivated by it.

Buddhism is about self control though. The foundation of Buddhism is the realisation that we cause our own suffering through Karma. The basic approach is to stop doing evil things, (which cause our suffering), then to start doing good things, (which builds our good Karma), and then to purify the mind - (meditate, change, become more compassionate etc etc).

he seems to believe that the happiness from faimily etc would create pain (through expectation as you suggest).

This has been the charge of some other religions about Buddhism - the fact that at 29 Siddhartha left his wife and child to pursue a spiritual path. The claim is that it was selfish, and as he is an ideal, that this path would encourage such actions.

What has to be understood is that his Enightenment was the result of many lives spent accumulating good Karma and realising the path. He was born with a potential that most people are not. He had a higher mission in the sense that he was rediscovering the path that would set beings free from suffering. Also both his wife and son joined the community of Monks and Nuns later.

That is not to say that this is encouraged. My friend, before he became a Monk, had to seek the permission of his Father before he could become one. My friend was in his late forties then, his father in his seventies. Some become the Monks and Nuns whilst most others remain lay practitioners.

It is true that all of Samsara causes pain, and that includes families. You don't have to look too far to find examples of this, as well as good examples. It is also true that my wife and I will have to part in the future no matter how sccessful and happy our relationship has been - and is. This is the feature of Samsara. It doesn't suggest not engaging in life, but developing the wisdom to deal with life and helping others to do so

whathappened

07-26-2010, 07:05 AM

Thanks for elaborate response Paulclem. Beg your pardon for my delay.

The I is the result of our awareness/ consciousness of self and is built by the senses - aggregates - of touch taste smell hearing sight and consciousess. The Buddha's teaching says that these are transitory factors with no permanence. The elaborate mesh of our interactions, experience, contact with people, labelling by others and self labelling etc contribute to an idea of self - I'm a father, brother, mother etc

Is he saying 'I am presently a father but not forever so there is no such thing as I AM a father and hence no such thing as I (because I has no AM-predicates)'? In what way would this saying matter?

It is said to reside at the heart, and if you check, that is where you feel when things happen and they result in sadness, fear, happiness etc. A bit like the feeling encompassed in the phrase "His heart dropped."

Ideas seem to be in the mind (soul) whereas feelings in the guts (including heart)and all over the body when intense.

It's a complex subject Whathappened, and I hope I'm makng sense. If not, then you may be better reading around.

Subtle subject, just from reading Diamond Sutra, koans full like Daodejing. I am glad that readinng you is like reading the sutra. This way I hope to make sense of which I cannot on my own.

Tibetan Buddhism uses visualisation exercises too, and Tantra or Vajrayana seeks to harness the various energies in the body for a spiritual purpose. (Many people have heard of Tantra through Tantric sex references, which are different to Buddhist practice).

Thanks for the information. Sounds full of treasures.

I'm sorry. but I don't get the Iliad reference. (I haven't read it yet - I am currently reading The Odyssey though).

Here the bit where Athena bearing Aegis (Zeus' shield with Medusa's head) speaks to he who is about to cut down another.

'I came down from heaven to curb your passion,
if you obey. White-armed Hera sent me.
She loves you both alike, cares equally.
Give up this quarrel. Don’t draw your sword.
Fight him with words, so he becomes disgraced.
For I say to you, and this will happen,
because of Agamemnon’s arrogance
some day gifts three times greater than this girl
will be set down before you. Control yourself.
Obey.'

btw would love to hear your view on Odyssey. What is it about the Greek myth that might appeal to the Buddhist?

What has to be understood is that his Enightenment was the result of many lives spent accumulating good Karma and realising the path. He was born with a potential that most people are not. He had a higher mission in the sense that he was rediscovering the path that would set beings free from suffering. Also both his wife and son joined the community of Monks and Nuns later.

Then I guess he did what he did because he sought greater happiness. And this would mean that greater happiness is to be gained the way he lived, namely, JUST teaching others.

For the first time I think I see how this way of living might relate to his view on the self (still in my own understanding) and the fact that he has accumulated good karma (doubting though on 'previous lives'). This JUSTteaching-Goodkarma-Noself relation as I see it does suggest a sensible way of living. A very reasonable way it seems. What do you think on this relation, PC?

It is true that all of Samsara causes pain, and that includes families. You don't have to look too far to find examples of this, as well as good examples. It is also true that my wife and I will have to part in the future no matter how sccessful and happy our relationship has been - and is. This is the feature of Samsara. It doesn't suggest not engaging in life, but developing the wisdom to deal with life and helping others to do so

Much agreed. Does Shi Yanming ring a bell? Interesting monk. His documentary is on Youtube.

Paulclem

07-26-2010, 05:09 PM

Is he saying 'I am presently a father but not forever so there is no such thing as I AM a father and hence no such thing as I (because I has no AM-predicates)'? In what way would this saying matter?

.

Thanks for your comments Whathappened. If you want to ask, then I'll answer as best I can. It is my pleasure. I hope I don't go on too much.

That's part of it to be sure. We live our lives with the assumption that we are, and always will be, human, male, female etc. This is by no means certain in the future, and is untrue of the past. In my present deluded state, I buy into being a male and I can't imagine being a female. I'm a typical male - or so my wife says. Buddhism says though that we have had countless lives over many eons, and so - as I read the other day, the statistical likelihood is that the people around us - friends, enemies, strangers have all been close to us, and our enemies, our mothers, fathers etc etc. In fact a Tibetan Buddhist practice relies upon this idea in developing compassion for all beings on the logic that all beings have at some time been our mother. The thinking is - "would you harm your mother? No? Well don't harm anything because it will have been your Mother".

It also goes deeper, and is related to the idea of Emptiness. We think of an I but it is only a collection of impressions - albeit a difficult one to dispel. It sounds scary, dispelling your I - your you - and needs to be taught by a skilled teacher, but it is said that it is liberating, and part way on the path.

Ideas seem to be in the mind (soul) whereas feelings in the guts (including heart)and all over the body when intense.

I think you're right. That feeling of despair, or fear for a child is there in the heart - and as you say can be felt through the body. Whilst this is going on my mouth can be saying any old nonsense.

My friend is a second dan in Aikido - a very unusual person - as he teaches Tai Chi and receives one to one Buddhist teaching from a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. He also looks after his father and so can't work at this time, so he does have a bit of time on his hands to pursue these interests. He talks about energy in the body, and his Buddhist practice has demonstrated to him that meditation changes the body. I don't completely understand the chakras, and energy centres, so I can only report what he says, but he tells me that a meditation trying to develop compassion in oneself activates the heart chakra, and produces a physical effect. The little experience I have does confirm some kind of physical effect - for me only a little in the short term.

Here the bit where Athena bearing Aegis (Zeus' shield with Medusa's head) speaks to he who is about to cut down another.

'I came down from heaven to curb your passion,
if you obey. White-armed Hera sent me.
She loves you both alike, cares equally.
Give up this quarrel. Don’t draw your sword.
Fight him with words, so he becomes disgraced.
For I say to you, and this will happen,
because of Agamemnon’s arrogance
some day gifts three times greater than this girl
will be set down before you. Control yourself.
Obey.'

btw would love to hear your view on Odyssey. What is it about the Greek myth that might appeal to the Buddhist?

.

I've read the Odyssey because of it's place in literature nd it's a thumping good story, and I'm beginning it again because I want to read James Joyce's Ulysses. my friend read it and recommended reading them in parallel as the one informs the other. I think I'm a literature geek.

I like your quote - it seems to have a resonance. I also like your avatar - which I've only just looked at. I wonder what sign you'll find.

I'll definately look up Shi Yanming. thanks for that. :smile5:

whathappened

07-26-2010, 09:11 PM

If you want to ask, then I'll answer as best I can. It is my pleasure.

True asking involves an apparant difficulty. I am glad you can bear it. True answering indeed has the pleasure made just to bear it.

It also goes deeper, and is related to the idea of Emptiness.

This part I do not understand, except in the way I tried before, that the I is a confusion (not just a fusion of sensual aggregates), an illusion seen as the cause of things we cause.

My friend is a second dan in Aikido - a very unusual person - as he teaches Tai Chi and receives one to one Buddhist teaching from a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. He also looks after his father and so can't work at this time, so he does have a bit of time on his hands to pursue these interests. He talks about energy in the body, and his Buddhist practice has demonstrated to him that meditation changes the body. I don't completely understand the chakras, and energy centres, so I can only report what he says, but he tells me that a meditation trying to develop compassion in oneself activates the heart chakra, and produces a physical effect. The little experience I have does confirm some kind of physical effect - for me only a little in the short term.

I have no doubt. Mind and body affect each other. Western medicine seems a bit backward on this, however, is catching up thanks partly to Buddhism.

I've read the Odyssey

The Greek hero seems to have no problem killing things and people to get back his throne and woman.

I like your quote - it seems to have a resonance.

Despite of its 'place' in literature, Iliad indeed is an everyman's book. But the images vital to it, namely the gods and their inventories etc, seem exotic.

I wonder what sign you'll find.

Any sign explanatory and prophetic.

Your sign looks like you have some uncunny powers, man.

I'll definately look up Shi Yanming. thanks for that.

Look forward to your thought on him, PC.

btw, you probably forgot to reply a part of my post, reposted below, for which I really wanted your reply.

Then I guess the Buddha did what he did because he sought greater happiness. And this would mean that greater happiness is to be gained the way he lived, namely, JUST teaching others.

For the first time I think I see how this way of living might relate to his view on the self and the fact that he has accumulated good karma. This JUSTteaching-Goodkarma-Noself relation as I see it does suggest a sensible way of living. A very reasonable way it seems. What do you think on this relation, PC?

Paulclem

07-27-2010, 02:16 AM

Then I guess he did what he did because he sought greater happiness. And this would mean that greater happiness is to be gained the way he lived, namely, JUST teaching others.

For the first time I think I see how this way of living might relate to his view on the self (still in my own understanding) and the fact that he has accumulated good karma (doubting though on 'previous lives'). This JUSTteaching-Goodkarma-Noself relation as I see it does suggest a sensible way of living. A very reasonable way it seems. What do you think on this relation, PC?
.

I'm sorry. I did forget to answer this part.

When the Buddha became Enlightened, as I've recently read, he became something more than a human - perhaps superhuman in his knowledge and wisdom. He had rediscovered the path to Enlightenment - I think there were 26 previous Buddhas on earth.

The story goes that he wondered if the path was too difficult for humans to understand and so the God Brahma asked him to teach humans and pointed out that there were some beings who had "only a little dust" in their eyes.

He then began his teaching which lasted until his eighties - a good forty years, which no doubt accounts for the extensive nature of the texts and the coherency of the teachings.

It is also said that there are Buddhas who exist in the Dharmakaya - a realm from which they try to assist beings to attain Enlightenment. They cannot bestow Enlightenment, only help in it's development in beings, and so the most obvious help is to manifest as a teacher. Teaching can come in many forms.

Interestingly, there is no way an ordinary being like myself can know who might be a Buddha or not. I can only know that, alas, I am not Enlightened. So it could be the situation that you may be a Buddha, asking skillful questions in order that I might remember and reflect upon the teachings in a better way. I have absolutely no way of knowing. The teachings advise respect for everyone - and not just humans - just in case...:biggrin5:

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

This JUSTteaching-Goodkarma-Noself relation as I see it does suggest a sensible way of living.

I think it's a good relationship you point out. I've met a few people who have come at Buddhism from different angles - compassion, the scientific approach, meditation for relaxation and health, the curious, those who are attracted by the mystical side, the martial aspects embodied in Kung Fu, Aikido and energy practices like Chi Gong. If it works for you, then that's fine. I wouldn't worry about being unconvinced by reincarnation. The Buddha's advice was to test things out by trying the practice. A questioning mind is better. I knew a Buddhist Nun who wasn't convinced by reincarnation. She could see the value of the other practice though, and put the question aside for a time when it could be examined.

Paulclem

07-27-2010, 02:21 AM

This part I do not understand, except in the way I tried before, that the I is a confusion (not just a fusion of sensual aggregates), an illusion seen as the cause of things we cause.

It is part of the teaching on the ultimate nature of reality. In truth it can't be understood purely through the intellect, but requires experience through meditation - usually. I have only roughly sketched out the idea, and would be wary of trying to explain too much for fear of misleading. It does need teaching from someone qualified - ie, someone who has attained it.

Paulclem

07-27-2010, 02:27 AM

I have no doubt. Mind and body affect each other. Western medicine seems a bit backward on this, however, is catching up thanks partly to Buddhism.

The Greek hero seems to have no problem killing things and people to get back his throne and woman.

You're right. I think psychology has benefitted from Buddhist teachings too. The Western model is so limited, and Freud's view was so skewed as to be positively unhelpful.

I know what you mean about the random killing. Vicious too in the retribution he takes on - is a former servant? I supose it reflects the violence of the times.

whathappened

07-27-2010, 06:50 AM

Hi PC,

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

my question is what is your view on the tri-relation? Thanks to our discussion I see a view on this relation but it is a bit vague hence want your or anyone else's view.

The story goes that he wondered if the path was too difficult for humans to understand and so the God Brahma asked him to teach humans and pointed out that there were some beings who had "only a little dust" in their eyes.

That the Buddha saw himself as a superman teacher would cause many frowns, and is The problematic part in the way of life of just(only)-teaching. Socrates and Confucius thought living as just a teacher a poor way to learn whereas Shakyamuni and Christ presented themselves as having mythic powers. Shakyamuni alluded to Sanskrit beliefs predated him while Christ alluded to Greco-Judeo beliefs predated him. It seems that one who just teaches makes use of traditional beliefs involving myth powers. Could it be that if we take their words for granted we would have easier time becoming initiated but difficult time becoming understanding? It is understanding teachers Ultimately want us to have I hope.

I wouldn't worry about being unconvinced by reincarnation.

My rough guess is reincarnation is originally a Sanskrit myth to explain how it be possible that a person (who sees through the I illusion) acurately thinks and feels for another being.

I have only roughly sketched out the idea, and would be wary of trying to explain too much for fear of misleading. It does need teaching from someone qualified - ie, someone who has attained it.

If your pleasure to explain then have no fear for misleading me. Am not looking for teachers' views but views because as you say we cannot be sure who the enlightened are.

I think psychology has benefitted from Buddhist teachings too. The Western model is so limited, and Freud's view was so skewed as to be positively unhelpful.

Yep I think it is a shame that Psychology and Medicine are seperate traditionally.

I supose it reflects the violence of the times.

The story seems to be about being clever with killing and deceiving monsters and enemies for throne and woman, and the one who does this is presented as a hero. This seems to be the common reading. You said Odyssey is a good read but under what reading can a Buddhist appreciate it? The reading that Homer was trying to tell us not to be heroic? I think this might be true for Iliad but not Odyssey, otherwise it would be a bit like Dante showing hell Just to scare us.

Paulclem

07-27-2010, 07:19 AM

That the Buddha saw himself as a superman teacher would cause many frowns, and is The problematic part in the way of life of just(only)-teaching. Socrates and Confucius thought living as just a teacher a poor way to learn whereas Shakyamuni and Christ presented themselves as having mythic powers. Shakyamuni alluded to Sanskrit beliefs predated him while Christ alluded to Greco-Judeo beliefs predated him. It seems that one who just teaches makes use of traditional beliefs involving myth powers. Could it be that if we take their words for granted we would have easier time becoming initiated but difficult time becoming understanding? It is understanding teachers Ultimately want us to have I hope.

.

It would if he presented himself that way, but it is clear that he did not, but lived life a a monk. It's true that The Buddha was born into a Hindu environment, and his early life is taken up studying under various teachers. He ultimately transcended or rejected their teachings as not providing the answers he sought for. His path is very different - radically different from the accepted wisdom of the time which promoted eternalism in the form of a soul - Hindu, or annihilation - sceptics. (This debate rages even now on litne with the scientific people often locking horns with the religious). What the Buddha proposed was the Middle way - neither annihilation nor an eternal soul. Instead he taught that as one moment causes the next, so one life causes the next without the passing over of an eternal part from this life to the next one.

There are stories of The Buddha demonstrating miracle powers if the result was for a positive person. Demonstrating miracle powers is forbidden unless it is for a good reason. Miracle powers are by-products of meditational prowess, not bestowed, and not the point of the practice. In fact it can be a serious distraction that can lead a practitioner off the path. I used to think it funny that a Buddhist could easily believe Christ could perform miracles as an advanced spiritual practitioner, whereas some christians can not.

whathappened

07-27-2010, 12:24 PM

Hi PC what you say dispels not the suspicion that Shakyamuni might have told noble lies. It comes down to the ideas, to whether they seem sound. I present my views on the ideas in illustrated and succinct fashion. They are meant to be criticised.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

2. No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

Paulclem

07-27-2010, 06:02 PM

My rough guess is reincarnation is originally a Sanskrit myth to explain how it be possible that a person (who sees through the I illusion) acurately thinks and feels for another being.

The Hindu tradition of reincarnation predates the Buddha, and he was brought up in the belief system. It is a different belief system though in that, as reflected in caste, each person has theri station in life. If they do their duty well, then they will be reincarnated into a higher level. This is a very rigid system, still prevalent in India and causes no end of problems. It limits what little social mobility there is, and means that if you are born a rag picker, a rag picker you are likely to stay.

The Buddha's system of reincarnation is about personal karma and the motivation - good and bad for acts committed in life. Whereas the Hindu system has the belief in a soul - Atman - The Budha's does not. Of course o-one can prove the veracity of this teaching, but the Advanced practitioners report that this is so, and describe an intermediate state in Tibetan Buddhism called the Bardo, which is a bit like a dream world between lives. There are practices which can take the practitioner back through theri previous lives.

The story seems to be about being clever with killing and deceiving monsters and enemies for throne and woman, and the one who does this is presented as a hero. This seems to be the common reading. You said Odyssey is a good read but under what reading can a Buddhist appreciate it? The reading that Homer was trying to tell us not to be heroic? I think this might be true for Iliad but not Odyssey, otherwise it would be a bit like Dante showing hell Just to scare us.

The story follws the Heroic tradition of the ancient world where honour and the creed of the Hero are held above anything else - compassion, love etc. I agree it is vicious and Odysseus is not a nice hero - more of a bully boy. It is interesting as a historical account of the past, for what it says about life, but also the myth of the hero tradition. (I read it quite a few years ago).

The book I've just started - James Joyce's Ulysses has a link with this tradition through the context of WW1, which was happening at the time of writing. Although I can view things with Buddhist eyes, I am also interested in literature, and have bought The Odyssey again in order to inform me about Joyce's book. :smile5:

Hi PC what you say dispels not the suspicion that Shakyamuni might have told noble lies. It comes down to the ideas, to whether they seem sound. I present my views on the ideas in illustrated and succinct fashion. They are meant to be criticised.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

2. No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

In Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation is based upon meditative experience. The Buddha is said to have become aware of his former lives during meditation. I wouldn't say that was so for Hindis either. they too have a meditative tradition, and one of his teachers taught the method to attain one of the formless heavens - to be reborn there.

No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

This is simplistic, but somewhere towards the teachings. If you or I have a self - an existing self that is an integral part of our being, then where is it? Upon examination in meditation, Buddhists have not found an existing self. What they find is a fluctuating collection of sense aggregates with mental factors that give the impression of a self to the undiscerning mind.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

I understand your view - it is difficult to understand and really can't be appreciated without meditative investigation. I don't know why The Buddha would teach reincarnation if he didn't believe it. I assume your saying that he taught reincarnation because it was a sop to his followers, a bit like it is claimed heaven is a sop to christians. I think the complexity of the Buddha's view of reincarnation is at issue here. Reincarnation as taught is not the reincarnation of me or I, but a passage of energy which causes the birth of another being. A classical illustration is one candle flame lighting another and then the first being blown out, The second lit candle is not the first, but is caused by it. This idea of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea. What happens to me? Well what happens to me is what always happens to me - I dissipate because I do not exist in the way I see myself. What I think of as my I is merely a collection of elements labelled as I.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.

What a Buddha realises is that there is nothing to be gained by the pursuit of worldly concerns. Boring might be one word, but irrelevant might be the better one. A Buddha's aim is to help sentient beings. The best way to do this might be through teaching.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

Perhaps. Who teaches the Teacher? In fact one of the Buddha's titles is Perfect Teacher. I suppose at the top of your game it is natural to pass on wisdom.

By the way I'm a teacher, and I think it is a very good way to learn - teach. But then I'm not a perfect teacher. :smile5:

whathappened

07-28-2010, 12:44 AM

The Hindu tradition of reincarnation predates the Buddha, and he was brought up in the belief system. It is a different belief system though in that, as reflected in caste, each person has theri station in life. If they do their duty well, then they will be reincarnated into a higher level. This is a very rigid system, still prevalent in India and causes no end of problems. It limits what little social mobility there is, and means that if you are born a rag picker, a rag picker you are likely to stay.

The Buddha's system of reincarnation is about personal karma and the motivation - good and bad for acts committed in life. Whereas the Hindu system has the belief in a soul - Atman - The Budha's does not. Of course o-one can prove the veracity of this teaching, but the Advanced practitioners report that this is so, and describe an intermediate state in Tibetan Buddhism called the Bardo, which is a bit like a dream world between lives. There are practices which can take the practitioner back through theri previous lives.

Thanks for the info PC. Indeed nobody can prove the veracity of reincarnation but people believed in it. I guess this means they saw reasons. If you tell me, now an early Hindu, that I had been another person (dead or alive) before I was born, I might deem you right if I and the other person are alike. Maybe not on the outside but more on the inside. We recognise that people being alike is more about the inside.

There should be other reasons for early Hindus to believe in reincarnation. But the above seems straightforward. Compared with the reason 'his father was a rag picker and he is a rag picker so he must have been his father', it seems a stronger reason. Compared with the reason 'I daydreamed quite realistically that I am a legendary king so I was the king', it seems stronger still. Sure am using modern eyes to weigh the reasons, so what seems strong to me might seemed weak to early Hindus. But the above is my best guess given what you told me about early Hindu beliefs.

That Shakyamuni ignored the reasons around reincarnation while just saw the morals, is unlikely. But if there are only poor reasons for the idea, someone reasonable as him would not buy it. If there are only poor morals about the idea, someone moral as him would say anything to get people away from it, and here the 'middle' way would be an effective thing to say.

In Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation is based upon meditative experience.

Might well be but in modern eyes this experience gives no good reason for reincarnation. We dream at night and at day, what is the difference? Sure we get into nightdreams via sleeping whereas into daydreams via meditating or trance. But is this meditation a form of thinking or more of a form of sleeping? Hypnosis can bring people into a state where they invulantarily imagine themselves to be past people. The imagined people tend to belong to types and professions known to the people who are imagining. Dream analysis seem to explain a lot. In comparison reincarnation seems a weaker explanation. The thoughtful Shakyamun, might thought about these. If he did, it is probable that reincarnation in Buddhism is not based on meditation.

What they find is a fluctuating collection of sense aggregates with mental factors that give the impression of a self to the undiscerning mind.

Then there is a self, a fusion/aggregation of fluctuating senses about own mind and body. I agree and I come to suspect that in the Buddhist idea, the fusion takes on the con-prefix. The fusion as an entity is confused with our ideas and bodily goingons, which are the true cause of what we think and feel.

The second lit candle is not the first, but is caused by it. This idea of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea. What happens to me? Well what happens to me is what always happens to me - I dissipate because I do not exist in the way I see myself. What I think of as my I is merely a collection of elements labelled as I.

Am a bit excited to hear this because it seems to support my guesses. The true I, the true cause, is not the sensual aggregate but the web of ideas and body of goingons. The web and body can be common among people from different places, professions and times. If Ashoka seems a lot like me as a person, then by definition of the true I, Ashoka was I and vice-versa. This would make a lot of sense. But one can still suspect that Shakyamuni was being political on the afterlife side of the coin.

What a Buddha realises is that there is nothing to be gained by the pursuit of worldly concerns. Boring might be one word, but irrelevant might be the better one.

I think the issue is on whether the word is 'boring' or 'irrelevant'. I guess the Buddha used to be interested in wordly pursuits but then got bored of them, partly due to him being a prince, partly due to him saw the necessity of pains, last but not least due to him being able to imagine and feel all kinds of wordly pleasures simply by interacting with all walks of life, thanks to his no-self and good 'karma'. For him the interesting thing left is pursuit of knowledge, because 'wordly pursuits' covers just about everything besides knowledge, and all wise men tend to do this.

I suppose at the top of your game it is natural to pass on wisdom.

This I think is what the Buddha suggested and also that people equal to him are all dead. Socrates said he knew nothing. Confucius said that among every three men walking a teacher can be found for him.

The teaching thing in Buddhism and Christianity puts a lot of mindful ones off. This is one reason I think that noble lies conerning super powers etc should be silenced, they tend to have adverse effect for the noble ones who lie. Besides I do not know who 'the awakened one' is because I am not 'awakened', then how do I know Shakyamuni was?

By the way I'm a teacher, and I think it is a very good way to learn - teach.

I think for teaching to be a good way to learn it essentially becomes Sharing. But Shakyamuni strictly taught and his words are worshiped as sutras while his deeds are said to involve miracles. These make Buddhism quite Christian, political. For those who live to teach and teach to live, this is understandable.

I'm not a perfect teacher.

Do not beat yourself up for that, man, is there a perfect teacher one who knows the whole wide world? It seems there is not even one for whom nobody else can be a teacher. It would be a shame if Shakyamuni ceased to seek teachers after his rejection of popular ideas, because the great teachers tend to be unpopular.

Paulclem

07-31-2010, 04:15 AM

Thanks for the info PC. Indeed nobody can prove the veracity of reincarnation but people believed in it. I guess this means they saw reasons. If you tell me, now an early Hindu, that I had been another person (dead or alive) before I was born, I might deem you right if I and the other person are alike. Maybe not on the outside but more on the inside. We recognise that people being alike is more about the inside.

There should be other reasons for early Hindus to believe in reincarnation. But the above seems straightforward. Compared with the reason 'his father was a rag picker and he is a rag picker so he must have been his father', it seems a stronger reason. Compared with the reason 'I daydreamed quite realistically that I am a legendary king so I was the king', it seems stronger still. Sure am using modern eyes to weigh the reasons, so what seems strong to me might seemed weak to early Hindus. But the above is my best guess given what you told me about early Hindu beliefs.

That Shakyamuni ignored the reasons around reincarnation while just saw the morals, is unlikely. But if there are only poor reasons for the idea, someone reasonable as him would not buy it. If there are only poor morals about the idea, someone moral as him would say anything to get people away from it, and here the 'middle' way would be an effective thing to say.

Hi Whathappened - sorry for the delay in responding. It's been busy. I think proof of reincarnation can't be provided subjectively - though some have tried such as a Professor Stephenson who collected accounts of children who claimed they were in the wrong family etc. These can be questioned and criticised though.

Evidence can only come from subjective experience of reincarnation. I have my own reasons for believing in reincarnation which are no evidence for someone else.

Another reason is testing the path. If the teachings teach something, and it turns out to be true, then it is more likely that other parts of the teaching are true as well. This has to be taken with the proviso that the Buddha said that no-one should believe anything without testing it out for themselves.

As for the Hindu background - The Buddha's path is a radical departure from the basic tenets of Hinduism at that time. There was still animal sacrifice. There was the idea of a soul - refuted by The Buddha, and reincarnation was a stage by stage progression which underpinned the social caste system and still has effects today.

Might well be but in modern eyes this experience gives no good reason for reincarnation. We dream at night and at day, what is the difference? Sure we get into nightdreams via sleeping whereas into daydreams via meditating or trance. But is this meditation a form of thinking or more of a form of sleeping? Hypnosis can bring people into a state where they invulantarily imagine themselves to be past people. The imagined people tend to belong to types and professions known to the people who are imagining. Dream analysis seem to explain a lot. In comparison reincarnation seems a weaker explanation. The thoughtful Shakyamun, might thought about these. If he did, it is probable that reincarnation in Buddhism is not based on meditation.
.

There is a great difference in dreaming, thinking, daydreaming and meditation. The meditation that involves discovering one's past lives is a long process. What you do is to recap your life, gradually moving backwards with your mind over moments of mind towards childhood and then beyond. I think it is a difficult practice, and I think HH The Dalai Lama said it might be better to develop something like compassion if you are going to devote a long period of meditation to it.

The daydreaming of past lives, involunatary thinking etc is such an unstable event - it is difficult to know whether this is not just fantasy. The hypnotic regression might also be fantasy. One of the interesting things about these regressions is that they don't refer to the mundane lives we will all have led - cowherds, labourers etc. Nor do they come up with non-human existences, which according to teachings, we definately have. In fact it is taught that a human life is very rare.

I can't really comment on dream analysis. If it is freudian or western - then I don't have much regard for it. Other cultures? I don't know about. Interestingly -there are dream practices in Buddhism, where you use the opportunity of sleep to meditate on whatever you are studying. This might be - though I haven't engaged in it - related to lucid dreaming.

I suppose you could say that the Teachings are fantasy too, but the difference is that they have been written and tested by people with great meditational experience, and the teachings on reincarnation are definately based upon this.

Then there is a self, a fusion/aggregation of fluctuating senses about own mind and body. I agree and I come to suspect that in the Buddhist idea, the fusion takes on the con-prefix. The fusion as an entity is confused with our ideas and bodily goingons, which are the true cause of what we think and feel.
.

Yes in the sense that it is a collection of labelled parts, this is true. What is meant is that there is no substantial, or surviving self that goes from life to life. We certainly percieve a self, but we don't look closely. We assume we have an I. It has always been there - we think, and we invest a lot of ourselves in it. I'm this, I'm that. I'm an angry person. We often neglect the fact that we can change. What we think and feel often reflects our defense of the self or I. Deep down we have a pervasive self interest at heart, and it is difficult to actually do a pure, unadulterated good act in the everyday. This defense of the self or I is why people ofte act irrationally as they feel threated over quite minor things. The perception of my I is the root cause of all our suffering it is said.

Am a bit excited to hear this because it seems to support my guesses. The true I, the true cause, is not the sensual aggregate but the web of ideas and body of goingons. The web and body can be common among people from different places, professions and times. If Ashoka seems a lot like me as a person, then by definition of the true I, Ashoka was I and vice-versa. This would make a lot of sense. But one can still suspect that Shakyamuni was being political on the afterlife side of the coin.

.

It is said that it is a combination of both - the sense aggregates and circumstances. I'm not sure if bodygoingson refers to the sense aggregates touch taste sight hearing and mental factors.

The Buddha's life story is a rejection of worldly power and thus politics by implication. He did negotiate a peace in a dispute between two kingdoms though.

I think the issue is on whether the word is 'boring' or 'irrelevant'. I guess the Buddha used to be interested in wordly pursuits but then got bored of them, partly due to him being a prince, partly due to him saw the necessity of pains, last but not least due to him being able to imagine and feel all kinds of wordly pleasures simply by interacting with all walks of life, thanks to his no-self and good 'karma'. For him the interesting thing left is pursuit of knowledge, because 'wordly pursuits' covers just about everything besides knowledge, and all wise men tend to do this.

.

The Buddha's life story is one that has the weight of his karma behind him. he was born into priviledge with every pleasure he wanted. The expectations on the Prince were that he would become the King, and of course his marriage was expected. The story comes to the point where he encounters an old man, a sick man, a corpse and the a Holy man. The impetus is forhim to fulfil his karmic ambition - which is carried over from life to life. In terms of myself - if I can make thatarmic ambition through meditation, reflection, and putting into practice the teachings - then my karmic impetus will be to be reborn somewhere I can become a Buddhist practitioner again. If not - and my karmic impetus is some thing else - then who knows what will happen. (I use I on the understanding that it refers to my spiritual heir - not my present I).

Do not beat yourself up for that, man, is there a perfect teacher one who knows the whole wide world? It seems there is not even one for whom nobody else can be a teacher. It would be a shame if Shakyamuni ceased to seek teachers after his rejection of popular ideas, because the great teachers tend to be unpopular.

Don't worry - I have plenty of people who will do that for me. :smile5:

The Buddha took a number of teachers in his quest for Enlightenment, but found that they could only teach him so far and he had to move on. He finally had to rely upon his own spiritual journey as there was no teacher that could take him further.

whathappened

08-03-2010, 06:33 AM

What you do is to recap your life, gradually moving backwards with your mind over moments of mind towards childhood and then beyond. I think it is a difficult practice, and I think HH The Dalai Lama said it might be better to develop something like compassion if you are going to devote a long period of meditation to it.

I can move back to when I was in the craddle but that is it. Seems strange that compassion is related here. I wonder what is the relation.

We often neglect the fact that we can change.

Ye but not as often as we do not know how to change. I know am a teacher and not forever so, but I do not know how to change it. I feel angry as my faith is questioned and I know I will not feel so forever, but I do not know how to kill it. No-self does not seem to help much unless it says more. As you said a thing about Buddhism is it empowers us by teaching us causes. So I thought no-self does not concern only the fusion but also the confusion.

He did negotiate a peace in a dispute between two kingdoms though.

And he negotiated peace among all beings, it is said, he also asked for food each time before he taught.

The Buddha's life story is one that has the weight of his karma behind him.

My guess is 'the Buddha's life story is one that has the weigh of his imaginations about a hundred different types of beings (dead or live to to come) behind him'. He was so no-self that he got the compassion to make these imaginations sensually so real as if he lived the hundred lives himself.

He finally had to rely upon his own spiritual journey as there was no teacher that could take him further.

There was theories disagreeing with his. Unless the theorists held that theirs were the truth, due to politics or faith or whatever, discussion with them should be beneficial. But I guess the problem you suggest is that he experienced something via meditation that nobody else experienced. If I had not been eating or doing anything much except minding hard about past lives for a long time, and now suddenly experienced visions on past lives, I would not be surprised or excited. I might not buy Freud's stuff but I would think that whatever I was seeing probably was not a truth.

Paulclem

08-03-2010, 07:18 AM

I can move back to when I was in the craddle but that is it. Seems strange that compassion is related here. I wonder what is the relation.
.

Yes. I think it involves a particular technique to move beyond the present life, but also some experience of meditation.

Ye but not as often as we do not know how to change. I know am a teacher and not forever so, but I do not know how to change it. I feel angry as my faith is questioned and I know I will not feel so forever, but I do not know how to kill it. No-self does not seem to help much unless it says more. As you said a thing about Buddhism is it empowers us by teaching us causes. So I thought no-self does not concern only the fusion but also the confusion.
.

The idea of no-self is within a mesh of an interlinked worldview. It's very difficult to explain the many facets at once, and so it seems as though ideas like no-self and reincarnation are isolated ideas. This is incorrect. The "how" of reincarnation and no-self are linked by the idea of Dependant Arising - 12 factors that come into play through birth ageing sickness death and rebirth. As I said, these are not beliefs, but are based upon the meditational experience of Buddhist Masters. The Buddhist path is an instruction booklet for anyone - whatever their beliefs- to practice.

And he negotiated peace among all beings, it is said, he also asked for food each time before he taught.
.

The rules are that there is no charge for the dharma. Traditionally, monks would go on an alms round, not asking for food, but receiving it from the population. eople would give what they could and the Monks would receive what was given. What you might be referring to are offerings made to the Buddha.

My guess is 'the Buddha's life story is one that has the weigh of his imaginations about a hundred different types of beings (dead or live to to come) behind him'. He was so no-self that he got the compassion to make these imaginations sensually so real as if he lived the hundred lives himself.

There was theories disagreeing with his. Unless the theorists held that theirs were the truth, due to politics or faith or whatever, discussion with them should be beneficial. But I guess the problem you suggest is that he experienced something via meditation that nobody else experienced. If I had not been eating or doing anything much except minding hard about past lives for a long time, and now suddenly experienced visions on past lives, I would not be surprised or excited. I might not buy Freud's stuff but I would think that whatever I was seeing probably was not a truth.

There's no guessing about it. Not only The Buddha, but other Masters teach reincarnation on the basis of their experience. It is not about imagination in the way that you describe.

Meditation is focused, with a purpose and now has clear instructions preferably with the guidance of a teacher. The visions he had of past lives arose as a kind of by-product of his meditational experience. he was after all trying to find the path that would lead beings from suffering in the round of lives called Samsara.

What's your spiritual background - if you don't mind me asking?

whathappened

08-03-2010, 09:50 AM

a particular technique to move beyond the present life

Man you would leave us hanging at this point?

It's very difficult to explain the many facets at once

Expected no such explanation but that you address my idea and its supporting reasons. This is a forum where people Discuss, no?

no charge for the dharma.

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

There's no guessing about it.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

It is not about imagination in the way that you describe.

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

Paulclem

08-04-2010, 04:23 PM

Man you would leave us hanging at this point?

Expected no such explanation but that you address my idea and its supporting reasons. This is a forum where people Discuss, no?

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

I know of the meditation of previous lives, but don't know the details -sorry. I stated an assumption about the method, and perhaps i was wrong to say it that way. The only thing I can say for certain is that it takes a long time, and is not necessarily worth the effort when you could be doing a more constructive practice - here I am paraphrasing HH The Dalai Lama.

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

There's more of a tradition of offerings from people with that background. i think we're saying the same thing.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

Yes I'd go with that. It was the word guess, which I took to mean speculate in a looser way than interpret. In fact The Buddha's advice is to be self reliant and question the teachings, and so your approach is correct. I think it's a sensible approach for any kind of study.

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

Yes - as I said above, it's important to make your own sense and then be open to suggestions/ teachings.
No-self anf reincarnation are linked technically in the sense that the dissolution of the self allows reincarnation into another being. It's presented as a process rediscovered. The Buddha's life as a teacher is a virtuous profession, but he had to choose this way, and was asked to do so. This is a reqirement in Buddhism that you request teachings from a teacher before they can teach you. There's no proselytizing.

I don't think I'm contributing to your thoughts on no-self, reincarnation and teaching. I think I need to ponder it some more. Certainly the difficulty of the idea of no-self is radically different and difficult to realise without meditational experience. :) I'll think some more, but I may be at the edge of my knowledge of it.

whathappened

08-05-2010, 03:39 AM

The only thing I can say for certain is that it takes a long time.

Man how can I be sure how long it takes if what I know about the the path is very limited. 'Am sure it takes a decade to get to Atlantis but not sure how to get there'?

is not necessarily worth the effort when you could be doing a more constructive practice

I agree that taking care of feelings can be the extra element needed to make things proceed. But if you find you have to make a habit of it then would not it be time to switch group?

It was the word guess, which I took to mean speculate in a looser way than interpret.

Then you probably find my ideas loose, which is ok as they are not apparantly supported by the texts. But the texts are very old and seem odd. I do not consider odd interpretations most likely candidates. Is not this the best I can do? 'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them.

Paulclem

08-15-2010, 02:54 PM

I agree that taking care of feelings can be the extra element needed to make things proceed. But if you find you have to make a habit of it then would not it be time to switch group?

.

The standard Buddhist practices don't usually include this meditation on going back over lives. They tend to focus upon concentration, developing compassion, and eradicating negative traits such as anger by employing antidotes - in this case patience.

Summed up, the Buddhist path involves stopping evil actions, cultivating virtuous actions and purifying the mind.

Paulclem

08-15-2010, 03:13 PM

Then you probably find my ideas loose, which is ok as they are not apparantly supported by the texts. But the texts are very old and seem odd. I do not consider odd interpretations most likely candidates. Is not this the best I can do? 'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them.

But the texts are very old and seem odd.

Yes. You are better off reading a modern commentary. The older texts are written in a way that reflects the oral transmission.

'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Speaking for myself, it is a work in progress. I discover things all the time, and after twenty years of reading and discussing it, am seeing different angles all the time.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them

The self is made up of aggregates:

touch, taste, feeling, hearing, smell and mental factors.

The sensory input from the senses gives us an idea of an I, a self. Our culture, family, self esteem, daily interactions, history, relatonships tc etc gives a sense of history and continuity. All beings, except those with wisdom, have this sense of an I. They have had this sense in all their previous lives.

It's funny that as humans we often construct a sense of biological continuity with family trees or family history and tradition. According to Buddhist thought, this iological continuity is just that - a passing on of genes, but not personality etc, as beings are reincarnated according to Karma.

I haven't posted for a while on here. Apologies.

whathappened

08-24-2010, 11:59 PM

Our culture, family, self esteem, daily interactions, history, relatonships tc etc gives a sense of history and continuity. All beings, except those with wisdom, have this sense of an I. They have had this sense in all their previous lives.

Do 'those with wisdom' look back?

It's funny that as humans we often construct a sense of biological continuity with family trees or family history and tradition.

Then it might be funny too that we often are suckers of a sense of idealogical continuity with religion trees or school history and tradition.

According to Buddhist thought, this iological continuity is just that - a passing on of genes, but not personality etc, as beings are reincarnated according to Karma.

Not sure whether genes carry personalities. But surely sociological factors are largely responsible for the inheritance of personalities. Could karma be something of an aggregate of sociological factors?

Paulclem

08-25-2010, 05:09 AM

Do 'those with wisdom' look back?

After attaining a certain spiritual level, practitioners become aware of their previous lives. This arises from their practice. I read once that a Realised Buddhist Teacher is then able to draw on relevant experiences to illustrate the path. So perhaps they do.

Then it might be funny too that we often are suckers of a sense of idealogical continuity with religion trees or school history and tradition.

You have to judge for yourself as to whether you will be suckered by a religion or not. In Buddhism, the view is that having a tradition of teacher to teacher transmission of the path preserves them and adds authority.

My point was that we give a lot of credence to family history and family tradition etc, on the basis of continuity of a bloodline or genes, but these have little meaning - from the Buddhist perspective - except as a list of antecedents which often excludes rather than includes. The Buddhist view - particularly the Mahayana - is to stress the interrelatedness of all beings.

Not sure whether genes carry personalities. But surely sociological factors are largely responsible for the inheritance of personalities. Could karma be something of an aggregate of sociological factors?

I don't know, but lots of things are claimed by scientists.

Nature or nurture? I think nurture has a large influence on the development of personality. Karma certainly directs rebirth into an appropriate environment - so I suppose so. That's not the end of the story though, as we have choice, and can perform positive or negative actions according to our view at the time.

whathappened

08-25-2010, 12:40 PM

I read once that a Realised Buddhist Teacher is then able to draw on relevant experiences to illustrate the path.

Since the past of This life can also be illuminating, it is important to see the usual continuities. Do buddhists believe that this is less important than seeing continuities between lifetimes? For the study of history the two efforts are continuous.

My point was that we give a lot of credence to family history and family tradition etc, on the basis of continuity of a bloodline or genes, but these have little meaning - from the Buddhist perspective - except as a list of antecedents which often excludes rather than includes.

You can tell the lonely old folk at the library looking for his family tree 'hey gran you got to get out there embracing the streets and try to feel at home with everybody' if and only if you open Your arms for one. Otherwise just leave the good man be, I say, he will be fine.

Karma certainly directs rebirth into an appropriate environment

Thanks for this point. Something in common between karma and the sociology. Got a good discovery.

NikolaiI

08-25-2010, 01:12 PM

The truth is, there is no karma, and no rebirth. They are part of the illusion that is samsara.

Paulclem

08-25-2010, 01:51 PM

Since the past of This life can also be illuminating, it is important to see the usual continuities. Do buddhists believe that this is less important than seeing continuities between lifetimes? For the study of history the two efforts are continuous.

No - you have to deal with the here and now, and it is this that provides the material for your own progress alng the path. In a sense, past lives don't matter too much as a practitioner - unless they are highly realised - won't be able to perceive them. Where you are going to end up is more important. By laying positive seeds, then a practitioner can attain a fortunate rebirth with which to continue. The attitude of the teachings is that people are subject to delusions and so need to deal with them now - as a sick person needs medical treatment.

You can tell the lonely old folk at the library looking for his family tree 'hey gran you got to get out there embracing the streets and try to feel at home with everybody' if and only if you open Your arms for one. Otherwise just leave the good man be, I say, he will be fine.
.

:smile5:

The truth is, there is no karma, and no rebirth. They are part of the illusion that is samsara.

This isn't the starting point in Buddhism though Nik. There's a lot of teachimg and study involved in your statement.

NikolaiI

08-25-2010, 02:01 PM

True. There's a lot written by masters and teachers and other monks and nuns about the difference between the gradual path and immediate realization. Studying these help us to train and develop our understanding. But it doesn't hurt to hear some of the more esoteric truths all along the path. Otherwise we'll be resistant to them and have a harder time progressing. After all there is no fixed rate of progress.

Paulclem

08-25-2010, 02:09 PM

:smile5: I can see that - preparing the ground.

NikolaiI

08-25-2010, 02:22 PM

Right, like to graze the Avatamsaka sutra, the Heart Sutra, or others along with it. At least this has always been my approach. It's good to explore for oneself, and determine what calls to the heart as being most true and most beneficial - as well as going through all the steps of learning in the common way.

whathappened

08-26-2010, 01:37 AM

The attitude of the teachings is that people are subject to delusions and so need to deal with them now - as a sick person needs medical treatment.

'The past does not matter' would be an astonishing thing to say, as much as 'if part of something seems right then the whole is likely to be right' and of course 'we have previous lives'. Medical treatments come from examining symptoms as a study of history. If I recall right you said Buddhism emphasizes the knowledge of causes. Is not this knowledge that illumiates the path ahead?

It's good to explore for oneself

Yep, and now and then it comes to the point of sharing your discoveries with others, for great and otherwise necessary progress. I do not think it good to be in the habit of thinking alone.

There's a lot of teachimg and study involved in your statement.

So Nik is the master here. Then a sincere question for Nik, what is 'no self'? If you want to quote an answer you made in the past or someone else did, please do.

btw, please feel free to share your latest interpretation of 'no self, PC.

NikolaiI

08-26-2010, 02:25 AM

I will honestly answer you. No self means that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. Zen masters speak of oneness. I will explain the concept of oneness and no self.

Alan Watts wrote an article about his experience of the divine consciousness. My experience differed in several respects and was similar in many ways. One instance toward the height of my vision was parallel to Watts. The instance of this was so striking, that I had experienced, fully, the specific part of the experience which he described, and that his sentence in his article depicted it so perfectly, I knew there was no doubt that he had experienced the same, and that the instant and the experience was real.

What no self means is that the entire universe is empty, it is appearance, it is in change. What it means that it is empty means that you are, now, where you are, at the final place - the end, the ultimate goal, the final end. There is nowhere or nothing else than where you are now, and what you perceive now. It is only perception that keeps you from the truth. The ultimate ground of reality is nowhere farther than where you are at this moment.

Oneness means that you are one with the universe, with life. The meaning of no self is that you are connected to the ground of reality - all the 'things' in the universe are interconnected and interdependent. Nothing exists separate from other 'things.' The meaning of no self and oneness is this, that I experienced and am experiencing now - I will use Alan Watts' words: The elusive substance beneath all the forms of the universe is discovered as the immediate gesture of my hand.

I cannot prove this to you and proofs don't mean much anyway. I can only tell you this that I experienced this. Not self, interconnection/interdependence, and oneness are all related. Also related is the concept of Buddha-nature, and Original mind. Really this understanding is the highest consciousness I've known. When I saw this, I had progressed beyond duality, and Buddha-nature, and several hours of revelation in that state. Then I came to a point where I saw that the form of my white blanket was a Lotus Flower. In place of the folds of the blanket I saw the Lotus - the folds of the blanket became the Lotus. And I saw that the cells - the building blocks - of that Lotus were Buddhas, that the Lotus was made of innumerable Buddhas. And those Buddhas were made of innumerable Lotuses, in an infinitely repeating pattern. Then I realized that this was myself, and that the very cells of my body were of the same nature, of this Lotus, the source of reality, the ground of reality, and that they were made of millions of Buddhas. This is what I understand to be infinite pure lands, as described in the Avatamsaka sutra. And in that instant, when I saw that my cells were Buddha-lands, then I also felt what Alan Watts described. And I felt it exactly as he worded it and I cannot word it any better or more accurately. Nothing is left out in what he said. The elusive substance beneath all the forms of the universe is discovered as the immediate gesture of my hand.

And now, in normal consciousness, with meditation on the subject, I can feel that oneness, that peace, beyond all. I hope this has done some good. Take care.

Paulclem

08-26-2010, 04:06 AM

'The past does not matter' would be an astonishing thing to say, as much as 'if part of something seems right then the whole is likely to be right' and of course 'we have previous lives'. Medical treatments come from examining symptoms as a study of history. If I recall right you said Buddhism emphasizes the knowledge of causes. Is not this knowledge that illumiates the path ahead?

I don't think so. Remember your current life is caused by your former life and so forth, and so there is a relationship between your current position, problems etc.

Medical treatments and medical history are important of course, but i wasn't referring to that. I was thinking more along the lines that you don't need to focus upon reincarnation and previous lives to progress.

Yes - knowledge of causes, but as regards practice, it is more focused upon realising this and applying it to your current life such as good deeds good lead to positive karma etc. It's aklso important in the study of Buddhism's view of reality.

whathappened

08-27-2010, 12:19 AM

Alright. Let's check out PC first.

I don't think so. Remember your current life is caused by your former life and so forth, and so there is a relationship between your current position, problems etc.

It Is caused by your 'previous lives', partly. Another important cause would be the past of your present life. Not sure whether you agree with this?

you don't need to focus upon reincarnation and previous lives to progress.

Perhaps you don't Necessarily need to do this. But in some if not many cases it helps, by comparison and contrast. 'Previous life' can be used as a source of knowledge this way, just like any other sort of history/experience.

Yes - knowledge of causes, but as regards practice, it is more focused upon realising this and applying it to your current life

The getting of knowledge seems to be the most difficult, especially if knowledge means true propositions. If I see the old man ditched by his children looking for his family tree, and if I fail to know the true and very real need/meaning behind his act, I might think that old age makes people funny. But if I understand him I would be Natually prompted to make him feel welcomed in this library, that is, to do the right thing. It is another issue whether this thing is right or not. For me it would not be right just because of karma, as I do not know whether karma is real.

Now I see your problem with my interpretation of no-self. You seem to think that focusing on history does more bad than good, whereas my interpretation emphasizes history.

I will honestly answer you.

Thank you. Nothing else is expected.

The meaning of no self is that you are connected to the ground of reality - all the 'things' in the universe are interconnected and interdependent.

I like this meaning, because I agree that all things are interconnected. In practice this would imply that when we think about something we should pay attention to other things. When I think about 'me' I should pay attention to other things. The question is what other things? Stars in the sky, or more like the ideas of my mind and the past and present things and events by which my ideas formed?

I cannot prove this to you

You do not need to prove that all things are interconnected, nor that divine experience exists. Many already did.

proofs don't mean much anyway

Consequences mean everything. Proofs prepare us for consequences. I would not spend much time or effort on something that is merely asserted to grant wonderful stuff, as I see no proof. Divine experience is not necessarily proof for whatever the object is asserted. Proof is something real And sign-ificant (causally connected to the object).

Then I came to a point where I saw that the form of my white blanket was a Lotus Flower. In place of the folds of the blanket I saw the Lotus - the folds of the blanket became the Lotus. And I saw that the cells - the building blocks - of that Lotus were Buddhas, that the Lotus was made of innumerable Buddhas. And those Buddhas were made of innumerable Lotuses, in an infinitely repeating pattern. Then I realized that this was myself, and that the very cells of my body were of the same nature, of this Lotus, the source of reality, the ground of reality, and that they were made of millions of Buddhas.

Assuming that the vision/reality proves your interpretation of the idea of budda-nature, what is the use of it? What is the use of seeing a reality which is that your body is a lotus made of an infinity of a sitting Hindu man? I can see some use in this, as any poetically minded person can. But is there more?

Take care.

People take cares for their purposes. My purpose here is to seek knowledge together with people who Are after knowledge. My care is taken for that end.

Paulclem

08-27-2010, 05:12 AM

It Is caused by your 'previous lives', partly. Another important cause would be the past of your present life. Not sure whether you agree with this?

Certainly. The problem with previous lives is that they are difficult to perceive unless one has quite a lot of meditational experience. In referring to teachers using the knowledge of previous lives and their stuations, I was referring to advanced teachers. Also, you would want to avoid the involvement with past life and issues until you were able to cope - you were meditationally strong enough to deal with them as they obviously involve birth, ageing, sickness, death, seperation etc etc

Apparently there comes a point in practice where you can remember every dharma teaching you have ever had and apply it to your teaching tasks.

Paulclem

08-27-2010, 05:23 AM

The getting of knowledge seems to be the most difficult, especially if knowledge means true propositions. If I see the old man ditched by his children looking for his family tree, and if I fail to know the true and very real need/meaning behind his act, I might think that old age makes people funny. But if I understand him I would be Natually prompted to make him feel welcomed in this library, that is, to do the right thing. It is another issue whether this thing is right or not. For me it would not be right just because of karma, as I do not know whether karma is real.

Now I see your problem with my interpretation of no-self. You seem to think that focusing on history does more bad than good, whereas my interpretation emphasizes history.

It depends what you mean by knowledge. In Buddhism there's academic knowledgeof the path, but this alone will not help you along the path. You also need meditational experience and teachings from a teacher - a qualified teacher. You also need to take the meditational experience into your daily life and apply it, and reflect upon the teaching in and out of meditation.

Later - when advancedenough and properly prepared, you might want to engage in a retreat to fully focus upon your meditational tasks. This can only be done by those with the time. opportunity and funds.

Your story about the old man and family tree/ history. Onre of the things about dealing with others is to develop compassion. One of the criticisms of The Buddha's approach has been the "Why aren't you out there doing something instead of spending your time meditating" type idea. Well the Buddhist's point of view is that one helps the other. You can deepen your compassion, or any positive emotion by following the path, and this then helps with external issues and dealing with difficult situations and people.

Are we talking about the same kind of history? I don't think focusing on personal or family history is bad, but it's not necessarily related to the spiritual path.

If you're talking about rebirth history - well as I pointed out above, it's very difficult to access this. Some methods, such as regression with hypnosis have been tried, but these have been called into question as to whether they are actually true and not a fantasy delusion. Of course it's very difficult to find out, but they are not usually given much credence.

Paulclem

08-27-2010, 05:24 AM

People take cares for their purposes. My purpose here is to seek knowledge together with people who Are after knowledge. My care is taken for that end.

This is an interesting statement. What's your background?

NikolaiI

08-27-2010, 09:40 AM

Alright. Let's check out PC first.

It Is caused by your 'previous lives', partly. Another important cause would be the past of your present life. Not sure whether you agree with this?

Perhaps you don't Necessarily need to do this. But in some if not many cases it helps, by comparison and contrast. 'Previous life' can be used as a source of knowledge this way, just like any other sort of history/experience.

The getting of knowledge seems to be the most difficult, especially if knowledge means true propositions. If I see the old man ditched by his children looking for his family tree, and if I fail to know the true and very real need/meaning behind his act, I might think that old age makes people funny. But if I understand him I would be Natually prompted to make him feel welcomed in this library, that is, to do the right thing. It is another issue whether this thing is right or not. For me it would not be right just because of karma, as I do not know whether karma is real.

Now I see your problem with my interpretation of no-self. You seem to think that focusing on history does more bad than good, whereas my interpretation emphasizes history.

Thank you. Nothing else is expected.

I like this meaning, because I agree that all things are interconnected. In practice this would imply that when we think about something we should pay attention to other things. When I think about 'me' I should pay attention to other things. The question is what other things? Stars in the sky, or more like the ideas of my mind and the past and present things and events by which my ideas formed?

You do not need to prove that all things are interconnected, nor that divine experience exists. Many already did.

Consequences mean everything. Proofs prepare us for consequences. I would not spend much time or effort on something that is merely asserted to grant wonderful stuff, as I see no proof. Divine experience is not necessarily proof for whatever the object is asserted. Proof is something real And sign-ificant (causally connected to the object).

Assuming that the vision/reality proves your interpretation of the idea of budda-nature, what is the use of it? What is the use of seeing a reality which is that your body is a lotus made of an infinity of a sitting Hindu man? I can see some use in this, as any poetically minded person can. But is there more?

People take cares for their purposes. My purpose here is to seek knowledge together with people who Are after knowledge. My care is taken for that end.

As I said, it means you are connected to reality. Glad you like that. Thing is we don't experience it so often in our daily lives - and our culture is not one which promotes the seeking, at least not in the mainstream. The value of the experience, I am sorry I did not explain the experience to you well. I'm afraid I have to leave off. I don't know how to explain it. The words infinite peace and existence don't quite match up with the reality they are supposed to describe.

Take care is a common thing we say in our language... There's no need to analyze it - it just means "be well," "see you later," etc....

Good luck.

whathappened

08-29-2010, 09:07 AM

The problem with previous lives is that they are difficult to perceive unless one has quite a lot of meditational experience.

We know many about many dead lives. True, a Buddhist might say that none of them might be his 'previous life'. But if some of them are similar to his present life in some ways, would not he learn from them? What would be the difference between what he can learn here and what he might learn from his own 'previous live'?

It depends what you mean by knowledge. In Buddhism there's academic knowledgeof the path, but this alone will not help you along the path. You also need meditational experience and teachings from a teacher - a qualified teacher. You also need to take the meditational experience into your daily life and apply it, and reflect upon the teaching in and out of meditation.

Later - when advancedenough and properly prepared, you might want to engage in a retreat to fully focus upon your meditational tasks. This can only be done by those with the time. opportunity and funds.

If someone gives you a way to attain something he calls knowledge, and you follow that way through and attain that thing, it does not imply what you attained is knowledge. But if you can show what meditations enable you to do something useful, where academic or other types of thinking do not, please do.

Your story about the old man and family tree/ history. Onre of the things about dealing with others is to develop compassion. One of the criticisms of The Buddha's approach has been the "Why aren't you out there doing something instead of spending your time meditating" type idea.

The story meant to suggest that understanding Naturally makes us compassionate.

You can deepen your compassion, or any positive emotion by following the path, and this then helps with external issues and dealing with difficult situations and people.

Is not this saying 'think and act and act and reflect and you will be good'? I like this, but not sure about the idea that thinking, broadly defined, should be resticted to some specific way. Buddhist meditations are a bit too exclusive?

Are we talking about the same kind of history?

We do not understand 'previous life' the same way, but I have a feeling there is large overlap in our understandings, given what you said about Gautama's sayings. So I spoke of previous life with quotation marks.

I don't think focusing on personal or family history is bad, but it's not necessarily related to the spiritual path.

The greater you know your history the more likely you can understand yourself, eventually to step out of yourself. It seems this step-out is necessary for what you are after concerning no-self, and great knowledge of history is a great way to attain this necessity.

whathappened

08-29-2010, 09:34 AM

I'm afraid I have to leave off. I don't know how to explain it. The words infinite peace and existence don't quite match up with the reality they are supposed to describe.

You described the images in the experience in exact detail. As for what those images made you feel, perhaps as you say you did not describe it well. Anyway would it be right to say that it is the feeling that is The useful thing for you here? i.e. after having this feeling you find it easier to, say, handle the frustrations in life etc?

Take care is a common thing we say in our language... There's no need to analyze it - it just means "be well," "see you later," etc...

But the need to analyze it for me was to express what I expressed.

Paulclem

08-30-2010, 04:52 PM

We know many about many dead lives. True, a Buddhist might say that none of them might be his 'previous life'. But if some of them are similar to his present life in some ways, would not he learn from them? What would be the difference between what he can learn here and what he might learn from his own 'previous live'?

I'm not disputing that. History has knowledge and lessons for us, if you can find the information you want. The difference is personal experience. I don't think they are really comparable. One is an external study, the other not. The aim of Buddhism is to effect a change within yourself - initially to become a more positive person, and later to develop those positive traits to a deeper level.

Paulclem

08-30-2010, 05:02 PM

If someone gives you a way to attain something he calls knowledge, and you follow that way through and attain that thing, it does not imply what you attained is knowledge. But if you can show what meditations enable you to do something useful, where academic or other types of thinking do not, please do.

Meditation is about gaining insight into yourself - understanding the mind, and changing it into something positive. One of the things you can do is to reduce anger. Anger is often a habit. A person gets used to being angry in certain situations, but recognises that they are doing more damage by being so.

First you use analytical meditation to examine, from personal experience, the negative effects of anger. You then use analytical meditation to examine the positive efects of patience.

The next step is to do placement meditation. You generate a strong feeling that you need to be more patient at your heart - in the Buddhist view the seat of the mind - and try to hold that feeling.

With practice you can lessen the effects of anger, but it is not a quick fix and needs commitment.

Academic study is unlikely to effect a change like this.

Paulclem

08-30-2010, 05:06 PM

Is not this saying 'think and act and act and reflect and you will be good'? I like this, but not sure about the idea that thinking, broadly defined, should be resticted to some specific way. Buddhist meditations are a bit too exclusive?

Possibly, but Buddhism advocates meditation as part of the remedy for changing negative states of mind to for positive ones by applying antidotes such as patience for anger. What you cite is part of it, but the great leap from selfishness to unselfishness is not easy and requires a lot of work.

There are lots of meditational methods. Buddhism is not exclusive. Anyone can read about them or attend teachings, including non-Buddhists.

Paulclem

08-30-2010, 05:14 PM

The greater you know your history the more likely you can understand yourself, eventually to step out of yourself. It seems this step-out is necessary for what you are after concerning no-self, and great knowledge of history is a great way to attain this necessity.

This is debateable. From the Buddhist point of view, we obviously get our bodies with its strengths and weaknesses from our parents. This may have serious medical implications for us, or we may be very healthy.

The mind is something different. It is housed in the body and has a strong relationship with it, but it is not determied by it or by our biological history. Often we hear things like - "I'm angry like my father" or whatever. This is often used as an excuse by people for excusing their bad behavior or reluctannce to change themselves. The Buddhist view is that you can gain understanding about your mind and change it.

As a consequence i disagree with your statement. Logically it would suggest that someone who doesn't know their origins would not be able to effect any positive changes within themselves - which is untrue.

whathappened

08-31-2010, 09:57 AM

I don't think they are really comparable. One is an external study, the other not.

Nice posts. But not sure what 'they' refer to.

Given what you said about the meditations it seems analytical meditation is not different from ethical thinking and placement meditation reminds of psychology. But I like the way the two are combined. Yet Buddhism is not alone here. The story in Iliad aforementioned could offer something similar to the meditations. If you are interested in this possible comparison, check out the post at truefalseshadow.wordpress.com.

the great leap from selfishness to unselfishness is not easy and requires a lot of work.

There seems to be something deep in common between the selfish and the unselfish. It should have to do with being human and wanting pleasure and avoiding pain. So this, in contrast with unselfishness, might be a better rule for action.

Logically it would suggest that someone who doesn't know their origins would not be able to effect any positive changes within themselves - which is untrue.

I agree if you said 'their Biological origins'. But by 'your history' I did not mean 'your biological history'.

This is debateable.

I did not think otherwise. But I find everything debatable. It seem our difference on history is just about what kind of history 'previous lives' is. On your understanding this piece of history can be reached via a particular (and perhaps peculiar) technique only, whereas mine suggests that it is a formal part in the usual study of history.

whathappened

08-31-2010, 10:00 AM

Come on Nik, are you really content in watching? Let me rephrase the question: how did the divine experience made you a different person?

NikolaiI

08-31-2010, 10:36 AM

You described the images in the experience in exact detail. As for what those images made you feel, perhaps as you say you did not describe it well. Anyway would it be right to say that it is the feeling that is The useful thing for you here? i.e. after having this feeling you find it easier to, say, handle the frustrations in life etc?

Okay WH I'll try again.. :) So, first, it wasn't like this, like I saw images, and they made me feel something. That's why I didn't respond because that's not what it was like at all. To begin with, it was a meditative feeling - exactly that, a feeling. I'm sure you know the type of feeling I mean, whenever you meditate successfully.

Well, that feeling descended on me more and more, more than I had felt before. I felt that feeling deepen, and it became what I've read as states of absorption. And then I passed through several states of absorption. This in itself was very nice to feel but I was still within duality. Then came an important moment - I passed through duality. This is all I can describe it as. My whole world flipped in that instant. It was like waking up. Why I say my world flipped was this - all my life before this, I had not known what my source was - I mean in terms of feeling. Everything in my life had been within the realm of duality - and this is in terms of feeling. To experience the truth of non-duality is like to suddenly know your source, to know you are within your source - it's like knowing you are standing on solid ground, and until that point you never experienced it.

I can't begin to describe the peace of this experience. There's nothing in the real of duality - the consciousness which feels itself to be separate from the universe - that compares to the experience of non-duality. Spiritual seekers from all walks of life have come to the same realization. In Taoism it is there. There is a Native American medicine man named Black Elk who said the same: Only when men know they are one with the universe, will they know peace in their souls. Swami Vivekananda also experienced this, as did Sufi poets. Many others as well - this is what I experienced.

But that was the very beginning point of a period of revelation that lasted for about 6 hours. The next important part of my experience - the first part being experiencing my source... as though suddenly waking up - was the realization that nothing ultimately had any permanent essence. No ego, and no suffering. Another way of understanding this is that there's a part of my existence, your existence, everyone's - that is never hurt. In Hinduism it it is the soul, which is never bound. Hinduism and Buddhism are not at odds, as Paul thinks, and others think - there is only one reality, and the doctrines of soul and no-soul which seem to be opposites really describe the same thing. Not even the highest-up in the religious world really seem to grasp this.

And yet there's many poems and scriptures by the sages and poets of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and Taoism which describe this in different ways.

So these are concepts which I've read about - which may have been learned, taught, and carried on by many who've never experienced what I did - and in that short time I experienced what they describe. I experienced the only thing that Black Elk could have been describing. The next part that I experienced was like passing through a thousand lifetimes - it was my karma breaking away. It felt like my karma was breaking like an orange, breaking open like that. It was not as though an image appeared to me and then it invoked some feeling. It was a feeling that I can describe in no better way than to say it was as though my karma were breaking, as though like an orange. It's like - we are all in change, always. The saying goes, you can never enter the same river twice. This was kind of feeling that. And yet the feeling was also as though I were passing through many lifetimes.

There are two more points of my experience which stand out for me - the one I mentioned, and another before that. The part with the Lotus was the same way of these others - it was a feeling. I know it may sound strange, but the image and the feeling were not separate. The feeling came, and the image was there; the image wasn't an apparition. That Lotus is the very source of all of this. As for Buddha - another reason I stopped is because you called him a Hindu man. This may be the damage done by those who get into something and teach it and mess it up.

You have an idea of Buddha as a man, but that is not what Buddha is. First, there are many Buddhas - Shakyamuni Buddha, Ksitigarbha Buddha, Buddha Amitabha, the Medicine Buddha. Amitabha Buddha, for instance, is the Buddha of Infinite Light. So Buddha is Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is the universal nature of every form in existence. It has nothing to do with man, or woman, Buddha is not man, or woman, it's universal nature. I experienced my Buddha-nature after passing through duality; realizing that form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. Realizing that no matter what, no matter what absolutely, there is no reason to worry, or fear. This is the essential part of what I experienced. Buddha-nature came after that point, as well as the point of experiencing that I am in change, and my rigid thinking and concepts do not apply to who and what I am. So then when I experienced Buddha-nature, I was basically awake at that point, not under the dream of duality. Of the different points of my experience, this one I remember but not as well as the others.

Come on Nik, are you really content in watching? Let me rephrase the question: how did the divine experience made you a different person?

How did it? Well in normal life only this; that my life is a little lighter, my dreams are a little brighter, I have a bit more faith and trust in myself, I have a bit more natural inclination to do the right thing. After these years I can say that is the truth of how this has affected me. In all of these things, it has made me a bit more willing to search out the truth in all things of my life. I'm not a saint or a sage - I believe we all are, but I haven't changed my life to that of a mystic or an ascetic because of this experience.

Paulclem

08-31-2010, 04:35 PM

Nice posts.
Given what you said about the meditations it seems analytical meditation is not different from ethical thinking and placement meditation reminds of psychology. But I like the way the two are combined. Yet Buddhism is not alone here. The story in Iliad aforementioned could offer something similar to the meditations. If you are interested in this possible comparison, check out the post at truefalseshadow.wordpress.com.

.

I wasn't sure what I was supposed to read with the link.

You're right about psychology - Buddhism is about understanding the mind, and some methods have been co-opted into psychology - meditation for example.

Paulclem

08-31-2010, 04:38 PM

I agree if you said 'their Biological origins'. But by 'your history' I did not mean 'your biological history'.

Neither did I. It would also be untrue to say that a person couldn't change if they did not know their own personal family history, unless this has led to psychological damage.

Paulclem

08-31-2010, 04:41 PM

I did not think otherwise. But I find everything debatable. It seem our difference on history is just about what kind of history 'previous lives' is. On your understanding this piece of history can be reached via a particular (and perhaps peculiar) technique only, whereas mine suggests that it is a formal part in the usual study of history.

Yes i see this. I'm not saying that the study of history does not have an effect, but the meditations concern a personal development and the state of the mind.

whathappened

09-01-2010, 11:08 AM

Nice post Nik. Wonderful experience. I feel tempted to take up the meditation.

to know you are within your source - it's like knowing you are standing on solid ground, and until that point you never experienced it.

Some people experience something great when they realise some generalities, say, when a general realises certain arts of war. Would you say this kind of experience is a bit similar to yours?

I can't begin to describe the peace of this experience. There's nothing in the real of duality - the consciousness which feels itself to be separate from the universe - that compares to the experience of non-duality.

The purity, certainty and peace you seem to speak of might be explained by a lack of or suppression of distractions. The meditation works you towards an idea, a vision and feeling in such a way that you get temporarily stuck onto it. Other ideas and feelings, especially contradicting ones, temporarily cease to have the power to fight for dominancy of your mind and body? If so, the power of the meditation would lie in granting clarity but maybe not comprehensiveness. Dualist ideas do not seem to be wrong or useless in their entireties.

the realization that nothing ultimately had any permanent essence. No ego, and no suffering. Another way of understanding this is that there's a part of my existence, your existence, everyone's - that is never hurt.

I recall a film in which someone in the process of being raped turns from anger to enjoyment. Would you say this person is somewhat talented? In my understanding of no-self this person does seem talented.

It's like - we are all in change, always. The saying goes, you can never enter the same river twice. This was kind of feeling that. And yet the feeling was also as though I were passing through many lifetimes.

So would it be right to say that 'previous lives' in Buddhism is meant metaphorically and not literally? Anyway, I like the river saying but also the 'man is the meter of all things' saying. Whether it is the same river depends on what the man says, or rather on what he wants to say. If he finds that saying it is the same river is useful for a purpose (geometrical or not), let his saying be a truth. It could be possible that Gautama, after making a certain net of truths intensely clear through certain meditations, thought that these truths are THE truths and perfect (maximally useful).

I experienced my Buddha-nature after passing through duality; realizing that form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. Realizing that no matter what, no matter what absolutely, there is no reason to worry, or fear. This is the essential part of what I experienced. Buddha-nature came after that point, as well as the point of experiencing that I am in change, and my rigid thinking and concepts do not apply to who and what I am.

These are great feelings, but bear a tone of defiance. One can break free of concepts but not the rest, at least not relatively as easily. If one gets a thousand arrows stuck in him, the pain that makes who he largely is cannot be meditated away.

How did it? Well in normal life only this; that my life is a little lighter, my dreams are a little brighter, I have a bit more faith and trust in myself, I have a bit more natural inclination to do the right thing. After these years I can say that is the truth of how this has affected me. In all of these things, it has made me a bit more willing to search out the truth in all things of my life. I'm not a saint or a sage - I believe we all are, but I haven't changed my life to that of a mystic or an ascetic because of this experience.

This is beautiful and great, I think. Maybe there is only this bit I feel uneasy with, that 'to search out the truth in all things'. Perhaps there should be no 'THE truth' and truths should not only be sought but also tested and remade, like bows and arrows (perhaps the Greeks and even the Hindis, who made the truths for us, held this view).

NikolaiI

09-01-2010, 11:16 AM

Thanks for replying, whathappened. :)

whathappened

09-01-2010, 11:20 AM

I wasn't sure what I was supposed to read with the link.

My bad, sorry for the misdirection. I will fix it soon.

It would also be untrue to say that a person couldn't change if they did not know their own personal family history, unless this has led to psychological damage.

Yea but I did not say that it is the only way to change. It just would help, and most effectively.

I'm not saying that the study of history does not have an effect, but the meditations concern a personal development and the state of the mind.

May I ask if you try to meditate in order to get a grip on the idea of no-self, what sort of things would go through your mind (and heart)?

whathappened

09-01-2010, 11:24 AM

Thanks for replying, whathappened

Pleasure. I hope it would also be your pleasure to reply.

Paulclem

09-01-2010, 05:50 PM

Yea but I did not say that it is the only way to change. It just would help, and most effectively.

May I ask if you try to meditate in order to get a grip on the idea of no-self, what sort of things would go through your mind (and heart)?

most effectively

I think history and meditation look at different things. Yes they study human behaviour, but from different perspectives.

History studies the ascribed thoughts and motivations of leaders/ movements etc, but we have no way of knowing if this is actually the way it was. Lots of things have been written about history - it's written by victors etc. We can't know people in history's minds. We can really only know what they choose to tell us, or what others tell us, and the effect, or the ascribed effect that they had.

I think for this reason that history has to be treated with a certain amount of caution.

Whereas you can't know another person's mind - unless you have a miracle power - you can know your own mind. This is the power of meditation. You can see your mind and change it to something beter by applying antidotes to the negative aspects of it. You can check your progress, deepen your experience and take the advice of a teacher. As far as we are concerned, this is the most powerful thing we can do. We can be driven by our negativities and then our positives according to how we are at any given time, or we can try to eliminate the negativity and drive ourself into a better state of mind.

Paulclem

09-02-2010, 07:00 PM

Hinduism and Buddhism are not at odds, as Paul thinks, and others think

Just thought I'd respond to this as you named me.

Thinks is the wrong word. I've heard or read. Nevertheless Buddhism is about trusting the teachings, and it is the Buddha who made the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is a core difference, and distinguishes very clearly between the two.

The Buddha taught the Middle Way between eternalism - the possession of a soul by beings, and annihilation - no reincarnation and afterlife. .

This debate has been raging for over two thousand years and continues still in these forums between the scientists and the religious.

The reason I responded is to make it clear that it is an opinion to state that Hinduism and Buddhism are not different. Buddhists clearly don't think they are, or why would they bother to be a seperate religion.

The succes of Buddhism historically meant that Hinduism tried to claim Buddhism by stating that The Buddha was an incarnation of Siva. This is not accepted by Buddhists.

NikolaiI

09-02-2010, 07:17 PM

Buddhism and Hinduism both describe the same reality - this is something it appears you don't understand.

Paulclem

09-03-2010, 01:39 AM

Buddhism and Hinduism both describe the same reality - this is something it appears you don't understand.

It's not about what I understand - it's what The Buddha understood - and the experience of practitioners after him.

NikolaiI

09-03-2010, 01:45 AM

I would like you to understand. There is only one reality. This is something we have to acknowledge, and it is a place we can work from.

Paulclem

09-03-2010, 09:31 AM

I would like you to understand. There is only one reality. This is something we have to acknowledge, and it is a place we can work from.

The Buddhist path disagrees with your view of Hinduism and Buddhism. It's like saying Christianity and Judaism ae the same. There is a relationship, but they are not the same.

NikolaiI

09-03-2010, 12:49 PM

it is like saying there is one reality. Christianity and Judaism both describe one reality, and every Christian and Jew will agree with that statement. Similarly, Buddhism and Hinduism describe one reality. This is my point.

Paul you always say Buddhism says this, and Buddhism disagrees with that - but you're usually way off. You see only a tiny part of what you know as Buddhism, and you reject the rest, and say it doesn't go with what true Buddhism is. You continually do this - your posts are always very rigid and show little understanding of anything beyond what you want Buddhism to be. This is why people come away with a bad taste, thinking they just got through with a rigid and negative philosophy.

Buddhism is about strength, truth, as well as compassion and respecting the teachers. Yet you have a little window view of Buddhism and yet you reject Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren, anything you haven't got in your window, that is not Buddhism. If someone uses the words divine, you say Buddhism disagrees with them, and in this you are completely, totally wrong. But where is the dignity in saying, Buddhism doesn't disagree when someone says divine, many thousands or hundreds of thousands of Buddhists use the word divine in their language and expression when talking about Buddhism. To them it is a common and normal description and accepted, and to the majority of Buddhists; what they hold dear is the divine and the sacred; but to you - it is an opportunity to tell them they are wrong.

If someone speaks of oneness with the universe, you will say Buddhism is not like this, is not about this, and yet in this you are completely, totally wrong. Zen masters and saints have written many, many poems about oneness. These poems are sacred, they are the most valuable pearls, gems, of Buddhism, and yet when someone speaks of oneness, you see it as a good place to tell them they are wrong, that Buddhism is not like this, is not about this, and does not agree with them. Your attitude of inflexibility cannot conceivably be thought of as to be true to the spirit of Buddhism.

The only way to break out of this vice-hold of samsara is to give it everything you've got. Make every word sing with the Dharma. But if you are held down by your previous worldly views, thoughts, consciousness, then make it your primary goal to penetrate below this layer, to come to know the divine, sacred, spiritual, Buddha-nature which is beneath. A little knowledge is much more dangerous than no knowledge.