Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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:

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewoberg

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewoberg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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/stg...apters/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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

You might be right:

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stg...apters/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_...ist_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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whathappened

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.