Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

Hi Dizzy. First I'd like to establish that Not self is a central tenet in Buddhism.

http://www.snowlionpub.com/search.php?isbn=NOSEN2

Above is a book in the Tibetan tradition.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatist...dhasnoself.htm

In the link above, if you scroll down, you will find a paragraph about non self.

http://www.beingwithoutself.org/talk...enBuddhism.pdf

The above link is about no-self in Zen.

So these are from just random searches, rather than references to books which are more difficult to verify. No-self is an accepted part of Buddhism, though you will find debate and discussion about the subject.

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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 [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.

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:

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)

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

... 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

---

Quite

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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:

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/for...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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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/for...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

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.

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.