Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[Paulclem]

It's a good question.

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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!

[Paulclem]

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

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

For instance, this:

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

I thought it was an interesting observation.

[dizzydoll]

This is a relief to hear this Paul, the reason.. when we become complacent within our existing "beliefs" we stop searching. No matter in religion or science, the same applies.

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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

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

Sorry for the late reply -

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

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

[Paulclem]

Sorry for the late reply -

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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

Okay I see what you mean.

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

[NikolaiI]

I disagree completely.

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

We may be talking at cross purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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