Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[NikolaiI]

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

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

Q: What is the primary purpose of meditation?

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

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

[whathappened]

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

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

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

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

[whathappened]

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

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

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

meditation = improves thinking,
.

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

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

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

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

asceticism = a kind of lack in courage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whathappened]

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

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

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

First thanks Paulclem for these many responses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to reply to your new sayings on the matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NikolaiI]

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

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4770779

[Paulclem]

First thanks Paulclem for these many responses.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tabout.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whathappened]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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



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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whathappened]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the information. Sounds full of treasures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

[whathappened]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've read the Odyssey

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

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

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

I wonder what sign you'll find.

Any sign explanatory and prophetic.

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

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

Look forward to your thought on him, PC.

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

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

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

[Paulclem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

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

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