Buddhism and the 'self' (not that again!)

[dyanaprajna2011]

I pretty much agree with you but I hope you don't leave the whole forum in a huff.

The Buddhist answers here in general are not 'down to earth' enough for us. I thought I was a Buddhist of the universalist mold until coming here too. I think most here take the 'no permanent self' too far in not even accepting a temporary Self/Soul that exists (in the colloquial sense of existing) for many lifetimes but not permanently. I think much paranormal evidence supports my position, which I value more than over-intellectualizing.

The Buddha's teaching on anatta may not be for everyone, to be sure. Regardless of what one thinks of it, that is what the Buddha taught. Whether anyone agrees with it or not is another matter. Now, you, and UU David, and others here, may not. But there are those of us here who do. I'm quite aware that it's not a comforting thought to many, but there are those of us who believe in it, and find it to be release.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

I pretty much agree with you but I hope you don't leave the whole forum in a huff.

The Buddhist answers here in general are not 'down to earth' enough for us. I thought I was a Buddhist of the universalist mold until coming here too. I think most here take the 'no permanent self' too far in not even accepting a temporary Self/Soul that exists (in the colloquial sense of existing) for many lifetimes but not permanently. I think much paranormal evidence supports my position, which I value more than over-intellectualizing.

Exactly my stance.Some buddhists tend to look like nihilists which they are obviously not.

 

[George-ananda]

The Buddha's teaching on anatta may not be for everyone, to be sure. Regardless of what one thinks of it, that is what the Buddha taught. Whether anyone agrees with it or not is another matter. Now, you, and UU David, and others here, may not. But there are those of us here who do. I'm quite aware that it's not a comforting thought to many, but there are those of us who believe in it, and find it to be release.

Did you not read my post directly above this one? I accept the anatta teaching too. And so does the Dalai Lama and he accepts reincarnation too. Here's a quote from his website:

Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death. This kind of continuous rebirth is accepted by all the ancient Indian spiritual traditions and schools of philosophy, except the Charvakas, who were a materialist movement.


The Buddhism presented heavily on RF seems to me to be Buddhism+materialism. It's just one point of view that I and UU David wish to differ with. I don't think from my study of the paranormal that materialism is a viable belief.

 

[crossfire]

Did you not read my post directly above this one? I accept the anatta teaching too. And so does the Dalai Lama and he accepts reincarnation too. Here's a quote from his website:

Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death. This kind of continuous rebirth is accepted by all the ancient Indian spiritual traditions and schools of philosophy, except the Charvakas, who were a materialist movement.


The Buddhism presented heavily on RF seems to me to be Buddhism+materialism. It's just one point of view that I and UU David wish to differ with. I don't think from my study of the paranormal that materialism is a viable belief.

Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation. Reincarnation would require an atman. Rebirth does not--it occurs via the 12 factors of dependent-co-arising. This sutta explains this, as well as demonstrating that Buddha's teaching on anatta does not go to the extreme of materialism, as well as explain that there is not even a temporary atman.

Avijjapaccaya Sutta: From Ignorance as a Requisite Condition

snippet:

Staying at Savatthi... [the Blessed One said,] "From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications... From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One: "Which aging & death, lord? And whose is this aging & death?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. If one were to ask, 'Which aging & death? And whose is this aging & death?' and if one were to ask, 'Is aging & death one thing, and is this the aging & death of someone/something else?' both of them would have the same meaning, even though their words would differ. When there is the view that the soul (jiiva) is the same as the body, there isn't the leading of the holy life. And when there is the view that the soul (jiiva) is one thing and the body another, there isn't the leading of the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death."

"Which birth, lord? And whose is this birth?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said... "From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth."

(continues on with the other factors of dependent co-arising)​

This sutta also stresses the factors of dependent co-arising, while going further into anatta:

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed (1)

 

[ratikala]

The Buddhism presented heavily on RF seems to me to be Buddhism+materialism. It's just one point of view that I and UU David wish to differ with. I don't think from my study of the paranormal that materialism is a viable belief.

in this respet I am also with you .

I keep reading things like ''Buddha represents'' .... to me Buddha is ....

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Did you not read my post directly above this one? I accept the anatta teaching too. And so does the Dalai Lama and he accepts reincarnation too.

You may call what you believe anatta, and this is fine. But one must distinguish what they believe with what the Buddha taught, especially when there's a difference. I think the Dalai Lama is a great guy, but he's not the be-all-end-all of Buddhism. I think he's a good guy, but I do disagree with him. I've never been big on Tibetan Buddhism. I've always preferred the Theravada-Zen perspective.

The Buddhism presented heavily on RF seems to me to be Buddhism+materialism. It's just one point of view that I and UU David wish to differ with. I don't think from my study of the paranormal that materialism is a viable belief.

And this is your prerogative. Nothing wrong with it. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. You may even be right. But don't equate what you believe with what the Buddha taught, when there's an obvious difference.

I keep reading things like ''Buddha represents'' .... to me Buddha is ....

Even when crossfire has been posting quotes directly from the Pali Canon?

I don't see what the debate is. If one is debating the Buddhist view of anatta, fine. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with it. But I find it strange that people are believing things that the Buddha did not teach, yet calling it the teaching of the Buddha. Let's not misrepresent ourselves or the Buddha. If we believe the same thing the Buddha taught, let's call it that. But don't call what we believe the teaching of the Buddha, when it's obvious he did not teach it.

 

[crossfire]

You may call what you believe anatta, and this is fine. But one must distinguish what they believe with what the Buddha taught, especially when there's a difference. I think the Dalai Lama is a great guy, but he's not the be-all-end-all of Buddhism. I think he's a good guy, but I do disagree with him. I've never been big on Tibetan Buddhism. I've always preferred the Theravada-Zen perspective.



And this is your prerogative. Nothing wrong with it. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. You may even be right. But don't equate what you believe with what the Buddha taught, when there's an obvious difference.

Agreed. :yes:

Everyone is free to believe as they want. However, misrepresenting Buddha's teachings is slandering the Buddha. (See the Water Snake Simile posted earlier on this thread.)

Even when crossfire has been posting quotes directly from the Pali Canon?

I don't see what the debate is. If one is debating the Buddhist view of anatta, fine. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with it. But I find it strange that people are believing things that the Buddha did not teach, yet calling it the teaching of the Buddha. Let's not misrepresent ourselves or the Buddha. If we believe the same thing the Buddha taught, let's call it that. But don't call what we believe the teaching of the Buddha, when it's obvious he did not teach it.

Buddha said that his teachings would become corrupted to the point that what is taught as Buddha dhamma wouldn't contain any Buddha dhamma. By some reckonings, we are about halfway to that point. But there are still those who try to discern the Buddha's dhamma.

Not only do we take refuge in the Dhamma, but the Dhamma also takes refuge in us. I don't know if this is Dhammakaya or not, but I will gladly offer refuge to Buddha's dhamma regardless.

 

[Ekanta]

Reincarnation would require an atman.

Thats funny, because atman doesnt reincarnate.

 

[crossfire]

Thats funny, because atman doesnt reincarnate.

My mistake, then.

 

[DreadFish]

Punkdbass - Thank you so much for breaking the chain of metaphor, intellecutal self-enjoyment (nicer than the 'm' word), and semantics that this thread was at risk of becomming (just like the other one on rebirth).

I am sorry if that upsets some people, but seriously guys n girls, is there some conspiracy to keep Buddhism from being accessible and understandable going on here? ... You could seriously believe it from some threads here.

I gather Punkdbass is not someone who has been absorbed in Buddhist scipture for the last 40 years but he's first person who has given me (as someone outside of Buddhist knowledge at this point), something I can grasp and start to understand.

Most other users, seem to want to get into semantics, metaphor and mental juggling for fun.

I am sorry Ekanta, but review all of your posts in this thread and assess whether you have offered any help at all?

I am sorry people, I am just frustrated.

The threads I have read in this forum on Buddhism, have left a really negative taste in my mouth. People who are masters at recalling scripture that supports their ego-view, who are first to declare inherent lack of existance, but with an apparant dire craving to show that their very ego-view, is "Buddhism".

The Buddhism I see here is cold, clinical, self-stated science. I don't even see much compassion in action!

Once again, I am sorry, but this community is not for me. It's like an intellectual debating society, based on 'winning' rather than genuine spirtual support and kinsmanship.

If my feedback has gone too far, feel free to ban me.

But that will not prevent the feedback from applying. I may not be able to reel off the Pali Canon, but I can say, that this Buddhism section needs a good dose of Buddhism.

I totally appreciate this post. There has been a lot of debating about what I consider to be next to useless semantics and terminology bull ****. It's one reason why I haven't posted as much. I can't stand the dry text-referencing, I think it's uninteresting and not as helpful as supplementing personal experience. The truth is alive, and that knowledge doesn't exist intellectually; texts are dead and are studied intellectually. Mahayana sutras are not likely based on anything the historical Buddha actually said and the Pali canon isn't meant to be taken as total fact, its meant to be used like scientific papers, reviewed, studied and challenged by testing it yourself.

I could rant on, but that would be totally unhelpful.

Anyway, thanks for saying this because I think it needed to be said, and I think it helps that it's coming from an "outsider" to the DIR.

 

[crossfire]

I totally appreciate this post. There has been a lot of debating about what I consider to be next to useless semantics and terminology bull ****. It's one reason why I haven't posted as much. I can't stand the dry text-referencing, I think it's uninteresting and not as helpful as supplementing personal experience. The truth is alive, and that knowledge doesn't exist intellectually; texts are dead and are studied intellectually. Mahayana sutras are not likely based on anything the historical Buddha actually said and the Pali canon isn't meant to be taken as total fact, its meant to be used like scientific papers, reviewed, studied and challenged by testing it yourself.

I could rant on, but that would be totally unhelpful.

Anyway, thanks for saying this because I think it needed to be said, and I think it helps that it's coming from an "outsider" to the DIR.

I do understand and appreciate that not everyone enjoys scriptures like I do. I don't expect that everyone should. (I do hope that a religious forum is the appropriate place for me to express my appreciation of scriptures.) Everyone is different, and everyone has different talents to offer.

The main things are: we are all in the same boat, and we all suffer. However, each of us are also individuals, with unique perspectives, and unique hang ups, all in various stages of development.

If my love of scriptures is that much of a distraction here, and anyone has a more appropriate place for me to share scriptures, say the word, point me to the appropriate place, and I'll go there.

 

[ratikala]

You may call what you believe anatta, and this is fine. But one must distinguish what they believe with what the Buddha taught, especially when there's a difference. I think the Dalai Lama is a great guy, but he's not the be-all-end-all of Buddhism. I think he's a good guy, but I do disagree with him. I've never been big on Tibetan Buddhism. I've always preferred the Theravada-Zen perspective.

dear dyanaprajna ji ...

this is the path and it is not just that we ''must distinguish'' between what was reportedly spoken by the buddha and what was not , it is also very much about examining what has been said and putting it into practice , even putting it to the test and descovering if it is a true source of happiness , ...you may well preffer zen and theravada and this may be the perfect path for you , for me it is mahajana and vajrayana this makes neither inferior or superior it simply provides different paths for different mentalities of person .....

Originally Posted by ratikala
I keep reading things like ''Buddha represents'' .... to me Buddha is ....

Even when crossfire has been posting quotes directly from the Pali Canon?

yes even when crossfire has repeatedly quoted the same portions of text ower and over again ....

I have examined it over again for over thirty years I have examined it and I canot say ''Buddha represents'' .....I can only say ''Buddha is'' .....

this should take us on to a more worthwhile conversation as to what is Buddha ? ...that conversation should then be contemplated upon .

but if the conversation keeps coming back to the same page and the same quotations we are not learning by experience ....even the texts that are constantly quoted say ...''Explore it '' , ...search , and put it to the test , .....which means going beyond ones comfort zone ...

I don't see what the debate is. If one is debating the Buddhist view of anatta, fine. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with it. But I find it strange that people are believing things that the Buddha did not teach, yet calling it the teaching of the Buddha. Let's not misrepresent ourselves or the Buddha. If we believe the same thing the Buddha taught, let's call it that. But don't call what we believe the teaching of the Buddha, when it's obvious he did not teach it.

there is no debate from my side just a plee for others to be able to express understandings which differ often in very subtle ways , but differ they do .....and from this we learn ? ....or there is at least a possibility that we could learn ....

much as I disslike the dualing of texts , I did post teachings equaly attributed to the Buddha which belong to a different tradition but there was not even a glimmer of interest in discussing that there may be different teachings given according to differing minds at different times during all of the Buddha's years of teaching ..

If we study carefully we are told that even the pali canon was solidified over a long period of time and at the first council there was much debate over the teachings that would be commited to form a part of the canon ...

as far as I am concerned the pali canon provides a large section of Gautama Buddha's teachings but I am not sure that it contains all , please remember in this day many teachings were handed down through oral transmition , it is quite possible that teachings exist which were not included in the pali canon ...again we need to examine this ...

I am only suggesting that we keep an open mind and consider the possibility that texts that turn up in other traditions are equaly as valid as the texts preserved through theravada traditions ...that Buddha did teach according to the minds of the people he was speaking to , ...

no it is not what I have dreamed up but what other traditions teach and it would be wise for us to at least examine why different traditions exist , to whom they were taught , and how they have been handed down ? .... but the one thing that is important is that we dont close our minds .

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

this is the path and it is not just that we ''must distinguish'' between what was reportedly spoken by the buddha and what was not , it is also very much about examining what has been said and putting it into practice , even putting it to the test and descovering if it is a true source of happiness , ...you may well preffer zen and theravada and this may be the perfect path for you , for me it is mahajana and vajrayana this makes neither inferior or superior it simply provides different paths for different mentalities of person .....

I don't disagree with this at all. This is why I said earlier in the thread:

Not at all. Something that needs to be understood about Buddhism is that it's a very experiential religion, and some would say mystical. Words and philosophizing don't always make clear what's being taught. So it would seem, to some, what you have said here, even though this isn't the case; it's just that words don't always explain what's going on. This is one of the reasons why there's so many different schools of Buddhism, everyone experiences it a little differently...With all this being said, frustration is bound to happen. An important point to remember, is don't take anything too seriously. Everyone is on different steps on the path, and speaks from their own knowledge and experience. It's not that any answer here is right or wrong, just speaking from different points on the path.

My response is aimed more at those who would disagree with what the Buddha taught as regards anatta as understood by the Zen and Theravada schools as being not Buddhist at all, as if it wasn't taught by the Buddha. There are those who have responded in this thread, attacking this particular point of view simply because it doesn't go along with what they believe. You can't attack dogmatism with dogmatism, and expect it to come to anything good.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

What would make "me" take rebirth, when the body that comprises the ego is dissolved.
The true self or. Not self is like an ocean.
Retreiving some dead guys brainwaves is not adequate evidence for reincarnation.
The omnipresent is motionless. The soul is like an ocean, it is in all bodies all the time.
Sometimes the Buddhist ideas of reincarnation leads to some sort of soul theory.

 

[crossfire]

What I really like about Buddhism and the scriptures is the fact that it was an oral tradition that people took quite seriously--not only did these early Buddhists take refuge in the dhamma, but the dhamma literally took refuge in them! they were the literal embodied carriers of Buddha's dhamma. They were the dhammakaya, imo. I agree with Buddha wanting his discourses to be an oral tradition.

In order to achieve this, naturally, they had to learn the suttas, recite them, and teach these suttas to others, as well as contemplating them for themselves to see the truth carried within.

The ending of dukkha requires breaking the first chain of dependent origination--that of ignorance of the dhamma. Then it requires understanding and application. Some of the things in the Buddhadhamma can be difficult to understand, such as the teaching of anatta, simply because our craving (another chain in dependent co-arising) for an essence of self can be so great that it not only causes us great dukkha, it can even cause us to become delusional, which further impairs our ability to understand the very dhamma by which we may be freed from this dukkha, further increasing our suffering to the point where we beat our breasts.

Remember that delusion is a poison of the mind, and beings whose minds are overcome by delusion will tell lies (like misrepresenting teachings) harm/kill other beings, and tell others to do the same! This is how lynch mobs and such manifest--through the spreading action of people telling others to tell lies, kill beings, etc, while under the influence of the three poisons.

The first of the 10 fetters to overcome is clinging to the craving for self. The dukkha associated with this fetter alone is great--as can be attested to the misrepresentations of Buddha's teachings of anatta during Buddha's own lifetime. Not grasping this teaching correctly will lead to the development of these poisons, as not grasping a poisonous snake correctly will lead to one getting bitten and poisoned.

This is why I have been so adamant about referring back to the suttas on this point of the teaching of anatta--the suffering associated with a wrong grasp of this teaching can be tremendous--which was the Buddha's point that he drove home in the Water Snake simile.

OK, enough sermon. Everyone have a happy holiday season, even if it is not your tradition.

 

[George-ananda]

You may call what you believe anatta, and this is fine. But one must distinguish what they believe with what the Buddha taught, especially when there's a difference.

I looked up anatta on Wikepedia and the first sentences of the Overview section are:

The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4]


In addition from my own experience (which includes a study of paranormal phenomena) I can not accept materialism as a correct way of viewing the universe.

 

[punkdbass]

I do understand and appreciate that not everyone enjoys scriptures like I do. I don't expect that everyone should. (I do hope that a religious forum is the appropriate place for me to express my appreciation of scriptures.) Everyone is different, and everyone has different talents to offer.

The main things are: we are all in the same boat, and we all suffer. However, each of us are also individuals, with unique perspectives, and unique hang ups, all in various stages of development.

If my love of scriptures is that much of a distraction here, and anyone has a more appropriate place for me to share scriptures, say the word, point me to the appropriate place, and I'll go there.

This. I too very much enjoy learning from scripture crossfire, and I also like learning from more practical, personal, explanations. For example - as a student in math and statistics, I far more prefer applied math and statistics over theory any day. Everyone learns differently, some explanations work better for others, and some explanations don't work well for certain peoples. We should respect this - rather than get frustrated and act out when particular explanations do not work well with our own preconceived notions. If you think one's explanation is too dry, abstract, and dogmatic for your own tastes.. why not ask for a more personal and practical explanation? It's as simple as that.

This is a diverse online community - we have people here from practically any background or learning-style imaginable. Respect and patience is the best way to deal with this..

Namaste

 

[atanu]

I rest my case.

That is contradiction. Ha ha.

 

[atanu]

Hello,

I will offer a few quotes from Lama Surya Das on the subject of "Self," for he is really good at explaining difficult Buddhist concepts to a lay audience. Let me know if these help, and if so, I can try to answer more specific questions.

It is an excellent post punk (pardon me for the abbreviation )

I think that what exactly the Buddha nature is that we all are supposed to possess and what exactly the emptiness is that everything rises from and goes back to is speculative for most, if not for all, of us.

IMO, in absence of actual knowledge of the emptiness, crying hoarse that only the impermanence was true, remains an ego cry only. Most people will then with an ego self not only deny the ego self but also deny the reality that gives rise to the ego self. Most people actually validate only presence of an ego-self by denying that which is doing the denying. And in the process the all pervading nature of the emptiness ( which is not impermanent and which is not devoid of power of discernment) gets veiled. The most important knowledge that transformed everything for me was that the emptiness is not devoid of the power of discernment. Else the emptiness can never be cognised (although cognised is not an exact word since the cognised, cognition and the cognised do not remain separate in the emptiness).

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

After reading atanu's post, I realized something. We're all here, trying to get to the point of a specific Buddhist doctrine, that of anatta, and unless it's something we've attained, we can only argue it from the opposite position. In other words, we're trying to get to the bottom of egolessness by trying to argue from the position of ego. Unless one has attained and experienced it, all we can do is use words and ideas that will never fully convey the point.