Best Of

@ShanJieshi2 These words?

"He was the laziest person. People used to call him Busuku. Bu comes from bukta, which means eating. And su comes from susta, which is sleeping and ku comes from kuchiwa, that’s just walking. One who can do just eating, sleeping and going out to the toilet. So he was called Busuku."

those were not Shantideva's words, but what someone said about Shantideva.

How can someone practice no-self and improve his self at the same time?

Through developing "Awareness"....

As Awareness of non self begins to develop (meditation and more mediation) the clinging aggregates which manifest the solid sense of a permanent self that is experienced, gradually begins to dissolve...
The habitual clinginess of desire and aversion which reinforce this sense of permanence starts to loose their grip , and in doing so, a more natural/unconditioned flow of aggregates comes to the fore ...I guess one could call this "Self Improvement"...

A self which is no longer bogged down...

I heard it said recently that philosophically the ultimate is easier to understand than the conventional. So sure, ultimately there's no self, its all interdependent. So in what way do we continue to function and act in the world? Contextually, dependently. We don't cease existing, we slowly begin to understand how we interact psychospiritually with the world around us. Importantly that also means that improving our own well being has an impact on the world around us.

@Kotishka said:
This is something I encounter constantly in Zen texts.

It seems the spiritual path has nothing to do with developing a self. Of course, Buddhism has this important concept, anatta. But the spiritual path, particularly in certain advanced/new practioners, has been highly benefitial for them and those around them. I understand it as being self-less, but there is still an object / self as "To help others I must improve my habits / to help myself I must reduce my own suffering".

My take is that the conditional and conventional "self" is an illusory tool. In the Two Truths teachings we have the subjective and ultimate sides of being. One points to individuality and the other points to non-individuality. Looking at it this way reminds me that absolutely, there are no others. To help others is to help myself because there is no true separation there. Helping my conventional self stay as healthy as possible in body and mind makes me of better use to other conventional selves.

I tried sitting on this and ended up confusing myself even more. I picked up Psychology as a result of my interest towards Buddhism to help people as I've always felt fond of listening and helping others. Is this feeding a self that has no existence, thus a hindrance to the path? I do acknowledge that there is a small trap to this. I work myself for qualifications to validate myself to be able to work.

To say it has no existence is an extreme stance. It is not that these conventional selves don't exist, it is that they don't exist by themselves... They depend on everything working together.

Maybe some of us -myself included- should accept that many rounds of rebirth are what's coming up for us, just like the bill after a long binge at the pub. Or maybe that there was no bill nor pub to start with. Or maybe at some point the self has stretched enough to provide the trampoline to jump into the non-self?

Thanks for reading.

It almost seems counter to logic but non-self doesn't point to non-existence. It points to inclusiveness.

Thanks for sharing.

This is something I encounter constantly in Zen texts.

It seems the spiritual path has nothing to do with developing a self. Of course, Buddhism has this important concept, anatta. But the spiritual path, particularly in certain advanced/new practioners, has been highly benefitial for them and those around them. I understand it as being self-less, but there is still an object / self as "To help others I must improve my habits / to help myself I must reduce my own suffering".

I tried sitting on this and ended up confusing myself even more. I picked up Psychology as a result of my interest towards Buddhism to help people as I've always felt fond of listening and helping others. Is this feeding a self that has no existence, thus a hindrance to the path? I do acknowledge that there is a small trap to this. I work myself for qualifications to validate myself to be able to work.

Maybe some of us -myself included- should accept that many rounds of rebirth are what's coming up for us, just like the bill after a long binge at the pub. Or maybe that there was no bill nor pub to start with. Or maybe at some point the self has stretched enough to provide the trampoline to jump into the non-self?

Thanks for reading.

@FleaMarket said:

@Dakini said:
Meditating on attachment/grasping, dukha and its sources, on ever-expanding circles of love, on letting go of envy and jealousy, etc., with the goal of achieving an Enlightened state, is not attachment to self. It's guiding the evolution of self in the right direction.

What about the enjoyment of spiritual practice? Such as positive emotions toward the challenges of elements of spiritual practice, the progress the self has made, freedoms from mental bondages, fondness of literature, etc.. Do these fall under flattery of self and an attachment to self? I am the one doing the enjoying of the spiritual practice after all. Is it that the self can enjoy but not be conditioned to seek the enjoyment? I'm not about to eat these strawberries expressionless but I won't long for the sensation of eating them after they are eaten. I will be on to the next thing.

I feel like I've asked this but couldn't find where. Apologies if this has been answered before and thanks in advance for any clarity offered.

Interesting question! I think it's natural to spontaneously enjoy a pleasurable activity. I don't see any attachment there. The joy comes and goes, it arises and falls. You just let it flow through you, you don't cling to it. (Do you?) You say, you'll enjoy the strawberries in the moment, but you won't long for them after they're consumed. That sounds like non-attachment to me.

Similarly, as the Dalai Lama says, when you experience loss, like the death of a loved one, it's natural to experience grief. You let the grief flow through you, you don't hold it back and try to pretend you're above it all, or something. You just let it flow.

It's ok to experience sadness and grief, as long as you don't get stuck in it. It's a human thing to feel sad at the loss of a loved one, and we are human. It's also natural to experience joy. But if we get stuck in grief and can't move on, or if we go around chasing after joy, like OD-ing on chocolate chip cookies or becoming bliss junkies chasing after the bliss state from certain types of meditation, that's attachment. Then one risks having the depression or the bliss-seeking take over one's life. One loses the ability to lead a balanced life and attend to day-to-day obligations and chores.

Remember, nothing is permanent. So there isn't a permanent self; it's always changing. And with dedicated Buddhist practice, it can evolve in a more healthy, positive direction.

The teaching is about not becoming attached to a fixed idea of self, like some people do, patting themselves on the back for being intelligent or generous or however it is they flatter themselves. That's attachment to self. Meditating on attachment/grasping, dukha and its sources, on ever-expanding circles of love, on letting go of envy and jealousy, etc., with the goal of achieving an Enlightened state, is not attachment to self. It's guiding the evolution of self in the right direction.

Once Enlightenment is achieved, one leaves ideas of self behind; they're irrelevant, and are abandoned like a snake shedding its skin.