Tail Chasing with views and correct views

Jeffrey

In regards to right view and non-grasping I had some thought.

Along that line I was thinking that the view of a permanent self is not the problem, rather the problem is grasping to that view. Now is the grasping the root of the problem? Or is there another view that we need to grasp? And in turn if we didn't grasp to that? See where I am going? Its like two snakes each biting the others tail.

I read somewhere that emptiness means not holding to any views at all, so the tail-chasing example. We study views to get us to a certain point, but don't need to hold to them. Nor do we need to cultivate a view that there are no views. They are all helping us go deeper into our experience, and really question what that is, so that we loosen our grip on our concepts and open out into the aliveness of the heart.

Dakini

:crazy: hunh?! I think we settled the "permanent self" question on the "Big Topic" thread. There's a very subtle mind/consiousness that carries habits, learnings, preferences/graspings and karmic imprints from one life to the next. What's all the other fuss about? I forget. :-/

Jeffrey

No its a different question. Do you think believing in a permanent self is the problem or grasping is the root problem? Would negating the belief in a permanent self lead to nirvana? If so then why aren't we enlightened? Or are we as buddhists already enlightened? Is the reason we are not because 'actually' we still believe in a permanent self?

Dakini

Reaching Enlightenment is more complex than just that one element, isn't it? (Remember TJ and his: "There is no self, I'm free! I'm enlightened!" thread?) Or maybe you're enlightened and you don't know it. Are all fetters automatically released through the realization that there is no permanent self? Do people automatically become selfless and compassionate towards others, and wise? (How does this Enlightenment business really work, anyway? :scratch: )

Jeffrey

"Are all fetters automatically released through the realization that there is no permanent self?"

That is the question. Also what is the definition of enlightenment and compassion? Is it something relative. Such as Greg Lemand is a better cyclist than be. And analogously buddha is better at compassion than me? If I fail to rescue a homeless kitty does that mean I am taking backwards steps on my quest for enlightenment?

Is a buddha defined as someone who does not get angry or have a craving? Why would someone believe that was possible? Is that taken on faith rather than observations in this day and age?

Dakini

Did the Buddha take home all the homeless dogs, cats, monkeys, etc.?

Yes, a Buddha is someone who doesn't get angry or have a craving. We believe it's possible because the Buddha did it. Here's a good quesion: have there been other Buddhas (people who reached Enlightenment) since the Buddha? I know Mahayana says yes, I'm wondering what the Theravadans would say. So to paraphrase one of your questions: is true Enlightenment really do-able?

Jeffrey

Why do we think the buddha was enlightened?

federica

Because he said he was.

Jeffrey

Are you kidding? What if I say I am? Or Martin Luther King?

federica

No, he was asked and he said "I am awake"

Which is an indication that he had stopped asking tail-chasing questions, and had opened his eyes to the way things are.

Are you "awake"?

Or still chasing tails....?

Jeffrey

How do we know he was awake? Didn't he say the goal was to be free from suffering? Hod did we know he was not suffering other than him saying? Thats a little bit of a digression from the topic.

The topic is whether replacing wrong views is appropriate? And is it problematic to attach to those right views? Is the problem the view of self? Would that be liberating? If so do we not realize that view? Otherwise why do we suffer having realized?

federica

Because that's how he described himself.
His teachings would appear to bear this out.
Do you know he wasn't?

Jeffrey

Know I don't. So should we be agnostic? If we know the teachings bear that out how do we know this? Is that saying we have followed the teachings to their conclusion and that we have become enlightened?

Sabre

Grasping at 'no-self view' is kind of a contradiction. If you have an idea of no-self and are attached to that idea/view, you are actually attached to the self because you think it is your idea/view. So this idea is incorrect. So you can't have both a realization of no-self and attaching to views about it.

Of course, you might say that is just my view, but then you are really going in circles, haha

Also keep in mind that having a view and being attached to a view are two different kind of things. Buddhism is not about having no view and that is not the meaning of emptiness. In fact the Buddha said it is right view to see the benefits of the path.

Why do we think the buddha was enlightened?

Since I've started practicing a lot of greed and ill will I had has been abandoned and did not come back. I don't see any reason why it would not be possible to let these go forever. Also I think nobody could come up with such a teaching like this if it wasn't true.

Jeffrey

Here is a thread for the digression: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10617/how-do-we-know-the-buddha-and-path-are-reliable

The topic is whether replacing wrong views is appropriate? And is it problematic to attach to those right views? Is the problem the view of self? Would that be liberating? If so do we not realize that view? Otherwise why do we suffer having realized?

federica

Knowing is not sufficient.
Understanding is not sufficient.
Following is not sufficient.
Realising is sufficient.

DhammaDhatu

Along that line I was thinking that the view of a permanent self is not the problem, rather the problem is grasping to that view.

Self = grasping

Grasping = self

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?'

And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html

There is the case where a person assumes form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness to be the self.

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html

Jeffrey

Ahh but how do you view the realization of the teaching. Is it knowing the nature of clinging? Or is it releasing from clinging? I think the latter. Perhaps they are entwined as a flower also has leaves roots and a stem.

DhammaDhatu

Both

As long as my knowing and seeing of each of the four noble truths was not quite purified, I did not claim to have discovered the full Awakening that is supreme.

But as soon as my knowing and seeing how things are was quite purified of each of the four noble truths, then I claimed the full Awakening that is supreme.

Knowing and seeing arose in me thus: 'My heart's deliverance is unassailable. This is the last birth. Now there is no renewal of being.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html

Jeffrey

How does one examine the completeness? You say by the suffering correct? But can you say more about that transformation as you see the suffering. For example one could suffer but then get dismayed and sullen. One could suffer and try to take a self help course. Or learn to play the drums. Obviously people take drugs but not all of us can relate to that though we all have our ways.

So can you say more about the method of examining suffering as a productive force? Or is it gradual and is like cooking beans where it takes time for them to absorb the water? I am thinking in analogies haha.

Jeffrey

My teacher has advised not to accept the suffering in the sense of resignation. But face it and examine our wishes to be free. And also to see what we do to avoid suffering that is not helpful and to realize that fact.

I think that is a helpful advice.

DhammaDhatu

I read somewhere that emptiness means not holding to any views at all, so the tail-chasing example.

Sure. But still, the nature of the "self" thought must be fully understood here.

Fully enlightened beings continue to speak the words "I", "me" and "mine" but they understand these are just words (rather than a real "me").

Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.

That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common [conventional] worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

DhammaDhatu

How does one examine the completeness?

Similar to what your teacher said.

The suffering is the mind spinning around in some kind of thoughts and emotions connected with "I", "me", "him", "her", etc. This is the suffering.

Then one examines the causes of those obsessive, disturbing & oppressive thoughts. The causes are connected with various cravings/expectations, wrong views & unclear perceptions.

When the causes of suffering are adjusted then freedom from suffering will be realised or experienced.

Cloud

In essence, we are reaching out to find what is already right here. When we stop reaching, here we are. It is exactly the cessation of that underlying drive, that thirst which keeps us entangled in speculative views, that liberates us. Don't try to find other views to attach to, rather try to understand that thirst as itself being the problem.

santhisouk

How can 6,775,235,700 views be wrong views?

http://www.google.com/search?q=current world population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np