Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The true meaning of the buddha's teachings
I was just thinking over the buddha's teachings tonight, what enlightenment really means, what we need to understand to attain it. after all, enlightenment is unatainable unless we realize what it is at some point. so, feel free to correct me if need-be, but this is my perspective on what "non-self" really means, what the dellusion really is, what the attainment of enlightenment entails. I'd very much like to hear the opinions of some more experience members on this to see if I have the right idea, but I least think I do.
In buddhist meditation, the goal is to lose sense of the "self", and the ego. Buddha taught that our minds and perspective on reality is clouded by delusion and to some degree, hallucination. this is because rather than being aware of your own consciousness and awareness, people live under the delusion that their "self" is the chemical drives within us, the instinctive reactions that push us, the mental conditioning we are put through from birth, and the primite egotystical concept we are all ingrained with that what we can immediately percieve (that being your own body and mind), is all that makes up reality.
the sense of "self" is derived from immediate sensory perception. what is outside us, and what is our physical form, are perceived quite differently. Because the world outside our physical selves is not as intimately percievable as the physical body and thoughts within, our minds make sense of this indiscrepency in understanding by separating the world from our physical selves with "Me" and "not me". This eventually leads to concepts such as "pride", sometimes very strongly within some people. pride in itself is the delusion that the worth and importance of ones own actions and abilities are of more importance than anything else, because the actions and abilities contrived from within our physical being are the most intimately percievable, and therfor the only true reality and importance, or so the undeveloped mind would believe.
Then there are the drives within us all. in order for the species to innitially survive, we developed instincts. instincts to belong to a societal group, to gain wealth, power, dominance, security, all necessary prerequisites to survival. This is why we have craving, craving brings about attainment, attainment ensures survival. This is what buddhism speaks of when they talk about "the extinction of self". it doesn't mean you blink out of existence, it means the extinction of conditioning, whether it be instinctive or societal. Enlightenment is attained when chemical drives no longer control us, when instinct does not determine our actions, when cravings do not push our response. Enlightenment is the realization of pure conscious awareness, complete liberation from the illusion that our cravings and drives-that-push make up who we really are.
In buddhist meditation, the goal is to lose sense of the "self", and the ego. Buddha taught that our minds and perspective on reality is clouded by delusion and to some degree, hallucination. this is because rather than being aware of your own consciousness and awareness, people live under the delusion that their "self" is the chemical drives within us, the instinctive reactions that push us, the mental conditioning we are put through from birth, and the primite egotystical concept we are all ingrained with that what we can immediately percieve (that being your own body and mind), is all that makes up reality.
the sense of "self" is derived from immediate sensory perception. what is outside us, and what is our physical form, are perceived quite differently. Because the world outside our physical selves is not as intimately percievable as the physical body and thoughts within, our minds make sense of this indiscrepency in understanding by separating the world from our physical selves with "Me" and "not me". This eventually leads to concepts such as "pride", sometimes very strongly within some people. pride in itself is the delusion that the worth and importance of ones own actions and abilities are of more importance than anything else, because the actions and abilities contrived from within our physical being are the most intimately percievable, and therfor the only true reality and importance, or so the undeveloped mind would believe.
Then there are the drives within us all. in order for the species to innitially survive, we developed instincts. instincts to belong to a societal group, to gain wealth, power, dominance, security, all necessary prerequisites to survival. This is why we have craving, craving brings about attainment, attainment ensures survival. This is what buddhism speaks of when they talk about "the extinction of self". it doesn't mean you blink out of existence, it means the extinction of conditioning, whether it be instinctive or societal. Enlightenment is attained when chemical drives no longer control us, when instinct does not determine our actions, when cravings do not push our response. Enlightenment is the realization of pure conscious awareness, complete liberation from the illusion that our cravings and drives-that-push make up who we really are.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thanks for that....
Close, but not quite. Meditation in Buddhism can be said, at it's highest, to be goalless. To sit is in itself to manifest our awakened nature. That nature is not something that we can develop, add to or subtract from. And meditation doesn't necessarily mean that we lose all sense of self, although there are times when that does happen. It's more that we see that it's not the totality of who or what we are.
ZM,
For the purpose of education - I need some clarification...
Are some of these statements that you make based entirely upon a Zen Buddhist way of thinking?
-bf
Sometimes, when some of our more learned members write something, I don't know if their speaking from generic Buddhism - or from their particular brand.
-bf
Thats beautiful.
My personal theory is enlightenment is the dissolution of soul [ego], caused by an end of craving - caused by an end of ignorance.
At that point, I'm not sure what happens next..
[above just my personal theory]
There isn't actually much difference. A Theravadin might express it as meditation is experiencing the truth of non self, impermenance and so forth from moment to moment, A Vajrayana Buddhist might talk of resting in the suchness (tathata) of things, and a Zen Buddhist might talk of sitting just to sit - they're all talking essentially about the same thing.
What happens next is no different from what would happen without enlightenment in a sense, because one aspect of awakening is realizing that to begin with there is no ego (in the Buddhist sense) to dissolve. It's a subtle but important point.
Speaking from a purely Theravadin point of view, I am not quite sure that I agree. In Theravada Buddhism, meditation has some very specific purposes. Each meditation [of which there are forty] has its own uses and effects on our practice. One very common example is anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing).
Anapanasati is often used specifically for the attainment of jhana (mental absorption). What this does for our practice is it temporarily removes the five nivarana (hindrances) [which are kamacchanda (sensual desire), vyapada (ill will), thina-middha (sloth & drowsiness), uddhacca-kukkucca (restlessness & anxiety), and vicikiccha (uncertainty)]. This done so that we may have a spotless mind with which to contemplate topics of Dhamma [such as the three characteristics of dukkha, anicca, and anatta], thereby giving rise to panna (insight). With these hindrances present, true insight simply cannot arise.
Also, jhana meditation is used to observe very subtle mind states, states so refined that you cannot ordinarily perceieve them. This helps to gain even more insight into the impermanent and not-self nature of the mind. Now, a little secret is that these states of concentration are not just spontaneously attained. They arise due to subtle acts of intention and mental fermentation [i.e. mental awareness and attention composed of mindfulness]. You can reside in these states of concentration only as long as your mind rests in that particular perception. In other words, it is a mental act. It is not attained without direction, purpose, and effort on the part of the meditator. The mind itself can very readily concentrate on the object of meditation as if there is no effort on the part of the meditator, but that is merely an illusion due to the fact that such effort cannot be easily discerned.
In the end, these various methods of meditation help to lead one to the Goal [as the Buddha sometimes used to refer to Nibbana]. They are tools for the contemplative to use in their everyday practice. It is only when this "Goal" of unexcelled bliss of release is attained that the contemplative knows birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world. What happens to a person afterwards is unknown to me. Perhaps things are exactly the same, and perhaps they are not. It could very well be that there is no difference, however, I would be cautious in phrasing meditation practice as being without a goal. To me, it gives the impression that there is nothing for us to really do, that we are just fine as we are [which in Theravada Buddhism is definitely not the case].
The "Goal" in Theravada Buddhism is the complete elimination of avijja (ignorance), thereby freeing one from the three defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion. Ignorance is by no means a good thing. The problem is that these things don't just go away on their own. There must be an active process of removing them. If left alone, they will simply condition more of the same [and hence condition more suffering]. Meditation is one of the main methods used for achieving this pursuit, because without it insight will simply not arise. In essence, experiencing the truth of anatta (not-self) is the actual insight, while meditation is how that experience is brought about. I am not sure if this is the same for all traditions, but this is how it is presented by most Theravadin teachers and Suttas.
Jason
P.S. Just for aditional information, the elimination of sakkaya-ditthi (self-identification view) is only one the first of the ten fetters [which are sakkaya-ditthi (self-identification views), vicikiccha (uncertainty), silabbata-paramasa (attachment to precepts and practices), kama-raga (sensual passion), vyapada (resistance), rupa-raga (passion for form), arupa-raga (passion for formless phenomena), mana (conceit), uddhacca (restlessness), and avijja (ignorance)] to abandoned by one Who has become a sotapanna (stream-entrer) on the Path to Awakening. It isn't until all ten are completely abandoned that one becomes an arahant (worthy one).
And that I'd entirely agree with. The Jhanas are there in Zen too, though usually what is stressed first is Samadhi. That is why though I said 'meditation at it's highest'. For example when one is in Samadhi and has moved beyond the initial stages of meditation, meditation becomes increasingly goalless. This is not to devalue the Jhanas, but as Theravadin teachers themselves point out, they are only a short term goal and as they are also conditioned states, must be left behind. Initially yes there are goals, and the various meditation practices have various specific effects and applications, but ultimately there does come a point at which things are no longer done "in order to" achieve something, as all thoughts of achievement, of a self that achieves and of the Dharma as being seperate from oneself are left behind.
Well then, I am not quite sure that I disagree...
Jason
Thank you.
Love,
Brigid
I'd say that one strength of the Theravada is that it doesn't assume that students already have this grounding, and reminds them that though such things may be basic, that doesn't mean they are either dispensable or, by implication, unimportant. A Zen teacher may instruct a student to just sit, but that student will already have that grounding and ideally their 'just sitting' is informed by at least an acquaintance with the Noble Eightfold Path, with mindfulness and with the practice as being part of a living tradition that goes back over 2000 years. Without that basis, the phenomenon of 'Zen and the art of Anything', or anything goes Zen, often crops up, where people view Zen entirely mistakenly as something that is neither Buddhist nor concerned with a more complete model of daily life practice and that idea is something that Zen students in the West I think don't always address as they should.
I completely agree. That is why my personal belief has always been that Zen Buddhism is the most beneficial when one has a very experienced teacher to guide them. Otherwise, one may simply mistake the tradition as promoting the idea that we are as we should be, and that's that. The problem is that when people often talk about Zen, they generally never expressly state that "sitting just to sit" is what you come to realize [with Awakening], not what already is [due to ignorance]--although there is essential no difference in the actual act. It can give people [Westerner especially] the idea that doing whatever you feel like is Buddhism. Confused? So am I.
In other words, before an Awakening experience, one grasps, strives, intends, and craves in an effort to become, achieve, or satisfy some desire. After an Awakening experience, however, this is not the case. You are still going to be human, still need to breathe, and still need to eat, but you will no longer grasp, strive, intend, or crave in an effort to become, achieve, or satisfy some desire. Those things will simply be absent. With the destruction of ignorance, you are completely content and perfect as you are. That doesn't mean that you don't do anything, but it means that you don't do anything out of greed, hatred, or delusion. It sounds like such an easy thing to do, but ignorance can be more deceptive than you might imagine. It has more tricks up its sleeve than David Blaine.
A beginner in the Zen tradition really needs a good teacher. The reason I believe this is that the Zen tradition is one of the ones that promotes sudden Awakening [i.e. satori or kensho], whereas tradition like Theravada promote a more gradual Path to Awakening, in stages. The gradual Path is very thoroughly explained and can easily be followed by someone without a teacher being readily available [although having a teacher is always preferred]. There may be times when one will get stuck in their practice and need some advice, but everything is generally very well covered by the Suttas themselves. The sudden Path is a little different, though. Its strength often seems to rely on the intimate contact between a teacher and their student [not unlike martial arts I suppose]. They use different techniques to stimulate sudden jumps in the mind's awareness and undertanding. Some meditation techniques and koans, for example, are specifically designed to help produce flashes of insight within the meditator. The watchful eye of an experienced teacher is essential for steady progress [I would imagine at least], because many people may mistake certain states of concentration or blissful feelings as the actual Awakening experience [which is probably just as true for every tradition now that I think about it].
It may sound stupid, but to me it kind of seems like the Theravada tradition starts at the beginning and works its way slowly towards the Goal, while the Zen tradition starts at the Goal and quickly works its way towards the beginning. The former provides a gradual opening of the mind to insight [as a lotus flower slowly opens up to reveal its petals with the heat of the sun], while the later provides a sudden flash of realization [as a brillant strike of lightning illuminates the night sky]. Each person has their own individual capabilities, so each person will benefit from one approach more than the other. Most people will usually know which one suits them the best right away. After studying each of the various traditions [briefly] and practicing with different teachers, one method will jump out and say "I'm the one."
That is my current understanding at least. Please forgive me if I have made any incorrect observations [and/or generalizations] about Zen Buddhism, as I will admit that my knowledge and practice of it are limited. Feel free to correct me wherever I may be wrong.
Jason
Just peek in to see what the discussion is about. As far as discussion go I would like to point out that what Buddha taught is not as complicated as it sounds. The Buddha tells us that the aggregate (Skandha) is not a self, it is impermanence and full of sufferings.
So, what one must do to become a Buddha?.........the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness) are nothing but finger pointing to the "real" substance that they are made out of. So, one should set aside the illusory self that one has been hang onto for so long and find this "real" substance, this real substance is not of the body, but it operate the body daily........it moves people to the crapper, it opens their mouths so they can eat a few hamburgers and chucking down a few pints of whiskey, eh....
The point I am trying to make is, find the source that moves your hands and feet, then the rest is easy sailing, mates..
Buddha-Dharma-Sangha
Welcome to newbuddhist.com
Unfortunately, I might have to disagree with your statement [unless I am simply misunderstanding your meaning]. From my understanding, the Buddha did teach that the five aggregates were not-self, however, he also taught that there was nothing besides these five aggregates to be found within this fathom-long body. He often referred to the khandhas as the All, and the World. He taught that there was nothing lasting or permanent within them, as well as without. People may ask about Nibbana [since it is unconditioned which means that it's not subject to cessation], but what is Nibbana? In the Mula Sutta the Buddha taught that Nibbana is not a "self", it is not a place for a "self" to go, it is not itself a phenomenon, but is simply the final end of phenomena [and here the Buddha uses phenomenon as meaing the five aggregates]. In the doctrine of dependent co-arising the Buddha taught that there is no "real" substance, there is only this process of arising and ceasing. In short, all views of self [regardless of what they may be] are illusory and nothing more than a thicket of views.
That is just my take anyway.
Jason
I send you back the email you send me, in it I included a link to he Nirvana Sutra
http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/, anyone feel free to take a look. Much of what the Buddha taught were destroyed after he passed away. I looked at the Sutra from the link you send me.........they make no sense at all.
Why would Buddha say that there is nothing out there but the aggregates? Then he taught the Nirvana Sutra about the Self (Nirvana) that is beyond the aggregates?
If your assertion about the aggregates is true, why practice Buddhism, why dont we just worship the flesh, and hope that those corpses buried deep long time ago would come back to life, eh? like what they believe in modern Christianity.
You got to keep your eye and mind open a little, friends............Buddhism is not for the average Joe.
:P
Interesting. I would once again have to disagree with you. Much of what the Buddha taught was not destroyed, it was in fact memorized and recited by his disciples for the first five hundred years after his death, and then written down in various dialects [Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, etc.] after that for fear of the Dhamma being completely lost due to the persecution and near extinction of the Sangha. There are hundreds upon thousands of Suttas to this effect. The authenticity of the Samyutta Nikaya/Agama, for example, is almost completely beyond doubt. There is evidence * which shows that the Samyutta Nikaya [Pali] and Samyutta Agama [Chinese] were written down before the all schisms that occurred to the original Sangha [breaking them off into 18 different sects or schools]. We have copies of both, and they are almost identical except for the arrangement of the Suttas within them.
So, from your statement then, you believe that the entire Pali Canon makes no sense? That is a difficult matter to tackle. I do not think that I can help you there. I really do not have the time to try and explain all of the thousands of Suttas, their commentaries, and what is all means as a whole to you. If you really wish educate yourself a little more on this matter I can certainly offer you some good places to start [such as Access to Insight], otherwise you'll just have to take my word for it.
Let me be very clear here, I am not asserting anything. I am saying that from my own personal understanding, and what I have been taught by various bhikkhus themselves, there is nothing permanent and unchanging in this mentality-materiality that we call the five aggregates [i.e. human being]. The Buddha taught in his doctrine of paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising) that all things which are conditioned arise due to causes, and cease when those causes are no longer present. Everything that is dukkha, anicca, and anatta are subject to this law of causality [including the five aggregates]. The only thing that is beyond this process of arising and ceasing is Nibbana. Nibbana, however, is not a self, nor is it a place. Any such teaching that promotes it as such should be subjected to a little more scrutiny. Nibbana/Nirvana simply means "going out" or "extinguish because of lack of fuel".
Now, if you can refrain from being condensending, we can discuss this idea a little further. However, if you cannot do that, I do not see any reason to continue this discussion. Nobody will benefit by trading insults. I have learned that lesson myself--the hard way.
Jason
Please dont treat Buddhism like a Christian religion, most the the Sutras were not intended to be interpreted literally, especially those of the later Mahayana Sutras...........and in case of the Nikaya, I can tell you that most of the true original Buddha words were destroyed by the monks, or deleted or altered by them since most of it was written in "high" level language that most monks did not understand.
It is a dark secret that I dont like to say to the forum here, but be adviced that most of the original Buddha messages were lost, altered on purpose, or destroyed.
So, today.....you read a few words, big deal!.............how about explain to me why would the Buddha teach that there is nothing absolute other than the flesh....even an average Joe know that!.
Cheers
Nam
This statement simply does not make sense, Nam, when you consider that the Buddha was the most 'Human' of people, and always transmitted his teachings in a manner in which his followers and listeners would be able to understand. He never made any great mystery of his teachings. On the contrary, he encouraged everyone through the Kalama Sutra to examine and question everything any teachers, sages or Masters taught. Including his own words.
Given that so much emphasis was placed on memorising his words (as is still done today) and then transmitting them in an accurate and faithful fashion, your assertion that they were destroyed, deleted or altered by monks is both reckless and does not carry the weight of credibility.
So dark in fact, that nobody has ever heard of come across such a sweeping and indiscriminate statement. As the Buddha taught - I think I would like a little evidence to support this statement....Would you please substantiate this "dark secret" with some concrete evidence of your own?
I am sorry that this potentially enjoyable conversation took such a negative turn. Appearently you cannot refrain from being condenscending, so I will not continue this discussion any further beyond this post. Your views, in my opinion, are too absurd for me to even bother refuting. They sound more like Advaita Vedanta than Buddhism. Perhaps when you try to pass off your version of what the Buddha taught to someone else [since you believe that what is taught today is nonsense], you can at least try to treat them with respect instead of condescension. There is nothing further that I can explain to someone who intentionally pulls the wool over their own eyes.
Jason
Hm, yes.............let me consult with the master first, eh...
Cheers:rockon: :cheer:
I'm closing this thread, because it appears to be doing nothing but be generating Unskillful Discussion. **