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.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited March 2015
@SpinyNorman said:
No, it's quite straightforward. Realising it is the tricky bit!
Being straightforward, what he is saying is that there is a self which must be trained to behave as if it isn't here.
I understand that logic is not always the answer but illogic never is.
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen..... When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
He's not saying it isn't there, he's saying it must be trained to see beyond observer and observed.
@Earthninja I agree just let your awareness spill out to the infinity of space, you can't think about the infinite but you can be aware of the infinite. To me it demonstrates the boundless nature of your own mind.
Kind of reminds me of the Tibetan meditation on te fundamental clarity of your mind where one visualises the mind merging with an infinite cloudless sky.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited March 2015
@Lonely_Traveller said:
SpinyNorman Logic is no good, you can't think your way out of the trap, it has to be realised by intuitive awareness, I don't think you can force it either everything is influenced by pre-existing causes and conditions. Of course meditating creates the conditions for the fruit of the path to arise.
Intuitive awareness is good as far as keeping things subjective but if it cannot be translated into a logical discourse it makes a poor teaching for others.
Not to mention that intuitive awareness has led to many different subjective truths being claimed as the one truth.
As much as some people would dismiss logic, without it, you may as well roll up the ice cream and snooze in the sparks ice glass.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited March 2015
Ok, good then we're on the same page.
Plus, he has a name to go by so I presume he knows he is here.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I like Ajahn Sumedho and his teachings on non-self which are slightly different than a notion of no-self.
@Earthninja said:> SpinyNorman you can experience the spacious awareness right now. I practice this while walking the dogs. It's ever present.
I think "spacious awareness" gives a better feel for what we're discussing. So how does this help us in terms of the ego? Putting more space around the ego probably helps us to see it more clearly, and in perspective.
@Lonely_Traveller said:> Which is precisely what AJahn Sumedho does in his books ourself.> > Links to various Dhamma talks and pdfs at this google page.
It's good stuff, though I always found his idiosyncratic use of Dhamma language quite difficult to follow. This tends to happen when people make up their own vocabulary.
You have a point about his idiosyncratic use of the lingo @SpinyNorman. I find that putting some space around the ego makes it easier to see and makes the gaps between the thoughts visible (sometimes anyway!).
@SpinyNorman exactly, you become the awareness of the ego. You can watch it. It then becomes less personal.
Not me thinking but awareness of thoughts.
The thoughts then lose power and you feel much more peaceful.
Remaining as awareness is hard because certain thoughts carry immense weight. But this again is just ones belief. All thoughts are equal.
"Ego" is somewhat of a protean term in the west. As far as Freud's idea of ego goes (reason and circumspection), there is no such thing in Buddhism. In Buddhism the goal is to eradicate attachment to the false sense of self which is instantiated by the five grasping aggregates.
I do think though that "ego" in the usual sense roughly corresponds to self-view in Buddhism, something to be seen through and abandoned.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I want to agree with you and therein lies the rub.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It seems I'm trying to piece together a theory before removing the obstacles from the path.
I've been trying to do the theory and the practice simultaneously for over 20 years with varied results but I'm thinking I may have to let go of reasoning it out for a spell.
Trungpa Rinpoche drew a picture of a bird in one of his talks and said 'what is that'? I think everyone was scared to say anything and someone said 'a bird'? So he went on and talked about the trikaya. The bird is nirmanakaya which is the body of Buddha and includes thoughts and physical things. It's translation into sanskrit is 'tulku' but that usually means an awake being who causes to be reborn somewhere where he/she is needed by awareness and compassion (and apparently 'power' )
The drawing is also of the sky. A bird is always in a sky. The sky is dharmakaya which is the dharma and is always spacious. There is also samboghakaya which is the bliss or feeling body. It is the 'redness' of red. But it is bundled with nirmanakaya as 'rupakaya' which is the physical things. The 'redness' of red is not seen by a blind man.
Ego for me is born out of fear. If I look at any bad actions and reactions emanating from me they are arising from fear of one kind or another. The real tricky part is understanding where another's actions are coming from as it is not possible to have an equal understanding of another person to the extent one has of one's own which in itself is a task. So from where I am at, low below on the evolutionary map, I can only minimize damage by handling my reaction to it. What will befall me owing to another's ill thought out actions is something I have to work with. This is something I have even seen scholars struggle with as they try to interpret Buddha's teachings in the context of modern day life. Non violence helps tremendously here. From time to time I ask myself if I were faced with someone who wants to kill me will I have the courage to kill the person instead and I always come back with an answer saying no. Because I dont know what the other persons motivation is and how they will settle the score with whatever motivates them but I would not be able to say it was more justified for me to kill someone else as opposed to being killed. But were someone to attack someone else in front of me I dont think I would have any qualms about attacking the attacker. So you see I could be lying to myself here and when faced with total annihilation I may be no different from a violent person. Or I probably dont have a proper sense of self, possibly a death wish that in comparison to another's life I consider mine less worthy.
I think 'self' is what we are being born with. 'Ego' is being created by external factors such as our parents, educational system, media etc.
Self is empty. Children show a Great deal of self. They just are. From a certain age it becomes more important how one is perceived by others, thus ego is born.
When practising meditation one turns inward, restoring the connection with self.
Comments
Being straightforward, what he is saying is that there is a self which must be trained to behave as if it isn't here.
I understand that logic is not always the answer but illogic never is.
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen..... When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
He's not saying it isn't there, he's saying it must be trained to see beyond observer and observed.
I agree it is straightforward.
@Earthninja I agree just let your awareness spill out to the infinity of space, you can't think about the infinite but you can be aware of the infinite. To me it demonstrates the boundless nature of your own mind.
Kind of reminds me of the Tibetan meditation on te fundamental clarity of your mind where one visualises the mind merging with an infinite cloudless sky.
Intuitive awareness is good as far as keeping things subjective but if it cannot be translated into a logical discourse it makes a poor teaching for others.
Not to mention that intuitive awareness has led to many different subjective truths being claimed as the one truth.
As much as some people would dismiss logic, without it, you may as well roll up the ice cream and snooze in the sparks ice glass.
Which is precisely what AJahn Sumedho does in his books @ourself.
Links to various Dhamma talks and pdfs at this google page.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ajahn+sumedho+intuitive+awareness&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=qRgIVcq4NJXgaoTKgagO
Ok, good then we're on the same page.
Plus, he has a name to go by so I presume he knows he is here.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I like Ajahn Sumedho and his teachings on non-self which are slightly different than a notion of no-self.
Self-view is habitual and deep-seated, hence the need for training, or insight.
It's the view which is the problem.
I think "spacious awareness" gives a better feel for what we're discussing. So how does this help us in terms of the ego? Putting more space around the ego probably helps us to see it more clearly, and in perspective.
It's good stuff, though I always found his idiosyncratic use of Dhamma language quite difficult to follow. This tends to happen when people make up their own vocabulary.
You have a point about his idiosyncratic use of the lingo @SpinyNorman. I find that putting some space around the ego makes it easier to see and makes the gaps between the thoughts visible (sometimes anyway!).
Not me thinking but awareness of thoughts.
The thoughts then lose power and you feel much more peaceful.
Remaining as awareness is hard because certain thoughts carry immense weight. But this again is just ones belief. All thoughts are equal.
"Ego" is somewhat of a protean term in the west. As far as Freud's idea of ego goes (reason and circumspection), there is no such thing in Buddhism. In Buddhism the goal is to eradicate attachment to the false sense of self which is instantiated by the five grasping aggregates.
I do think though that "ego" in the usual sense roughly corresponds to self-view in Buddhism, something to be seen through and abandoned.
I want to agree with you and therein lies the rub.
I've been trying to do the theory and the practice simultaneously for over 20 years with varied results but I'm thinking I may have to let go of reasoning it out for a spell.
Too much pushin, not enough cushion.
I think we all do that. For me it's like trying to piece together half-formed realisations, clumsy attempts at melding theory with practice, meh...
Trungpa Rinpoche drew a picture of a bird in one of his talks and said 'what is that'? I think everyone was scared to say anything and someone said 'a bird'? So he went on and talked about the trikaya. The bird is nirmanakaya which is the body of Buddha and includes thoughts and physical things. It's translation into sanskrit is 'tulku' but that usually means an awake being who causes to be reborn somewhere where he/she is needed by awareness and compassion (and apparently 'power'
)
The drawing is also of the sky. A bird is always in a sky. The sky is dharmakaya which is the dharma and is always spacious. There is also samboghakaya which is the bliss or feeling body. It is the 'redness' of red. But it is bundled with nirmanakaya as 'rupakaya' which is the physical things. The 'redness' of red is not seen by a blind man.
A construction, but a helpful construction non-the-less. One must remember its insubstantiality.
@Earthninja:
"All thoughts are equal."
Insightful statement, I like it.
"How does "ego" relate to Buddhist thought?"
When not playing the role of the internal saboteur, it finds work as a motivational tool
Self is empty. Children show a Great deal of self. They just are. From a certain age it becomes more important how one is perceived by others, thus ego is born.
When practising meditation one turns inward, restoring the connection with self.
Something like that.