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 Lost Necklace"
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
Tricycle's Daily Dharma
- The Lost Necklace
...No special effort is necessary to realize the Self. All efforts are for eliminating the present obscuration of the Truth.A lady is wearing a necklace around her neck. She forgets it, imagines it to be lost and impulsively looks for it here, there and everywhere. Not finding it, she asks her friends if they found it anywhere, until one kind friend points to her neck and tells her to feel the necklace around her neck. The seeker does so and feels happy that the necklace is found.Again, when she meets other friends, they ask her if her lost necklace was found. She says, "yes" to them, as if it were lost and later recovered. Her happiness at re-discovering it round her neck is the same as if some lost property was recovered. In fact, she never lost it nor recovered it. And yet she was once miserable and now she is happy. So also with the Realization of the Self.--Ramana Maharshi, 365 Nirvana, Here and Now
I found this interesting. No subject seems to raise quite so many arguments among net-Buddhists as the question of 'self'.
As usual, I shall nail my colours to the mast and say that I treasure Ramana Maharshi and am close to being convinced that his vision of a Self. This is beyond what are called, in Buddhist language, the aggregates. Despite all the valued arguments that are presented, I am of the opinion that 'non-self' as a translation betrays rather than reveals.
This does not mean that I want to return to some sort of quasi-Christian 'soul'. My own experience and my study hint at something that is no 'thing' at all which is neither self nor not self.
It is the Heart Sutra which permits me, when I get caught up in the intellectual puzzle and draws me away so that I can lose my head and come to ....(?).....
GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
0
Comments
Oh yes Sir - Ramana Maharshi! I am a massive fan. I can't even begin to find words to express my love of his teachings. They are quite simply the most profound I have ever encountered.
Like a crucifix held in front of Dracula, a Buddhist jumps at the mere mention of 'self'. A red rag to a bull, but take a closer look at what he's actually saying. The question 'who am I' is a meditative tool of the first degree. Not an intellectual, discursive, philosophical thing, rather a naked, honest investigation (beyond all theory and semantics) into all that we 'are'.
And guess what? We aren't
One teacher I wish I could have met.
Namaste
Kris
You also wrote: I agree fully. Buddha taught anatta, NOT-SELF. This is an observation (like Ramana Maharshi's), and not a statement of an absolute condition. Unfortunately many Buddhist take this to mean NO-SELF. There is a universe of difference. I can't accept this latter view - it is a contradiction in terms and the sort of thing the former pope was referring to
when he described Buddhism as 'life denying'. It shouldn't be but, alas, in many quarters it is.
Namaste
Kris
along with a 'cloud of unknowing', the state where you climb into a cloud up a mountain: you know the path and the precipice do exist but have no idea where they are.
My view (from personal experience as well as through observation) is that many people seek to discover an answer to the question of whether or not there is a self, and I think that many people take comfort in their beliefs whatever those beliefs may be. Since finding the Buddha's teachings, however, I have preferred the Buddha's approach; because for me, it gets right to the heart of the matter of suffering and its cessation. For those looking for a categorical "yes" or "no" answer from the Buddha in regard to whether or not there is a self, they will be greeted only with silence (SN 44.10).
What one will find, on the other hand, are teachings that deal with how to discern and then abandon the causes for suffering in their own mind forever. While this approach might not be as comforting as simply pointing to a self which may or may not be hiding in plain sight in that it involves a great deal of effort, patience and mental cultivation, it is an approach that the Buddha assures us will lead to freedom from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. That is why, in order to direct our attention to what is truly important, the path begins with right view.
Ultimately, in the Buddha's path there is no use is asking the question, "Who am I?" Why not? Because, as Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "As for the question, "Who am I?" the Buddha included it in a list of dead-end questions that lead to "a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, [you] don't gain freedom from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair." In other words, any attempt to answer either of these questions is unskillful karma, blocking the path to true freedom" (Questions of Skill).
Sincerely,
Jason
Hi Jason,
It can be "unskillful karma" if you use the question for either dry philosophical prattle or to reenforce a belief (or sense) of 'self'.
But, take another look at "Who am I?" Who am I? I am suffering, impermanence and not-self - all the manifest field of awareness - all that is arisen to the consciousness - all the stuff to which awareness clings.
Then try to find the gaps, the spaces between this stuff (Jhana - samhadi). Then you 'see' that these things are not-self. They are the things upon which all our joy and suffering ride and they are impermanent. As much as you hold these things, there is 'I', as much as you release them, there is peace.
Namaste
Kris
Nicely put bushinoki.
This is, indeed, one of the results of our reflection on the aggregates and on impermanence.