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.
Meditation is really very simple. It is fundamentally concerned with the dissolution of the self-concept and self-cherishing, so it gets simpler rather than more esoteric as that dissolution proceeds. There is not actually that much to write about.
This kind of meditation may be your particular slant on it, but it is not necessarily the same for everyone. Where I practice, the idea of "dissolution of the self-concept" is never mentioned.
There are many different kinds of meditation, even within the realm of Buddhism (to say nothing of beyond it). Each practitioner should find the type of practice that works best for him or her.
I do agree, though, that meditation is a simple thing, and does not require much reading. It is a fundamentally experiential practice, meaning that learning comes more from practice than from books.
Whatever is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. And what is not yours?
"Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning or doing with as he likes'?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they belong to our self."
"In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit."
Wouldn’t it be better to go gently, and show a little respect for the other guy, to speak with them in a civil tone? : ^ (
Without "taking sides" with anyone, I have to agree with this sentiment.
If you find yourself often saying the words "you are wrong" to another person, you have strayed from the path of Buddhism. It's not about "right and wrong," or arguing, or proving your point: it's about each person experiencing the Path in their own way.
If you find yourself continually opposing (or worse, insulting) another person, you have strayed from the Buddha's teaching. It's not about putting each other down, it's about building each other up. Helping each other, not hurting.
If you notice you use a lot of sarcasm in your posts, take a good look at yourself. This is not the spirit of Buddhism. (I have examined this in myself, for I have fallen into this foible in the past--and I will probably fall asleep and do it again at some point.)
We've all been given the gift of a beautiful path here...let's not turn it into a reason to oppose each other! Let's practice lovingkindness instead, and really make some progress in working through our karma.
If you find yourself often saying the words "you are wrong" to another person, you have strayed from the path of Buddhism. It's not about "right and wrong," or arguing, or proving your point: it's about each person experiencing the Path in their own way.
If you find yourself often saying the words "you are wrong" to another person, you have strayed from the path of Buddhism. It's not about "right and wrong," or arguing, or proving your point: it's about each person experiencing the Path in their own way.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Buddha himself say a wrong view is wrong view when he came across something he knew was not right? He has disputed several wrong views of the philosophical circles of his day in the Brahmajala sutta. I think it is fine as long as you have "common good" in mind when you are disagreeing with someone rather than the "desire to prove oneself right".
Welcome, I notice that you are relatively new to the forum. : ^ )
Z: (5B), this kind of meditation may be your particular slant on it, but it is not necessarily the same for everyone. Where I practice, the idea of "dissolution of the self-concept" is never mentioned.
S9: Quite so, meditation is a tool that has many faces, just think of the Whirling Dervishes for one, and has very many immediate purposes. I do think however that they all point in the direction of seeing something in a new way, perhaps in a deeper way, and maybe even opening up or being more receptive, wouldn’t you agree?
Z: There are many different kinds of meditation, even within the realm of Buddhism (to say nothing of beyond it). Each practitioner should find the type of practice that works best for him or her.
S9: Yes indeed, and even if it turned out to be the same journey, along the same road, to the same goal. It would still be each person’s personal journey, traveled in an intimate seclusion away from what the world was saying to us, would you agree?
However I do believe the sangha was meant to share more than simply meditating in a group. I believe we were meant to share our insights and experience with each other. Not to be confrontational mind you, but to gently share, each bringing his own contribution to a generous banquet, where you could eat heartily of what was being said, or simply choose to eat of another dish, as needed. There would in this way be plenty for everyone. Some dishes offered might even be an acquired taste. ; ^ )
This forum is like an e-sangha, and so out of respect, I believe that we should both share and play nice. ; ^ )
Z: I do agree, though, that meditation is a simple thing, and does not require much reading.
S9: I don’t know. I have often meditated on, and improve my techniques, because of what I have learned from books. I have also often had the opportunity to confirm what I was witnessing or even understand more deeply/recognize what I was personally experience through the printed page.
I see books as a great contribution to, and not as the enemy of meditation. I think that books have turned me on to a great deal of what I think I know, a finger pointing if you will, including the practice of contemplation, a very close cousin to meditation.
Many great (dead) masters have extended their contributions to this world though books. Like they say, “Dead, but not gone.” (Or is it, “not forgotten?”) No/matter. : ^ )
Z: It is a fundamentally experiential practice, meaning that learning comes more from practice than from books.
S9: Experience is ubiquitous. We experience everything. Awareness is experience and unless we are aware it isn’t happening for us, at least.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Buddha himself say a wrong view is wrong view when he came across something he knew was not right?
S9: I believe that Buddha was in a better position to point out what was wrong in your interpretation of what he was saying, don’t you.
2 big/good reasons:
(1)They were his words, after all.
(2)He was 100% Enlightened.
So until we are Enlightened, or somehow become Gautama Buddha, we are all sharing our own opinions with each other.
If we can keep this in mind, we puff ourselves up, and won’t claim to be the keeper of Gautama’s word’s unlike the rest of our e-sangha buddies
I think it is fine as long as you have "common good" in mind when you are disagreeing with someone rather than the "desire to prove oneself right".
S9: Just about every war that has ever existed, each side has claimed to have the common good on their side. : ^ (
Look what that brought about, death and mayham. Guess that isn’t a good reason to start throwing our weight around, or an efficient way to keep the peace.
Friendly regards,
S9
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2010
I'm going to say this one more time, and hopefully, for the last time.
BICKERING, BACK-BITING AND CONSTANT SNIPING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ON FORUM.
KINDLY CONDUCT YOURSELVES IN A FITTING MANNER, AND DEBATE THE MATTER IN HAND APPROPRIATELY - SAVE ANY PERSONAL INTERACTION FOR PRIVATE MESSAGING.... WHICH OF COURSE, YOU ARE NOT IN ANY WAY OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO.
Just about every war that has ever existed, each side has claimed to have the common good on their side. : ^ (
Look what that brought about, death and mayham. Guess that isn’t a good reason to start throwing our weight around, or an efficient way to keep the peace.
S: Anatta (Not Self/No Self) is a DOCTRINE about atta (Self). Atta, in Buddhist terms, refers to a truly existing (permanent, unchanging) self (egotistic self). Anatta is a Buddhist doctrine that shows that there is no such truly existing self occupying the five aggregates.
S9: Because ego is constantly changing, it would be silly to say ego was a permanent Self. I don’t think anyone here is doing that.
Yet I wonder, and maybe you do too, I can’t be sure, if Buddha was pointed out the impermanent only. Or did he want us to see or notice what was beyond the impermanent? (Illusion was obscuring WHAT?)
Did he just want us to notice that everything was totally impermanent, and that there was nothing outside of it, or even that we were 100% doomed? That seems rather hollow to me, completely fruitless, and maybe a bit hellish, too.
[.....]
Hi S9,
Thank you for your response.
The gist of my posts was to get clarity on the definition of "atta" so I could understand its opposite, that is, "anatta" more clearly.
Oftentimes, when anatta is taught (in Buddhist books, talks, etc...) one comes across statements such as "a false sense of a self (not truly existant)", or "an illusion of a single self (ego) created by the five aggregates", or "an absence of a permanent unchanging self". Then one is left with these statements to form their own opinions of what atta means. But, perhaps one should just forget about what atta means and simply regard the anatta teaching as a means to rid oneself of selfishness and clinging. That indeed is very usefull to the practice.
BUT: If anyone can define atta (atta means ......), please do so.
I don't see deagreement as a problem. Certainly you are allowed to disagree with a certain understanding/opinion on some detail, and go on say so, hopefully accompanied for some of your reasons for doing so, so it can prove useful.
Heaven knows that many of us here see things from slightly differently to widely differently. Perhaps it always comes back to HOW you do it.
Do you do it gently and respectfully? : ^ )
If you are coming from a place where, when someone disagreeing with you they are automatically labeled as an enemy, or if you have set yourself up as the protector of Buddhism, certainly correspondence on a public forum is not going to go well. : ^ (
I’m thinking that a bit more compassion, on all our parts, could go a long way towards being an answer. We can never have TOO MUCH compassion, in my opinion.
After all, if you are right, that is certainly a gift and a great blessing in your life. If however someone else is wrong, that is a whole lot more suffering in his life. If that doesn’t call for compassion, than what does?
So why, I have to ask, “Kick a guy when he’s down? : ^ (
S: The gist of my posts was to get clarity on the definition of "atta" so I could understand its opposite, that is, "anatta" more clearly.
S9: Yes, and I think you make a good point. I believe we have two directions in which we can look for answers. One is where we are running away from, or suffering. What suffering is and its root causes in important to understand. But certainly we can sneak a peek, at least occasionally, in the direction of which we are going…complete satisfaction, wholeness, permanence, and what exactly that might be.
Yes it is wisdom to understand what is illusion. But just perhaps it might be clarifying or Enlightening, also, to understand what exactly is REAL.
S: Oftentimes, when anatta is taught (in Buddhist books, talks, etc...) one comes across statements such as "a false sense of a self (not truly existent)", or "an illusion of a single self (ego) created by the five aggregates", or "an absence of a permanent unchanging self". Then one is left with these statements to form their own opinions of what atta means.
S9: That is the rub. I think Atta is ineffable and cannot be spoken. Yet it can be pointed at quite efficiently.
So many teachers concentrate on clearing away the debris of illusion, so that when it comes time and we are spiritually more mature, seeing Atta directly will be easier for us.
Yet I caution that we shouldn’t take from these early efforts to clear our path, that Atta doesn’t exist at all.
S: But, perhaps one should just forget about what atta means and simply regard the anatta teaching as a means to rid oneself of selfishness and clinging. That indeed is very useful to the practice.
S9: Useful and practical at some point in our development, yes. But it is not the whole ball of wax by any means. When Atta starts to leak into our awareness, contemplation of Atta is also quite useful and freeing.
S: If anyone can define atta (atta means ......), please do so.
S9: Certainly this would be impossible, as Atta doesn’t lend itself willingly to mental description. However it is most definitely our Spiritual heritage, and no one will be left out, abandoned, or block indefinitely from discovering their own true nature, or Atta.
One useful litmus for finding Atta, used for many centuries, is to ask, " What is here and now that is never changing?" Everything BUT Atta is changing.
I don't see deagreement as a problem. Certainly you are allowed to disagree with a certain understanding/opinion on some detail, and go on say so, hopefully accompanied for some of your reasons for doing so, so it can prove useful.
Heaven knows that many of us here see things from slightly differently to widely differently. Perhaps it always comes back to HOW you do it.
Do you do it gently and respectfully? : ^ )
If you are coming from a place where, when someone disagreeing with you they are automatically labeled as an enemy, or if you have set yourself up as the protector of Buddhism, certainly correspondence on a public forum is not going to go well. : ^ (
I’m thinking that a bit more compassion, on all our parts, could go a long way towards being an answer. We can never have TOO MUCH compassion, in my opinion.
After all, if you are right, that is certainly a gift and a great blessing in your life. If however someone else is wrong, that is a whole lot more suffering in his life. If that doesn’t call for compassion, than what does?
So why, I have to ask, “Kick a guy when he’s down? : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
As I said, it is fine to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't see anything wrong with stating facts to disagree with someone. Oh, well, what do I know of this matter anyway
Did he just want us to notice that everything was totally impermanent, and that there was nothing outside of it, or even that we were 100% doomed? That seems rather hollow to me, completely fruitless, and maybe a bit hellish, too.
The Buddha advised the realisation of impermanence results in dispassion, which results in Nibbana. Nibbana is not hollow, fruitless or hellish.
Why if Buddha delivered us from our illusions of impermanence into ‘a hellish nothing,’ a hell that was all that there was with no hope, (a despairing notion at best)...
The Buddha did not teach impermanence was an illusion. He taught is was clear seeing (lit: vipassana) into the fundamental nature of reality that leads to liberation & peace rather than to hell & despair.
Forgive me my questioning mind. But I believe that this points out my good mental health not to just swallow stuff whole without investigating it deeply and personally for my own truth of what the Buddha was pointing out.
The Buddha always forgives you. Here, you are merely pointing to a personal doubt, apprehensiveness & skepticism. The Buddha taught a stream-enterer is free from such doubts. A Buddha taught a stream-enterer has unshakeable faith (achala saddha).
In the suttas, many of the great disciples such a Kondanna and Sariputta acquired their stream-entry with the realisation: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation".
For instance, why would we even want to be delivered into a hell, and seek TOTAL annihilation as our just reward?
The Buddha taught a supramundane path that leads to the topic of discussion here, which is "the end".
There is no deliverence into a hell and what is sought is TOTAL freedom from suffering.
However, the Buddha did say this supramundane path is not for everyone. Not all beings have the mental temperament for impermanence. That is why there are different religions & doctrines.
How do you give it up just like that? Or is that supposed to be the practice
One gives up via insight (vipassana). This is the purpose of satipatthana practise, to directly see the body as merely body, just natural physical phenomena; to see feelings as merely feelings, just natural mental phenomena; to see mental states as merely mental states, just natural mental phenomena; to see consciousness as merely consciousness, just natural mental phenomena.
Or one can begin to give up via wise reflection (yonisomanasikara), to question: "Where does my life comes from?" "What created my body and its various physical organs?" "What created my mind with its various capacities?" "Did I create these things or did nature create them?"
"What is the creator of life?" Me or nature?
Not many Buddhists teach about nature (sabhava dhamma). Most Buddhists are teaching about exalted states of refined consciousness.
What are you saying Sukhitha? That there is a "true self" (atman - core of personality) existing?
I said this:
I have read somewhere that the mystics (who lived before and during the Buddha's time) talked about "true self" (atman - core of personality) and "shadow self" (the egotistic self). Maybe this is of no consequence here, as the Buddha's teaching is something he discovered for himself and not based on what someone else taught.
If you are coming from a place where, when someone disagreeing with you they are automatically labeled as an enemy, or if you have set yourself up as the protector of Buddhism, certainly correspondence on a public forum is not going to go well.
No need to depart from the discussion and project demonic traits upon others.
I bet if we took a piece of paper and drew a line down the middle, putting what you believe on one side and what I believe on the other side, there would be a good deal of correspondence. : ^ )
I believe that the basic place that we part ways is in your definition of no self.
I do not believe that Nirvana is a hellish notion. I believe the idea that there is nothing transcendent of impermanence is. : ^ (
The concept of impermanence isn’t an illusion. It is clear sight. I believe that the idea that the ego self is who we actually are, IS an illusion. Perhaps, the better word than illusion would simply be a mistake, or mistaken understanding.
I do think however that it is a hellish notion that impermanence is all there is, and our only salvation is to die completely, because there is no Real or Transcendent Self.
If you see this as “No guts, no glory,” well what can I say to you? Because I see it as a given, that looking into our fundamental nature is more than just seeing through impermanence for temporary comfort during this life…end of story.
I do not suffer from apprehension, doubt, or skepticism. I am completely content and confident in what I have witnessed to be both true and far more than what I feel you are offering.
I do however, like your self, see this to be a supramundane path, and also that there is a complete annihilation of suffering at some point. See what I mean, there is some agreement. : ^ )
I am also a great lover of nature and a previous study of Taoism has shown me that wise living needs not to argue with Mother (nature). Or “Go with the flow.”
I bet if we took a piece of paper and drew a line down the middle, putting what you believe on one side and what I believe on the other side, there would be a good deal of correspondence.
I don't. My impression is your mind struggles with disagreement. Try to develop some open mindedness rather than turning what you regard as "love" into a source of internal conflict.
Jesus taught: "What good is it to love those who are good to you. It is better to love thy enemy".
I do not believe that Nirvana is a hellish notion. I believe the idea that there is nothing transcendent of impermanence is.
Buddhas gain enlightenment via immersing their mind's in the constant observation of impermanence. When the mind thorouhgly observes all conditioned things are impermanent, it does not grasp those things plus craving towards those things ends. If I tried to sell you a motor car that would last one day, would you crave it? This ending of grasping & craving is Nibbana. The ending of craving & grasping includes towards consciousness.
The concept of impermanence isn’t an illusion.
Then why did you say it was previously?
I believe that the idea that the ego self is who we actually are, IS an illusion. Perhaps, the better word than illusion would simply be a mistake or mistaken understanding.
I do think however that it is a hellish notion that impermanence is all there is, and our only salvation is to die completely, because there is no Real or Transcendent Self.
What has salvation got to do with dying physically or not dying?
Salvation is of the mind, here, now, today (and when the body dies).
Basically, you appear to be saying there is an Eternal Self or Soul.
Buddha did not teach this but Krishna, Jesus & Mohamed (PBOH) did.
Because I see it as a given, that looking into our fundamental nature is more than just seeing through impermanence for temporary comfort during this life…end of story.
You have the right to believe whatever you wish but this discussion is about "the end". You are interested in forever/eternity or craving-to-be (bhava tanha).
I do not suffer from apprehension, doubt, or skepticism.
Regarding the Buddha's supramundane teachings, that is not the case. Not only does there appear to be doubt but also resistence.
I am completely content and confident in what I have witnessed to be both true and far more than what I feel you are offering.
You have witnessed the Eternal Self have you?
If I was interested in an offering of Eternal Life, I would follow Christianity.
I do however, like your self, see this to be a supramundane path, and also that there is a complete annihilation of suffering at some point. See what I mean, there is some agreement. :
There is absolutely no agreeement here because the complete annihilation of suffering occurs here, now, today. It is of the mind rather than of temporal physical existence. When the Buddha used the term supramundane, this is what he meant. He did not mean the mind flying around in space, in the heavens or elsewhere after death.
As I advised you from the beginning, there is no agreement so please get used to it.
I am also a great lover of nature and a previous study of Taoism has shown me that wise living needs not to argue with Mother (nature). Or “Go with the flow.”
Nature means regarding all things as natural elements and nothing as a real self.
Nature has created a mental function in the human mind that allows for differentiation and communication. This we call 'ego function'. It is just a natural function, like the heart pumping blood or the legs walking is a natural function.
Apart from that, there is no Real or Transcendent Self in Buddhism.
I have no personal issues with your Hindu views but I also have no hesitation in disagreeing with them.
Respectfully, I respect your Hindu views. However, I do not disrespectfully impose my Buddhist views upon Hinduism, saying Krisha or Brahma taught impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, dependent origination, the elements (dhatu), etc.
Salvation is of the mind, here, now, today (and when the body dies).
when the body dies, however, even the body of an enlightened individual, this does not end the round of birth and death, and similarly, suffering. there is no one to be born, and thus no one to die either, just the activity of the four elements arising and passing away into and out of sentience. when death happens, "you", that is, sentience of one individual being, ends, but it will continue to rise again endlessly, in the infinite number of creatures throughout the universe, whether ant, cockroach, serpent, whale, human, or whatever aliens live out somewhere in the vast and infinite universe.
Creator of life and the ownership of the body are certainly properties of the nature. I got this strange feeling while meditating yesterday. I felt that the act of breathing and my awareness of the breathing are two different things. I don't know how to explain it but it was like the body is one thing and the knowing is something else... :scratch: So far I used to think I was breathing and it was like it was the body that was breathing. Well, I don't know how else to say it but it made me feel like "this is not mine after all"
when the body dies, however, even the body of an enlightened individual, this does not end the round of birth and death, and similarly, suffering.
How do you know? Have you seen this? Or is it faith?
there is no one to be born, and thus no one to die either, just the activity of the four elements arising and passing away into and out of sentience.
If that is the case, why do good for a good rebirth if "I" am not being reborn?
BTW, what is sentience?
when death happens, "you", that is, sentience of one individual being...
What exactly is an individual being?
but it will continue to rise again endlessly, in the infinite number of creatures throughout the universe, whether ant, cockroach, serpent, whale, human, or whatever aliens live out somewhere in the vast and infinite universe.
Sounds like Hindu reincarnation to me.
The Buddha himself did not mix the teachings of not-self and rebirth.
Not-self is for mental liberation and rebirth is for those not interested in not-self & interested in another life.
In the suttas, the teachings of rebirth refer to the same person being reborn.
I got this strange feeling while meditating yesterday. I felt that the act of breathing and my awareness of the breathing are two different things. I don't know how to explain it but it was like the body is one thing and the knowing is something else... :scratch: So far I used to think I was breathing and it was like it was the body that was breathing. Well, I don't know how else to say it but it made me feel like "this is not mine after all"
Nice. This is exactly how meditation should develop, with awareness (consciousness) separating itself from the other four aggregates.
This is satipatthana, seeing the body as merely body rather than seeing "I am the body or I breathe".
If your mind starts to see "the body breathes" rather than "I breathe", that is the goal.
Just keep developing watchfulness. Let the mere watching grow.
Debate is debate. The defeat comes to the one crying out "self" (atta) the loudest.
With the risk of looking like I am taking sides between two friends, I must say that I have to agree with this S9. Just forget about this whole thing and have a closer look at what DD says in his posts. They really do make a lot of sense and I am yet to find something he says here that contradicts the suttas in anyway.
Just forget about this whole thing and have a closer look at what DD says in his posts. They really do make a lot of sense and I am yet to find something he says here that contradicts the suttas in anyway.
S9: All you are saying my e-friend is that when you read the sutras; it is your opinion that they are saying this, and not that.
But, don't you see, that is exactly how many people feel about the sutras, that their understanding is the correct one? Still, at the same time, these different people do not agree on What the sutras are saying in many respects, and often what they see in the sutras changes over time, as they themselves grow and deepen.
Perhaps that is because NO ONE actually sees with any perfection what the sutras are actually saying, but rather their own personal interpretation of what the sutras are saying.
What I am often saying about DD isn’t that he is completely wrong, in all respects, or as far as he goes. I am saying rather that there is more to be discovered, and that he simply hasn’t arrived at that advanced understanding as of yet.
Someone recently posted that there are Buddhist who believe in a transcendent Self as shown in the Tathagata-garbha (Google to see a very good article on wiki). All Buddhist do not walk in complete lock step with DD, by any means.
Seeing that you are not the body is a beginning step, and it is followed by seeing that you are not your mind or her thoughts and conceptions…eventually you see not just what you are not, but what in fact you ARE. This is not a separate and individual soul; it is Pure Eternal Awareness without mental objects or separation of any kind.
Self is Nirvana or Buddha Nature (if you wish). Nirvana is not a dead thing, no indeed. Nirvana is Pure Awareness that knows Itself as a Living Presence, Immediate, Pure Awareness of Self. It doesn't rely upon the mind to prove this, or justify it. Nirvana/Buddha Nature transcends the mind.
On this path we travel from preliminary understanding, to deeper understand, and deeper still. Finally we arrive-at/discovering what goes beyond all mental understanding. This understanding is more of an experience of the ineffable. Though it not-s everything mental, at the very same time…it is very, Very Real. : ^ )
What I am often saying about DD isn’t that he is completely wrong, in all respects, or as far as he goes. I am saying rather that there is more to be discovered, and that he simply hasn’t arrived at that advanced understanding as of yet.
Sub, to declare that someone else hasn't yet arrived at advanced understanding and there is more to be discovered for him, seems to imply that you have some kind of advanced understanding about these things yourself. How can you possibly know how far DD is along the path ?
All you are saying my e-friend is that when you read the sutras; it is your opinion that they are saying this, and not that.
But, don't you see, that is exactly how many people feel about the sutras, that their understanding is the correct one? Still, at the same time, these different people do not agree on What the sutras are saying in many respects, and often what they see in the sutras changes over time, as they themselves grow and deepen.
Perhaps that is because NO ONE actually sees with any perfection what the sutras are actually saying, but rather their own personal interpretation of what the sutras are saying.
What I am often saying about DD isn’t that he is completely wrong, in all respects, or as far as he goes. I am saying rather that there is more to be discovered, and that he simply hasn’t arrived at that advanced understanding as of yet.
Someone recently posted that there are Buddhist who believe in a transcendent Self as shown in the Tathagata-garbha (Google to see a very good article on wiki). All Buddhist do not walk in complete lock step with DD, by any means.
Seeing that you are not the body is a beginning step, and it is followed by seeing that you are not your mind or her thoughts and conceptions…eventually you see not just what you are not, but what in fact you ARE. This is not a separate and individual soul; it is Pure Eternal Awareness without mental objects or separation of any kind.
Self is Nirvana or Buddha Nature (if you wish). Nirvana is not a dead thing, no indeed. Nirvana is Pure Awareness that knows Itself as a Living Presence, Immediate, Pure Awareness of Self. It doesn't rely upon the mind to prove this, or justify it. Nirvana/Buddha Nature transcends the mind.
On this path we travel from preliminary understanding, to deeper understand, and deeper still. Finally we arrive-at/discovering what goes beyond all mental understanding. This understanding is more of an experience of the ineffable. Though it not-s everything mental, at the very same time…it is very, Very Real. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Sorry to say S9, your entire post makes no sense to me. Probably because I have not reached that special "advanced understanding" yet.
When I speak with you, it always seems to make you very angry, and you seem to go on to reply in kind. I don’t believe either of us gains from this exchange, or enjoys it very much either.
So out of respect for Lincoln’s request for peace, I am just going to say this for now. I am not going to reply to you for a while. : ^ (
Sorry to say S9, your entire post makes no sense to me.
S9: No, I am sorry. : ^ )
It is not any fault of yours. I feel that it is always the responsibility of the writer to make him self understood. I will try harder in the future. Scout's Honor. ; ^ )
When we are speaking on a forum like this, people seem to be coming from so many places, at once, that it is sometime difficult to know what will be helpful at any one time for any one person. It is a little like throwing mud against a wall and hoping some of it will stick. Because I think, we do wish the best for everyone involved.
I worked with a spiritual friend for many, many decades. We were so close in our understanding that we could often finish each other sentences, and yet I didn’t always understand what he was telling me about an insight he had, immediately. Sometimes I think things take a while to soak in, because of old habits of thinking.
When I speak with you, it always seems to make you very angry, and you seem to go on to reply in kind. I don’t believe either of us gains from this exchange, or enjoys it very much either.
So out of respect for Lincoln’s request for peace, I am just going to say this for now. I am not going to reply to you for a while. : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
Sub9
As this is a discussion forum it is inevitable that we might have different opinions from time to time.
I am not angry, nor have I ever been. That is entirely your own projection. My mood is friendly and peaceful. I have simply pointed out that you are making sweeping and incorrect assumptions about my friend Dhamma Dhatu.
Do you have any kind of buddhism going on in your community? Maybe somebody there can give you a practice appropriate for yourself?
I do Jeffery. But I am not very active in the Buddhist circles here because most of them teach an ego based practice. You know the sort of thing like "doing good in the hope of good kamma", "practicing for a beautiful rebirth in a heavenly realm" etc. But if I can find a teacher who directs me into a practice in par with real Buddhist teachings then I will be more than happy to join him/her
At the moment I am reading the suttas, reading books and texts of the disciples who I feel speak some sense and doing meditation on my own. But I am hoping to join some retreats soon. Thanks for your reply
Comments
There are many different kinds of meditation, even within the realm of Buddhism (to say nothing of beyond it). Each practitioner should find the type of practice that works best for him or her.
I do agree, though, that meditation is a simple thing, and does not require much reading. It is a fundamentally experiential practice, meaning that learning comes more from practice than from books.
How do you give it up just like that? Or is that supposed to be the practice
If you find yourself often saying the words "you are wrong" to another person, you have strayed from the path of Buddhism. It's not about "right and wrong," or arguing, or proving your point: it's about each person experiencing the Path in their own way.
If you find yourself continually opposing (or worse, insulting) another person, you have strayed from the Buddha's teaching. It's not about putting each other down, it's about building each other up. Helping each other, not hurting.
If you notice you use a lot of sarcasm in your posts, take a good look at yourself. This is not the spirit of Buddhism. (I have examined this in myself, for I have fallen into this foible in the past--and I will probably fall asleep and do it again at some point.)
We've all been given the gift of a beautiful path here...let's not turn it into a reason to oppose each other! Let's practice lovingkindness instead, and really make some progress in working through our karma.
Agreed!
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Buddha himself say a wrong view is wrong view when he came across something he knew was not right? He has disputed several wrong views of the philosophical circles of his day in the Brahmajala sutta. I think it is fine as long as you have "common good" in mind when you are disagreeing with someone rather than the "desire to prove oneself right".
Welcome, I notice that you are relatively new to the forum. : ^ )
Z: (5B), this kind of meditation may be your particular slant on it, but it is not necessarily the same for everyone. Where I practice, the idea of "dissolution of the self-concept" is never mentioned.
S9: Quite so, meditation is a tool that has many faces, just think of the Whirling Dervishes for one, and has very many immediate purposes. I do think however that they all point in the direction of seeing something in a new way, perhaps in a deeper way, and maybe even opening up or being more receptive, wouldn’t you agree?
Z: There are many different kinds of meditation, even within the realm of Buddhism (to say nothing of beyond it). Each practitioner should find the type of practice that works best for him or her.
S9: Yes indeed, and even if it turned out to be the same journey, along the same road, to the same goal. It would still be each person’s personal journey, traveled in an intimate seclusion away from what the world was saying to us, would you agree?
However I do believe the sangha was meant to share more than simply meditating in a group. I believe we were meant to share our insights and experience with each other. Not to be confrontational mind you, but to gently share, each bringing his own contribution to a generous banquet, where you could eat heartily of what was being said, or simply choose to eat of another dish, as needed. There would in this way be plenty for everyone. Some dishes offered might even be an acquired taste. ; ^ )
This forum is like an e-sangha, and so out of respect, I believe that we should both share and play nice. ; ^ )
Z: I do agree, though, that meditation is a simple thing, and does not require much reading.
S9: I don’t know. I have often meditated on, and improve my techniques, because of what I have learned from books. I have also often had the opportunity to confirm what I was witnessing or even understand more deeply/recognize what I was personally experience through the printed page.
I see books as a great contribution to, and not as the enemy of meditation. I think that books have turned me on to a great deal of what I think I know, a finger pointing if you will, including the practice of contemplation, a very close cousin to meditation.
Many great (dead) masters have extended their contributions to this world though books. Like they say, “Dead, but not gone.” (Or is it, “not forgotten?”) No/matter. : ^ )
Z: It is a fundamentally experiential practice, meaning that learning comes more from practice than from books.
S9: Experience is ubiquitous. We experience everything. Awareness is experience and unless we are aware it isn’t happening for us, at least.
Warm Regards,
S9
S9: I believe that Buddha was in a better position to point out what was wrong in your interpretation of what he was saying, don’t you.
2 big/good reasons:
(1)They were his words, after all.
(2)He was 100% Enlightened.
So until we are Enlightened, or somehow become Gautama Buddha, we are all sharing our own opinions with each other.
If we can keep this in mind, we puff ourselves up, and won’t claim to be the keeper of Gautama’s word’s unlike the rest of our e-sangha buddies
S9: Just about every war that has ever existed, each side has claimed to have the common good on their side. : ^ (
Look what that brought about, death and mayham. Guess that isn’t a good reason to start throwing our weight around, or an efficient way to keep the peace.
Friendly regards,
S9
BICKERING, BACK-BITING AND CONSTANT SNIPING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ON FORUM.
KINDLY CONDUCT YOURSELVES IN A FITTING MANNER, AND DEBATE THE MATTER IN HAND APPROPRIATELY - SAVE ANY PERSONAL INTERACTION FOR PRIVATE MESSAGING.... WHICH OF COURSE, YOU ARE NOT IN ANY WAY OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO.
IF SOMETHING GETS YOUR GOAT - REPORT IT.
MOOHOOHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Hi S9,
Thank you for your response.
The gist of my posts was to get clarity on the definition of "atta" so I could understand its opposite, that is, "anatta" more clearly.
Oftentimes, when anatta is taught (in Buddhist books, talks, etc...) one comes across statements such as "a false sense of a self (not truly existant)", or "an illusion of a single self (ego) created by the five aggregates", or "an absence of a permanent unchanging self". Then one is left with these statements to form their own opinions of what atta means. But, perhaps one should just forget about what atta means and simply regard the anatta teaching as a means to rid oneself of selfishness and clinging. That indeed is very usefull to the practice.
BUT: If anyone can define atta (atta means ......), please do so.
With kind regards,
Sukhita
You don't have to be enlightened to disagree without being disagreeable.
I don't see deagreement as a problem. Certainly you are allowed to disagree with a certain understanding/opinion on some detail, and go on say so, hopefully accompanied for some of your reasons for doing so, so it can prove useful.
Heaven knows that many of us here see things from slightly differently to widely differently. Perhaps it always comes back to HOW you do it.
Do you do it gently and respectfully? : ^ )
If you are coming from a place where, when someone disagreeing with you they are automatically labeled as an enemy, or if you have set yourself up as the protector of Buddhism, certainly correspondence on a public forum is not going to go well. : ^ (
I’m thinking that a bit more compassion, on all our parts, could go a long way towards being an answer. We can never have TOO MUCH compassion, in my opinion.
After all, if you are right, that is certainly a gift and a great blessing in your life. If however someone else is wrong, that is a whole lot more suffering in his life. If that doesn’t call for compassion, than what does?
So why, I have to ask, “Kick a guy when he’s down? : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
Sometimes I feel like that sandwich. He/He/He But perhaps more like it has been forgotten and left out on the counter for a week. POOR ME! ; ^ )
Miles of Smiles,
S9
S: The gist of my posts was to get clarity on the definition of "atta" so I could understand its opposite, that is, "anatta" more clearly.
S9: Yes, and I think you make a good point. I believe we have two directions in which we can look for answers. One is where we are running away from, or suffering. What suffering is and its root causes in important to understand. But certainly we can sneak a peek, at least occasionally, in the direction of which we are going…complete satisfaction, wholeness, permanence, and what exactly that might be.
Yes it is wisdom to understand what is illusion. But just perhaps it might be clarifying or Enlightening, also, to understand what exactly is REAL.
S: Oftentimes, when anatta is taught (in Buddhist books, talks, etc...) one comes across statements such as "a false sense of a self (not truly existent)", or "an illusion of a single self (ego) created by the five aggregates", or "an absence of a permanent unchanging self". Then one is left with these statements to form their own opinions of what atta means.
S9: That is the rub. I think Atta is ineffable and cannot be spoken. Yet it can be pointed at quite efficiently.
So many teachers concentrate on clearing away the debris of illusion, so that when it comes time and we are spiritually more mature, seeing Atta directly will be easier for us.
Yet I caution that we shouldn’t take from these early efforts to clear our path, that Atta doesn’t exist at all.
S: But, perhaps one should just forget about what atta means and simply regard the anatta teaching as a means to rid oneself of selfishness and clinging. That indeed is very useful to the practice.
S9: Useful and practical at some point in our development, yes. But it is not the whole ball of wax by any means. When Atta starts to leak into our awareness, contemplation of Atta is also quite useful and freeing.
S: If anyone can define atta (atta means ......), please do so.
S9: Certainly this would be impossible, as Atta doesn’t lend itself willingly to mental description. However it is most definitely our Spiritual heritage, and no one will be left out, abandoned, or block indefinitely from discovering their own true nature, or Atta.
One useful litmus for finding Atta, used for many centuries, is to ask, " What is here and now that is never changing?" Everything BUT Atta is changing.
With kind regards,
Sukhita
As I said, it is fine to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't see anything wrong with stating facts to disagree with someone. Oh, well, what do I know of this matter anyway
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. : ^ )
That's okay.
You know plenty about a lot of things, my e-friend.
Warm smiles coming your way,
S9
Yes, but your avatar looks more sinfully delicious than mine. ; ^ )
Friendly returns,
S9
The Buddha did not teach impermanence was an illusion. He taught is was clear seeing (lit: vipassana) into the fundamental nature of reality that leads to liberation & peace rather than to hell & despair.
The Buddha always forgives you. Here, you are merely pointing to a personal doubt, apprehensiveness & skepticism. The Buddha taught a stream-enterer is free from such doubts. A Buddha taught a stream-enterer has unshakeable faith (achala saddha).
In the suttas, many of the great disciples such a Kondanna and Sariputta acquired their stream-entry with the realisation: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation".
The Buddha taught a supramundane path that leads to the topic of discussion here, which is "the end".
There is no deliverence into a hell and what is sought is TOTAL freedom from suffering.
However, the Buddha did say this supramundane path is not for everyone. Not all beings have the mental temperament for impermanence. That is why there are different religions & doctrines.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Or one can begin to give up via wise reflection (yonisomanasikara), to question: "Where does my life comes from?" "What created my body and its various physical organs?" "What created my mind with its various capacities?" "Did I create these things or did nature create them?"
"What is the creator of life?" Me or nature?
Not many Buddhists teach about nature (sabhava dhamma). Most Buddhists are teaching about exalted states of refined consciousness.
Sorry for this delayed response. I'm just caught up with some distractions at home.
I said this:
Read carefully, Deshy...
With kind regards,
Sikhita
:smilec:
Debate is debate. The defeat comes to the one crying out "self" (atta) the loudest.
Hi D Dhatu
Thank you both for your inputs on anatta and atta. I will contemplate on it and see what comes up.
With kind regards,
Sukhita
I bet if we took a piece of paper and drew a line down the middle, putting what you believe on one side and what I believe on the other side, there would be a good deal of correspondence. : ^ )
I believe that the basic place that we part ways is in your definition of no self.
I do not believe that Nirvana is a hellish notion. I believe the idea that there is nothing transcendent of impermanence is. : ^ (
The concept of impermanence isn’t an illusion. It is clear sight. I believe that the idea that the ego self is who we actually are, IS an illusion. Perhaps, the better word than illusion would simply be a mistake, or mistaken understanding.
I do think however that it is a hellish notion that impermanence is all there is, and our only salvation is to die completely, because there is no Real or Transcendent Self.
If you see this as “No guts, no glory,” well what can I say to you? Because I see it as a given, that looking into our fundamental nature is more than just seeing through impermanence for temporary comfort during this life…end of story.
I do not suffer from apprehension, doubt, or skepticism. I am completely content and confident in what I have witnessed to be both true and far more than what I feel you are offering.
I do however, like your self, see this to be a supramundane path, and also that there is a complete annihilation of suffering at some point. See what I mean, there is some agreement. : ^ )
I am also a great lover of nature and a previous study of Taoism has shown me that wise living needs not to argue with Mother (nature). Or “Go with the flow.”
Okay…fine. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Jesus taught: "What good is it to love those who are good to you. It is better to love thy enemy".
Buddhas gain enlightenment via immersing their mind's in the constant observation of impermanence. When the mind thorouhgly observes all conditioned things are impermanent, it does not grasp those things plus craving towards those things ends. If I tried to sell you a motor car that would last one day, would you crave it? This ending of grasping & craving is Nibbana. The ending of craving & grasping includes towards consciousness.
Then why did you say it was previously?
What has salvation got to do with dying physically or not dying?
Salvation is of the mind, here, now, today (and when the body dies).
Basically, you appear to be saying there is an Eternal Self or Soul.
Buddha did not teach this but Krishna, Jesus & Mohamed (PBOH) did.
You have the right to believe whatever you wish but this discussion is about "the end". You are interested in forever/eternity or craving-to-be (bhava tanha).
Regarding the Buddha's supramundane teachings, that is not the case. Not only does there appear to be doubt but also resistence.
You have witnessed the Eternal Self have you?
If I was interested in an offering of Eternal Life, I would follow Christianity.
There is absolutely no agreeement here because the complete annihilation of suffering occurs here, now, today. It is of the mind rather than of temporal physical existence. When the Buddha used the term supramundane, this is what he meant. He did not mean the mind flying around in space, in the heavens or elsewhere after death.
As I advised you from the beginning, there is no agreement so please get used to it.
Nature means regarding all things as natural elements and nothing as a real self.
Nature has created a mental function in the human mind that allows for differentiation and communication. This we call 'ego function'. It is just a natural function, like the heart pumping blood or the legs walking is a natural function.
Apart from that, there is no Real or Transcendent Self in Buddhism.
I have no personal issues with your Hindu views but I also have no hesitation in disagreeing with them.
Respectfully, I respect your Hindu views. However, I do not disrespectfully impose my Buddhist views upon Hinduism, saying Krisha or Brahma taught impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, dependent origination, the elements (dhatu), etc.
Creator of life and the ownership of the body are certainly properties of the nature. I got this strange feeling while meditating yesterday. I felt that the act of breathing and my awareness of the breathing are two different things. I don't know how to explain it but it was like the body is one thing and the knowing is something else... :scratch: So far I used to think I was breathing and it was like it was the body that was breathing. Well, I don't know how else to say it but it made me feel like "this is not mine after all"
If that is the case, why do good for a good rebirth if "I" am not being reborn?
BTW, what is sentience?
What exactly is an individual being?
Sounds like Hindu reincarnation to me.
The Buddha himself did not mix the teachings of not-self and rebirth.
Not-self is for mental liberation and rebirth is for those not interested in not-self & interested in another life.
In the suttas, the teachings of rebirth refer to the same person being reborn.
This is satipatthana, seeing the body as merely body rather than seeing "I am the body or I breathe".
If your mind starts to see "the body breathes" rather than "I breathe", that is the goal.
Just keep developing watchfulness. Let the mere watching grow.
With the risk of looking like I am taking sides between two friends, I must say that I have to agree with this S9. Just forget about this whole thing and have a closer look at what DD says in his posts. They really do make a lot of sense and I am yet to find something he says here that contradicts the suttas in anyway.
Great... So it is the practice. Thanks for the advice DD.
Personally I find that many of DD's posts contain much knowledge and wisdom which I can reflect upon...so
thank you very much, Dee Dee....and please accept this special gift from me.:)
.
S9: All you are saying my e-friend is that when you read the sutras; it is your opinion that they are saying this, and not that.
But, don't you see, that is exactly how many people feel about the sutras, that their understanding is the correct one? Still, at the same time, these different people do not agree on What the sutras are saying in many respects, and often what they see in the sutras changes over time, as they themselves grow and deepen.
Perhaps that is because NO ONE actually sees with any perfection what the sutras are actually saying, but rather their own personal interpretation of what the sutras are saying.
What I am often saying about DD isn’t that he is completely wrong, in all respects, or as far as he goes. I am saying rather that there is more to be discovered, and that he simply hasn’t arrived at that advanced understanding as of yet.
Someone recently posted that there are Buddhist who believe in a transcendent Self as shown in the Tathagata-garbha (Google to see a very good article on wiki). All Buddhist do not walk in complete lock step with DD, by any means.
Seeing that you are not the body is a beginning step, and it is followed by seeing that you are not your mind or her thoughts and conceptions…eventually you see not just what you are not, but what in fact you ARE. This is not a separate and individual soul; it is Pure Eternal Awareness without mental objects or separation of any kind.
Self is Nirvana or Buddha Nature (if you wish). Nirvana is not a dead thing, no indeed. Nirvana is Pure Awareness that knows Itself as a Living Presence, Immediate, Pure Awareness of Self. It doesn't rely upon the mind to prove this, or justify it. Nirvana/Buddha Nature transcends the mind.
On this path we travel from preliminary understanding, to deeper understand, and deeper still. Finally we arrive-at/discovering what goes beyond all mental understanding. This understanding is more of an experience of the ineffable. Though it not-s everything mental, at the very same time…it is very, Very Real. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Sub, to declare that someone else hasn't yet arrived at advanced understanding and there is more to be discovered for him, seems to imply that you have some kind of advanced understanding about these things yourself. How can you possibly know how far DD is along the path ?
.
Sorry to say S9, your entire post makes no sense to me. Probably because I have not reached that special "advanced understanding" yet.
When I speak with you, it always seems to make you very angry, and you seem to go on to reply in kind. I don’t believe either of us gains from this exchange, or enjoys it very much either.
So out of respect for Lincoln’s request for peace, I am just going to say this for now. I am not going to reply to you for a while. : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
Do you have any kind of buddhism going on in your community? Maybe somebody there can give you a practice appropriate for yourself?
S9: No, I am sorry. : ^ )
It is not any fault of yours. I feel that it is always the responsibility of the writer to make him self understood. I will try harder in the future. Scout's Honor. ; ^ )
When we are speaking on a forum like this, people seem to be coming from so many places, at once, that it is sometime difficult to know what will be helpful at any one time for any one person. It is a little like throwing mud against a wall and hoping some of it will stick. Because I think, we do wish the best for everyone involved.
I worked with a spiritual friend for many, many decades. We were so close in our understanding that we could often finish each other sentences, and yet I didn’t always understand what he was telling me about an insight he had, immediately. Sometimes I think things take a while to soak in, because of old habits of thinking.
Friendly Regards,
S9
Sub9
As this is a discussion forum it is inevitable that we might have different opinions from time to time.
I am not angry, nor have I ever been. That is entirely your own projection. My mood is friendly and peaceful. I have simply pointed out that you are making sweeping and incorrect assumptions about my friend Dhamma Dhatu.
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
.
I do Jeffery. But I am not very active in the Buddhist circles here because most of them teach an ego based practice. You know the sort of thing like "doing good in the hope of good kamma", "practicing for a beautiful rebirth in a heavenly realm" etc. But if I can find a teacher who directs me into a practice in par with real Buddhist teachings then I will be more than happy to join him/her
At the moment I am reading the suttas, reading books and texts of the disciples who I feel speak some sense and doing meditation on my own. But I am hoping to join some retreats soon. Thanks for your reply