Putting the pieces together

Urizen

Hi everyone:

So, I've been studying Buddhism for about a year now, and I think i've got a basic grasp of some of the concepts, but I'm having some problems putting the pieces together.

For example, I think I understand the concept of no-self, but....how does a mistaken belief in self lead to unskillful actions, such as indulgence in sense pleasures, etc?

And conversely, how does an understanding of no-self help you overcome unskillful tendencies?

Finally, how does understanding no-self lead to greater compassion for other people?

I've got a feeling that I'm missing something obvious here..:) But I guess that's one of the beautiful things about Buddhism--it can be really simple or really complex, depending on how you look at it.

Thanks!

GuyC

Hi Urizen,

My $0.02:

For example, I think I understand the concept of no-self, but....how does a mistaken belief in self lead to unskillful actions, such as indulgence in sense pleasures, etc?

Desires are dependent upon a "desiree". A mindstate such as lust is almost always accompanied by a sense of ME lusting for THEM. It is wrapped up in notions of self and other. Perhaps the seed of lust in the mind starts off as "just lust" but then (what usually happens is) the mind grasps "just lust" and it becomes "MY lust". The same can be said about anger; as soon as it is grasped it becomes "MY anger".

Perhaps the only types of people who still encounter lust and anger without taking them as "mine" would be Stream-Enterers and Once-Returners. On the "less enlightened" side you have worldlings who still identify with feelings of lust and anger and on the "more enlightened" side you have Non-Returners and Arahants who no longer have lust or anger arising in the mind. This is just a theory, I could be wrong.

And conversely, how does an understanding of no-self help you overcome unskillful tendencies?

If we identify with negative mindstates we feed them and they grow. If we don't identify with negative mindstates they starve and eventually die.

Finally, how does understanding no-self lead to greater compassion for other people?

When we aren't so concerned about getting what we want and getting rid of what we don't want we are in a better position to be of service to others.

With Metta,

Guy

Jeffrey

self protectiveness. We fear something will happen that we lable as bad and we struggle. The struggling is known as dukkha. As we practice we notice this dukkha and it begins to turn us to the teachings. We give up but then the dukkha comes and we can't really give up because we are 'fed up'. Its a step in the path to get fed up. {thats slang it means we won't let things go on this way and we are moved or stirred somehow. Wisdom is the insight that the dharma can help us and it is a recognition. Compassion is the response in our heart the longing and relief that there is something that can help us.}

When we are self protective we close down from experience. It becomes us against the world and the harder we struggle the worse the fight becomes. Like briar rabbit punching the tar baby we just get more and more stuck. We try to possess things and addictions develope. We get averse to reality and even the natural play of our hearts/minds shuts down lower energy which is depression. It starts innocently with little thoughts like "I wonder if things will go my way at work" or "she shouldn't have said that to me"..

When we get fed up we might follow dharma teachings and at some point discover that spark of awareness that is at the center of that fed up feeling. It isn't the mental overlay. Thats what the closing down is in response to a mental overlay. The closing down is a distortion of the spark of awareness.

In our meditation practice we learn to see clearly and sit with experience. But the heart of meditation is doing nothing really and easing up. The heart awareness illuminates the situation naturally because the mind is clear, sensitive, and open.

fivebells

The key thing you're missing is that these concepts all arose in support of a practice we do to build up capacity for maintaining a certain approach to mental phenomena. Without the capacity to maintain that approach, understanding of the concepts is almost useless, except as an indicator of the way forward.

Urizen

Hey:

Thanks for the help! You really gave me something to think about during my meditation.

GuyC, you said

(the) mind grasps "just lust" and it becomes "MY lust". The same can be said about anger; as soon as it is grasped it becomes "MY anger"/QUOTE]

You got me thinking. To me, it seems like emotions like anger, annoyance, lust, etc. are natural and rise, peak, and fall like everything else--is it our sense of self that causes us to cling to these natural feelings and act, unskillfully, upon them? I hope I'm on the right track here.

And Fivebells, you mentioned:

The key thing you're missing is that these concepts all arose in support of a practice we do to build up capacity for maintaining a certain approach to mental phenomena/QUOTE]

Is the impermanence of everything--including mental phenomena--the approach you're referring to?

OK--things are really starting to come together now--I sense an AHA! moment approaching.

Thanks a lot, everyone! You guys have really helped me out a lot. The ol' hamster is really running on the wheel now.

Sorry about the quotations-I guess I pushed the wrong button!

fivebells

Urizen wrote: »

Is the impermanence of everything--including mental phenomena--the approach you're referring to?

No, that's still just a concept, not a practice. The approach I'm talking about is adopting (as a first resort, ideally in all situations) openness to awareness of the experience of the present moment.

Urizen wrote: »

OK--things are really starting to come together now--I sense an AHA! moment approaching.

Be very suspicious of any such realization. Try to talk to a teacher in real-life about it if possible.

Urizen wrote: »

Sorry about the quotations-I guess I pushed the wrong button!

Try adding a left-hand bracket to the closing "/quote]"s.