Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Thinking of others' "not self"

TheJourneyTheJourney
edited November 2010 in Buddhism Basics
It's often discussed in buddhism how you shouldn't associate any of the aggregates, which include any imaginable things in this world, as our self. This is important to understand, but it doesn't have much practical use, and is more intellectual. However, I don't think the fact that the same holds true for everyone else is discussed enough, nor the implications of it thought of enough. If someone is rude to you, it is not "them" that is rude to you. So how can you be mad? It is simply rudeness. Rudeness exists all over the world, yet you only care when it is done to you. This is because you think that THEY are being mean to YOU. If you understand that the actions of others aren't them, then you can't possibly get angry at them for what they do. Something to think about.

Comments

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited November 2010
    That's right. Just as much as you are not a self, but a complex of organized aggregates experiencing and interacting with "others", other humans act also out of ignorance and conditioning. When someone is rude to you, it's easy to say "that guy was so rude!", but more difficult to see that his life up to that point and all that he has ever thought and experienced, even including the brief encounter/sight involving you, was/is a continuum of karmic continuity (systematic cause and effect of a larger interdependent/related system than most view as having effect upon their lives) and in such a circumstance the resultant rude behavior was the natural and in fact selfless interaction that simply "was", resultant of conditions present in that moment. We all function within the Dharma, according to the Dharma, not separate but inclusive and same-nature.

    The easiest thought is that there is no ghost in the machine; no driver of the bus. From there we can begin to accept more difficult and sometimes personally "scary" truths that not everyone chooses to face. No-Self or Selflessness is the view from which reality begins to clear and show its true nature.

    Good stuff :)
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited November 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    It's often discussed in buddhism how you shouldn't associate any of the aggregates, which include any imaginable things in this world, as our self. This is important to understand, but it doesn't have much practical use, and is more intellectual. However, I don't think the fact that the same holds true for everyone else is discussed enough, nor the implications of it thought of enough. If someone is rude to you, it is not "them" that is rude to you. So how can you be mad? It is simply rudeness. Rudeness exists all over the world, yet you only care when it is done to you. This is because you think that THEY are being mean to YOU. If you understand that the actions of others aren't them, then you can't possibly get angry at them for what they do. Something to think about.

    You argument is still intellectual ... just an easier one for your to wrap your mind around. This is a good start, however! When it becomes experiential, rather than intellectual, that is when you really start to see it and use it. Keep up the practice.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited November 2010
    That is actually an antidote to anger.The offender is not a solid entity that you have to destroy.

    Anger is a distortion of our capacity to see through obstacles. Your supposed to see through them rather than try to destroy them.

    You are free to skillfully react to the rudeness with compassion as much so as it naturally arises.. Hey its compassion to not want to be hurt by someone. Compassion applies to caring for YOU too.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    edited November 2010
    FoibleFull wrote: »
    You argument is still intellectual ... just an easier one for your to wrap your mind around. This is a good start, however! When it becomes experiential, rather than intellectual, that is when you really start to see it and use it. Keep up the practice.

    Anything that you put to words is intellectual. The whole point of my post was helping people to react better to negativity. That's not intellectual.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    edited November 2010
    Dilgo Kyhentse Rinpoche taught this basically the same way Journey is presenting it. It has to be intellectual to be put into words and communicated. Once it's internalized then it's no longer intellectual.

    Again, Kyhentse Rinpoche taught this in much the same way that Journey presented it in the OP. If he taught it that way, I respect it.
Sign In or Register to comment.