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.
On this whole issue of "self"...
I know it's been a big point of confusion for a lot of people, including myself, about this whole issue of "self". after all, if you attain the extinction of self who's getting enlightened? if there's no self who's working at what and why? well, I was in some other forums debating the issue of using drugs, particularily cannabis, in meditation. after much debate I finally realized what I was trying to get across and explained my point of view. perhapse it's right, perhapse it's not, but it's what I've figured out so I thought I'd share it with all my buddhist friends here 
. anyway, here's a copy and paste of exactly what I wrote there......
My response
I think it's more than physical properties too. but I'm looking at it from this perspective.... would a person try to attain a deep level of meditation if they were extremely angry? what about really horny, or grief stricken after seeing a loved one die? of course you wouldn't try to meditate in these states, and these states are created by chemicals in the brain. generally buddhists reject meditating under the influence of drugs because whether it be pot, shrooms, or just powerfull emotions, chemicals cloud the mind and distract it from seeing the true self.
now I"m not saying anybody should write off drug induced meditation all-together, but I am speaking from a buddhist point-of-view (buddha could be considered the ultimate meditator after all), and in buddhist philosophy it is said that the attainment of enlightenment starts with the extinction of "self" (note, this is a rather complex but well explained concept - the extinction of "self" does not mean the extinction of your existence). in order to see the true self, one must liberate him/herself from chemical influences, emotional or otherwise. in attaining this goal, the pure and untainted self is all that remains, unobstructed by drives, conditioning, and emotions that we fool ourselves into believing is the true us.
(note: to clarify this whole "self" issue, which is a big point of confusion for a lot of people, we actually need another word for "self" as in the delusion, and "self" as in the true essence of our being)
. anyway, here's a copy and paste of exactly what I wrote there......Polymirize wrote:From my perspective at least, we can say that drugs alter the body. Which creates differences in our perceptions and thoughts in so much as our mental processes are directly the result of physical processes in the body. I won't deny that this is a powerful effect. But I don't think the mind reduces to simply the physical processes. Whether you want to call it the soul, the spirit, the mind, chi, ki, prana, the force, semantics... I have an intuition at least that there is more than just the physical at work. Meditation (for me at least) deals directly with this part, rather than the physical.
So when the physical is altered, sometimes the distinction makes it even easier to focus on that "other part". Why do you think mushrooms and LSD can grant such "spirtual/divine/profound" experiences?
My response
I think it's more than physical properties too. but I'm looking at it from this perspective.... would a person try to attain a deep level of meditation if they were extremely angry? what about really horny, or grief stricken after seeing a loved one die? of course you wouldn't try to meditate in these states, and these states are created by chemicals in the brain. generally buddhists reject meditating under the influence of drugs because whether it be pot, shrooms, or just powerfull emotions, chemicals cloud the mind and distract it from seeing the true self.
now I"m not saying anybody should write off drug induced meditation all-together, but I am speaking from a buddhist point-of-view (buddha could be considered the ultimate meditator after all), and in buddhist philosophy it is said that the attainment of enlightenment starts with the extinction of "self" (note, this is a rather complex but well explained concept - the extinction of "self" does not mean the extinction of your existence). in order to see the true self, one must liberate him/herself from chemical influences, emotional or otherwise. in attaining this goal, the pure and untainted self is all that remains, unobstructed by drives, conditioning, and emotions that we fool ourselves into believing is the true us.
(note: to clarify this whole "self" issue, which is a big point of confusion for a lot of people, we actually need another word for "self" as in the delusion, and "self" as in the true essence of our being)
0
Comments
Your thoughts are very interesting. While I have no interest in drugs, you make it fairly easy to see the point you are trying to make. Have you, by any chance, been following the thread on the meaning of anatta (not-self?). At times the discussion can get somewhat detailed with respect to terminology, sutta citation, etc, but the main themes are quite simple. The point I am trying to make there is rather similar to your ideas here.
that thread is located at:
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1237
in friendliness,
V.
In many religions (can't think of them off the top of my head, mostly native americans) it is part of their religion to ingest hallucinogens for particular rituals. Many South american tribes ingest Ayahuasca which is a form of DMT (canary reed grass, strongest naturally occuring hallucinogen) and it is a part of their practice.
I personally believe that hallucinogens have a very good chance of increasing insight because of the way they make the brain perform differently (mainly by rechanneling nerve transmitters/receivers in the brain) and as a result, when on these substances, people find they are not using the same neuro pathways they normally use and can find answers to questions they would not be able to do easily and quickly.
now, like the point that mr-devious pointed out, in buddhism it is not encouraged to ingest intoxicants because it definately dulls/numbs the mind.
I kind of look at hallucinogens/mind altering substances in buddhism as kind of "cheating" if you catch my drift. I don't believe they are in any way necessary and I myself, refuse to smoke cannibis, ingest hallucinogens, drink alcohol when attempting to comtemplate/meditate as I do feel like some of them seriously impair my ability to maintain focus, maintain awareness and kind of leaves me scatter brained
On a closing note, I believe there is definately something there in regards to hallucinogens in regards to "religious experiences" while on these substances, but since they are not a part of buddhism and not what buddha teaches, I in no way believe they are necessary to proper practice.
Sorry for rambling, kinda bored at work
I think you're right on the money when it comes to mind and mood altering substances and Buddhism. They just don't mix. We're not practicing Rastafarians, we're practicing Buddhists.
When it comes to the understanding of "self" however, I don't think meditation and intoxicants are the point. There are those who wish that the Buddha taught things he did not teach about the "self" and we should be on our guard when approaching this subject and when reading the thread Vacchagotta supplied.
As beginners to the practice of Buddhism it is not helpful to get caught up in discussions and debates on doctrine. Doctrine is something to be rejected, as are ideas, beliefs, opinions and conjecture. I think it is far more helpful to concentrate, like Mr. Devious and Sean did, on things we can practice and come to an experiential understanding of ourselves. In my opinion, (LOL!), you have both approached Buddhist practice in the way it was intended, through personal experience.
Vacch,
I don't know what you're thinking by trying to draw a newcomer to Buddhism into a troubled and extremely unhelpful discussion on doctrine in the Buddhism 202 forum. I'm really disappointed. I was taking you at face value and giving you every benefit of the doubt. I extended the hand of friendship to you and I wanted you to contribute your thoughts on other topics on this forum other than the meaning of Anatta. But you don't seem to have any other thoughts. You clearly have an agenda that has nothing to do with true Buddhism. You've lost my support.
Brigid
Here is a related interview with Ajahn Geoffrey:
I hope that you found it worth the time to read.
Jason
That was a wonderful interview to post. Perfect.
Thanks.
Brigid
Brigid,
I really don't know if it is even worth it to reply to this post of yours. Not knowing, I'm going to go with principle of sangha and at least try reconciliation. I just can't get any credit on these boards. I guess that's because I just sort of barged into the anatta thread as my first post without first warming up to the regulars. If I'd done that kind of thing in a bar, I imagine I'd be getting the cold shoulder in that environment, too. If I committed a rudeness in joining up and diving right into the discussion, I apologize for that and I wish I could have started things out differently. But I can't go back, and now that the ball is rolling, I hope you can still see I've been civil in all my discourse, right from the start. Again, I extend my sincere apology, but I would now like you to consider my point of view.
Your post is truly saddening. From my point of view, your comments to me here only show that you were never taking me at face value or giving me any benefit of doubt, and your grudging "support" was always only lent with suspicion and a closed fist, poised to snatch it away for any reason. In short, although you might have been sincerely confused or displeased by my opinions, you were never sincere in welcoming me to the board. To me, this is the kind of divisiveness I do not like to see on Buddhist forums.
Regarding your invitation to post on other topics, I have posted to other topics, but if this invitation of yours was intended as some kind of a test with a quota, or all you wanted was for me to completely end my participation in the anatta thread, I do not see that as very friendly at all. As the expression goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies." It seems like you just don't want a person with views that aren't compatible with yours or your friends' to be able to express them, to share them, to see what other people might think about them. You are making something that never was from my perspective personal into a personal issue, and it worries me. What does this withdrawal of "support" really mean? Does it mean you will never allow yourself to agree with anything I say, no matter what it is? Does it mean you will feel obligated to chastise me in every thread I join, as you did above? Such divisiveness is very unhelpful in forums like this. Does it mean you now consider yourself a watchdog for the moderators in my case, looking for the slightest reason to ask them take action against me?
You write as if I'm some kind of angler with a fishhook and if devious came to read through the thread I invited him to that he would not be doing so by choice or would be unable to decide for himself if what he read was useful to him. Neither does this give much credit to Mr. Devious as his own individual.
In conclusion, I have been honest about my views in the threads of this forum, openly expressing my opinion on topics. If I have to limit my participation in an area that interests me, even though my posts have always been civil, or if I have to fulfill a quota or if I have to change my views in order to have your friendship and grudging "support", whatever those really mean, then I'll have to say sorry but it looks like I'm just not the kind of lap-dog you want me to be. My friendship (metta) is always extended to you and to all members of this forum as fellow seekers of wisdom. Although I can't (and wouldn't) demand reciprocation of this friendliness, it is disheartening to see it so willingly withdrawn.
Sincerely,
V.
Hmm, illusion upon illusion is not the best form of cheating I've come across!
Whatever reasons you may have in suport of the doctrine of "no-self" they are only as good as your ability to communicate them. Short of that, personalizing this important issue does little more than to sow the seeds of rancor.
Love ya all,
Bobby
Minimalizing posts regarding a subject that someone has already admitted they are taking baby-steps on - doesn't help much either.
Force-feeding deep, philosophical teachings on people (in very sarcastic, angry and condescending tones) is just like forcing steak on a 6 month old child.
To me, everything always coming back to the pontification of who knows more about this translation of "self", has become very distasteful.
On the flips-side - given all the hassle with Dark Zenners, sarcasm, condescending attitudes, nasty emails and such from those that practice Dark Zen or "self" - I have really enjoyed Vacch's participation. I believe he may have gotten an unfair shake given when he joined - the first thread he participated in and all the nasty crap that had happened just before his arrival.
I think that acceptance and sharing information in a polite way - whether you're a "selfer" or "non-selfer" falls much more under the overall teachings of Buddha than ridicule or condescending tones.
-bf
LOL!
Did you really think I was going to baited, Bobby?
BF,
Thanks for your defense as always.
Bobby seems to think that I support doctrine! LOL!
Brigid
It also brings to mind something that Dipa Ma once said: "Your mind is all stories."
This is interesting because it not only gives us something to think about in terms of the use of substances in meditation, but also this talk of self. Our ideas about the self, the descriptors we accumulate and edit to build the self - all of these materials that we gather and use to construct a house of selfhood - they're interesting because while they are empty (interdependent, interpenetrating, and most importantly temporary), they're also like the finger pointing to the moon.
We can spend our time looking at the finger, admiring its shape or how soft the skin may look or feel, and certainly many people do that. There's an entire industry dedicated to dermal care (but that's stretching the metaphor to the breaking point). Or we can start to look at what the finger is pointing at. What all of our selfhood components are hinting at. If you're going to build a house of self, then what ground is it being built on? What is that foundation? Indeed, upon what do all houses of self stand?
I apologize for being long-winded. I'm sure there's a way to say all of that in fewer words. I'm still working on that.
Jizo,
I loved that! I also loved your post. A lot. It didn't have too many words. It had just the right amount. LOL! I found it illuminating and a wonderful reminder and beautifully stated. This is the most helpful post on "self" that I have read so far and I greatly appreciate your contributing it.
With great respect,
Brigid