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.
Is understanding the nature of the self the most important endeavor in Buddhism?
It seems that once you see through the false I, everything else would naturally fall into place. Compassion, impermanence, dukkha, clinging - all of these things are rooted in ignorance that gives rise to the false self. It's sort of the foundation that, once dissolved, brings down the rest of the house with it and everything else falls into place.
0
Comments
Once I have realised this, and made it my daily consideration, maybe THEN other things will fall into place.
Just my view.
Frankly, something has to see something, whether you regard it as false or not.Preliminary understanding has to take place before advancing to questioning the existence or otherwise, of the self.
Considering the Self/Not-Self (as opposed to non-self, which for some, is a more nihilistic term, as opposed to an aspect of duality) is something a Buddhist does gradually, after some study.
Some study, takes time. Different times for different people.
Saying the above to a beginner would merely baffle them.
(thread moved to 'Advanced Ideas')
Seeing impermanence, dukkha and not-self in all things is what I recommend.
Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta.
This is what the Thai Forest tradition teaches and I agree, and when self-view drops you're on your way.
"realizing" would have been a more appropriate choice of word instead of "understanding".
Then you can actually see the ego and all of the attachments (literally, not figuratively), looking at them as if you were looking at a external object like a table (or looking at the ego like a file cabinet containing all of the recorded reactions, which you can open and close at will so you can deal with them individually...)
But this isn't enough, many people have realized their true self, with or without Buddhism or proper meditation. And then proceed to interpret their experience based on the paradigm from which they usually interpret their reality. Not knowing or understanding what they are looking at or what is happening... (so a religious man would call this god or whatever...)
Which only leads to many misinterpretations and being lost.
Understanding and realizing the true nature of reality is also very important.
The delusion of self is a large part of understanding and accepting the concept of suffering/cessation of suffering.
But is it the most important endeavour?
That's what this thread is attempting to establish.
If it is - why so?
If it isn't - why not?
ps: All i write is based on my own realizations and understanding from my own experience, just my opinion and not the interpretation of the texts. I'm not a Buddha (yet
@genkaku, Indeed! There's no actual "thing" that is the "false self"; there is wrong view and right view. With wrong view (ignorance), there is greed, aversion and delusion; self; craving that leads to attachment and clinging.
If a meditator is interested in investigating non-self, they should very seriously ask themselves why. Is it a sense of exploration, a desire to reduce pain in others, the wish to be a great respected teacher, to be highly knowledgeable, the reduce pain in oneself,..... Although the goal will change with the meditator, he/she should still be aware of their goal and be mindful when it changes. Even a goal of being "a great respected teacher" while not being a particularly wholesome goal, due to the egocentricity of it, would tend to even out with time. Basically, it is good to know your motivation to the best of your ability.
Finally, I think that the house would fall down, once the foundations have been destroyed. Cut the root of the tree and it will no longer be supported.
Cheers, WK
Regards,
Abu
How is our true nature beyond concepts? For example, the mind of a jellyfish is probably free from all concepts. Is our true nature the same as the mind of a jellyfish?
Child grows up. Learns all these fancy ideas. Learns to be separate because of these ideas. Adult throws away all concepts. Realizes he is the silent awareness behind all concepts. Awakens to his true nature, which he already was when he was a child. A dog understands his nature. He goes bark bark when you come near. Human nature is Buddha nature. When someone is hungry, you feed them. When someone needs help, you help them. This is Buddhism. This is enlightenment. Take it or leave it. Figure it out for yourself.
Also, when dogs have offspring, they feed their offspring when their offspring are hungry. Are you saying dogs have both human nature & Buddha nature?
Are you saying feeding hungry things is Buddha nature?
Like, sometimes, when a woman has a baby, if her mind hears another baby crying, her breasts will spurt milk automatically. Are you saying this breast milk spurting is Buddha nature?
How do you make these decisions, taiyaki. Silent awareness, what a start! But its only a start..
_/\_
IMO
I tried to do what you suggested but my mind has been unable to discern "I am" or "you are" like space. My mind can only discern the mind itself can be like space.
Is this OK or have "I" failed in discerning "my" and "our" true nature?
:bowdown:
i am sorry if my query was not clear
i will repeat
i said my mind could not find how "I am space"
my mind could only see "the mind" is like space
i have not found "my" or "our" true nature
did I fail in not finding the "true self"?
:dunce:
More "our true self".
Why cannot my mind find this "our true self" of enlightenment?
OMG!
:bawl:
Much love.
If there is water in a pot mixed with red, yellow, blue or orange color, a man with a normal faculty of sight, looking into it, could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by sensual desire, overpowered by sensual desire, one cannot properly see the escape from sensual desire which has arisen; then one does not properly understand and see one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.
— SN 46:55
:eek2: