|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: syncro] 4
#28764772 - 05/06/24 10:48 PM (1 month, 20 days ago) |
|
|
From my understanding of the Buddha dhamma on no-self or "Anatta", it denies there being an permanent and unchanging self/soul or part of an individuals being throughout the five aggregates affected by clinging (material form, experiencing/feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness's) that is likewise permanent and unchanging or could in a reasonable way be refered to as the Sanskrit term "atman".
Likewise the elements that compose the body, earth, water, fire, air are all each to be examined and according to the Buddha, should be recognized as "this is not mine, this i am not, this is not my self".
Nor are the six senses (sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, or thinking) nor their objects they correspond to are to be identified as Atman or Soul nor belonging to an Atman or Soul.
The usual reasoning for denying the Atman/Soul is everything is impermanent, and if even good things are impermanent, that would be a form of suffering in truth, now, is what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change fit to be regarded as "this my Self"? Not as the Self as described by other yogis in my opinion.
Also in MN38 of the middle length discourses of the Pali canon, which are the oldest recorded scripture of Buddhism, one of the Buddha's disciples argued that it's the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirths, however the other disciples as well as the Buddha himself deny this misconception, and the reason being has to do with "dependent origination", the Buddha reminds him that his dhamma teaches that "consciousness is dependent arisen, for without a condition there is no origination of consciousness". He continues "Consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it rises... for example he uses the 6 senses, with eye-consciousness, the manifest consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, and so on with the other senses. Just like a fire is reckoned by what it burns dependent on, if wood than it is reckoned a wood fire, or on grass, or rubbish, it will be reckoned a grass fire or rubbish fire.
Anyhow, the Buddha than list the 12 link chain of "Dependent Origination" and explains that as the reason for rebirth after rebirth, thus explaining the Buddhist dhamma on how there can be multiple-lives/rebirth without an Atman/Self/Soul.
Yea, dependent origination is the main way to explain how rebirths works in Buddhism, look into that for the key to understanding this very significant piece of dhamma.
-------------------- "He who finds peace and joy And radiance within himself That man becomes one with God And vanishes into God's bliss." -Bhagavad Gita, 5.24 One 21 - Building Better Bombs One 21 - Pacified One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine "Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
solarshroomster
Wonderer



Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 523
Last seen: 4 hours, 39 minutes
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: saintdextro]
#28769814 - 05/10/24 07:51 PM (1 month, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I don't understand why I keep forgetting? It's like, when I'm in the mystical state, I get in contact with something that couldn't have been seen before. I feel like I'm living in the Truman Show... is someone playing a practical joke on me? It doesn't make sense why I just keep forgetting and then re-learning when I "return" to Source...
this case of spiritual amnesia is one of the biggest...
? mysteries ?
-------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
|
spinvis
Stranger


Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 876
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28770191 - 05/11/24 06:26 AM (1 month, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: The Buddhist denial of a truly extant self is nothing more or less than the redefinition of the self as a physical process. The self could also be redefined as God, or Nature, or the infinite, or a higher self within the individual. The existence of the soul provides some basis for an identifiable self, though conversely it is true that the typical awareness only of the egoic form of self is an illusion.
So the Buddhists are not wrong that the ordinary self isn’t objective; but the human identity is also not one of nothingness or annihilation, which would only be unconsciousness outside of dubious semantic tricks. The closest perhaps that we can get, in terms of identifying the self as truthfully as we can, is to say that it comprises pure awareness, and whatever forms this may take
Bullshit, one example posted below from the Ananda Sutta.
Quote:
Linked Discourses 44.10 1. The Undeclared Points
With Ānanda
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
“Mister Gotama, does the self survive?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.
“Then does the self not survive?” But for a second time the Buddha kept silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and left.
And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:
“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”
“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.
When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ would that help give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”
“No, sir.”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’”
From an Advaita/Yogic saint, which fits the topic:
Quote:
Amritanubhav (The Nectar of Mystical Experience)
Chapter Five: Existence, Consciousness, Bliss (Excerpts)
These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss), Do not actually define Brahman. A poison is poison to others, But not to itself.
Camphor is white; Not only that, it is soft. And not only that, it is fragrant as well.
Just as these three qualities signify One object -- camphor, and not three objects; So the three qualities, Sat, Chit, and Ananda, Are contained in one reality.
It is true that the words, Sat, Chit, and Ananda, Are different, But the three are united in one Bliss.
When water is falling in drops, We can count them. But when the water is gathered In a puddle on the ground, It is impossible to count the number of drops.
In the same way, The scriptures describe Reality As Sat, or Existence, In order to negate Its non-existence. They call It Chit, or Consciousness, In order to negate its unconsciousness.
The Vedas, Which are the very breath of the Lord, Declare It to be Ananda, or Bliss, Only in order to negate the possibility Of pain existing in It.
Thus the word, Satchidananda, Used to refer to the Self, Does not really describe Its nature, But merely signifies That It is not the opposite of this.
The fact is, if we try to know That, The knowledge itself is That. How, then, could the knowledge And the object of knowledge remain separate?
So the words Sat, Chit, and Ananda Do not denote That; They are merely inventions of our thought.
These well-known words, Chit, Sat, and Ananda, Are popularly used, it is true; But when the knower becomes One with That to which they refer,
Then they vanish Like the clouds that pour down as rain, Or like rivers which flow into the sea, Or like a journey when one's destination is reached.
Of course, what exists cannot be said not to exist; But can such existence be called "Existence?"
In blissfulness There is no feeling of unhappiness; But can it, for that reason, be called "Bliss?"
Existence vanishes along with non-existence, Consciousness along with unconsciousness, And bliss along with misery; In the end, nothing remains.
Discarding the veil of duality And all the pairs of opposites, That alone remains In Its own blessed state.
If a face does not look into a mirror, There is neither a face before it Nor behind it. Likewise, He is neither happiness nor misery, But pure Bliss itself.
Even before the sugar cane is planted, The juice is within it; But its sweetness is unknown -- Except to itself.
Pure Consciousness is beyond Both generalizations and particular statements; It remains ever-content in Itself.
After such a discourse, That speech is wise Which drinks deeply of silence.
Truly, there is neither bondage nor freedom; There is nothing to be accomplished. There is only the pleasure of expounding.
Read the Sutras instead, or listen to modern dhamma talks from the Bikkhus on the self/non-self.
|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: spinvis]
#28774289 - 05/14/24 04:14 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
So rather than saying there's no self as identity, just examine mindfully everything you sense and are composed of, and say "this is not self", right? That way you don't identify with either eternalist or annihilist,,, we are are rather a stream of consciousness that cannot be identified as Self/Atman/Soul, is this correct with the Buddhist dhamma?
-------------------- "He who finds peace and joy And radiance within himself That man becomes one with God And vanishes into God's bliss." -Bhagavad Gita, 5.24 One 21 - Building Better Bombs One 21 - Pacified One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine "Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,911
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: saintdextro]
#28774469 - 05/14/24 07:27 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
That's one of my sticking points. If the subtle mind isn't constituted of spirit -- what is it constituted of? It has to exist as something.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 3,213
Last seen: 29 minutes, 12 seconds
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28774541 - 05/14/24 08:50 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
It seems to me the Sutra denies neither self-non-self, but negates any concept of them. The Buddha, I think, just discarded the question.
|
dreamninja
Stranger

Registered: 04/30/23
Posts: 58
Last seen: 1 day, 38 minutes
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: syncro]
#28774550 - 05/14/24 09:06 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
If we give up the idea of thought. Spirit still exists. If we give up the idea of naming we still have form.
To live with out thought or name we still exists
Zero history yet the future approaches
The moment is.....
|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: dreamninja] 3
#28774609 - 05/14/24 10:11 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
In one of the vachagotta suttas in maghima nikaya, where vachagotta ask the ten questions that the Buddha wouldn't answer, he said that if any one of them were answered, the holy life, what the Buddha teaches, could not be lived. It they were attempted to be answered it could be compared to a man struck with a poison arrow, but before the man would let the arrow to be pulled out, he would say "first let me know who shot me, what kind of arrow was it, why was I shot? Etc..." he would die before he found out the answer to any of his questions. Instead, what the Buddha only teaches is "suffering" and "the end of suffering". It's not that the Buddha didn't know the answer to the ten questions (look them up on google or Wikipedia or directly from the suttas .) but his dhamma, the Buddha dhamma, is transcendent to these questions and there answers do not lead to the end of suffering. But only lead to distractive speculation about the world. If I'm understanding this right. 
( The ten or sometimes listed fourteen questions that are speculative that the Buddha wouldn't answer, some of not all relate to there being a self that's eternal or a self that's not eternal. Not sure if this helps the discussion, but I thought it might. )
-------------------- "He who finds peace and joy And radiance within himself That man becomes one with God And vanishes into God's bliss." -Bhagavad Gita, 5.24 One 21 - Building Better Bombs One 21 - Pacified One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine "Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28774616 - 05/14/24 10:19 PM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: That's one of my sticking points. If the subtle mind isn't constituted of spirit -- what is it constituted of? It has to exist as something.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "subtle mind", but all jhanna states, all non-materiel states, and the cessation of perception and feeling attainment,,, basically all sama-samadhi attainments or states are, I quote from the Buddha himself in the suttas, are "conditioned and volitionally produced"... There dependently arisen and based on a condition, nor are they eternal. And clinging to them will keep you from full enlightenment and nirvana. How if you cling to them you on the right beginning of the path to enlightenment and nirvana. And can lead to the best rebirths. As he concedes with his special attendant Amanda that of all things to cling to, clinging to neither-perception-nor-non-perception (basically the highest samadhi one can perceive) is the best of objects to cling to.
Edited by saintdextro (05/14/24 10:30 PM)
|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: saintdextro]
#28774716 - 05/15/24 12:17 AM (1 month, 12 days ago) |
|
|
si=3DtNhzZetmrblIsU
si=WQ8A-UpE1K7-DfpG
si=gpA1kwEzjSStCXJp
si=-KTEMwBfgfcW1sPx
si=CrNqcqfiEznKSEgX
(Ok, the last one isn't really "Buddhist", but insightful for the topic at hand! )
-------------------- "He who finds peace and joy And radiance within himself That man becomes one with God And vanishes into God's bliss." -Bhagavad Gita, 5.24 One 21 - Building Better Bombs One 21 - Pacified One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine "Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,911
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: saintdextro] 2
#28775505 - 05/15/24 05:37 PM (1 month, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I found this quote by the Dalai Lama:
Quote:
According to the Buddhist explanation, the ultimate creative principle is consciousness. There are different levels of consciousness. What we call innermost subtle consciousness is always there. The continuity of that consciousness is almost like something permanent, like [particles]. In the field of matter, that is the [particles]; in the field of consciousness, it is the Clear Light... The Clear Light, with its special energy, makes the connection with consciousness.
So it is consciousness. I've been trying all throughout this thread to determine what it is that reincarnates between lives. The Dalai Lama says it is the consciousness of the Clear Light. So now I have an answer.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 3,213
Last seen: 29 minutes, 12 seconds
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28775922 - 05/16/24 05:14 AM (1 month, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Nevertheless, the Suttas might scold you for saying so, but you have a receipt.
|
spinvis
Stranger


Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 876
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#28776045 - 05/16/24 08:06 AM (1 month, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I found this quote by the Dalai Lama:
Quote:
According to the Buddhist explanation, the ultimate creative principle is consciousness. There are different levels of consciousness. What we call innermost subtle consciousness is always there. The continuity of that consciousness is almost like something permanent, like [particles]. In the field of matter, that is the [particles]; in the field of consciousness, it is the Clear Light... The Clear Light, with its special energy, makes the connection with consciousness.
So it is consciousness. I've been trying all throughout this thread to determine what it is that reincarnates between lives. The Dalai Lama says it is the consciousness of the Clear Light. So now I have an answer.
Here are some additional sources and excerpts on (non) self, consciousness, rebirth, from the original Pali canon and others.
Quote:
Long Discourses 15
The Great Discourse on Causation
. . .
5. Planes of Consciousness
Ānanda, there are seven planes of consciousness and two dimensions. The Buddha returns once more to the question of rebirth, describing various states of rebirth in terms of consciousness. The seven planes are also mentioned at DN 33:2.3.28, DN 34:1.8.11, and AN 7.44:1.1. What seven?
There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. This is the first plane of consciousness. “Plane of consciousness” is viññāṇaṭṭhiti, which could also be rendered “station”.
There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first absorption. This is the second plane of consciousness.
There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance. This is the third plane of consciousness.
There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory. This is the fourth plane of consciousness.
There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite space. This is the fifth plane of consciousness.
There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness. This is the sixth plane of consciousness.
There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they have been reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh plane of consciousness.
Then there is the dimension of non-percipient beings, and secondly, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. In the first of these dimensions there is no consciousness at all, and in the second there is no consciousness in the normal sense, which is why they cannot be called “planes of consciousness”.
Now, regarding these seven planes of consciousness and two dimensions, is it appropriate for someone who understands them—and their origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape—to take pleasure in them?” Abhinandituṁ, to “take pleasure in”, to “relish”, or to “delight in” appears in the standard formula for the second noble truth, where craving “takes pleasure in various realms” (tatratatrābhinandinī).
“No, sir.”
“When a mendicant, having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape regarding these seven planes of consciousness and these two dimensions, is freed by not grasping, they’re called a mendicant who is freed by wisdom. One “freed by wisdom” has wisdom as the dominant faculty.
6. The Eight Liberations
Ānanda, there are these eight liberations. The eight liberations (vimokkhā) are an alternative way of describing the meditative experiences of jhāna. Elsewhere they are listed at DN 16:3.33.1, DN 33:3.1.168, DN 34:2.1.191, AN:8.66, MN 77:22.1, and referred to at AN 4.189:1.8 and Thag 20.1:33.1. At AN 8.120 and MN 137:27.1 they are listed but not called the eight liberations. What eight?
Having physical form, they see forms. Someone sees a meditative vision based on the perception of their own body, such as through mindfulness of breathing or one’s own body parts. The first three liberations all cover the four jhānas. This is the first liberation.
Not perceiving form internally, they see forms externally. A meditator grounds their practice on some external focus, such as a light, the sight of a corpse, or an external element such as earth. This is the second liberation.
They’re focused only on beauty. This is a practice based on wholly pure and exalted meditation, such as the meditation on love, or the sight of a pure brilliant color like the sky. This is the third liberation.
Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space. This is the fourth liberation.
Going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite consciousness. This is the fifth liberation.
Going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth liberation.
Going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, they enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the seventh liberation.
Going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they enter and remain in the cessation of perception and feeling. The “cessation of perception and feeling” (saññāvedayitanirodha) is a culminating meditation state of supreme subtlety that leads directly to awakening. The state itself, like all meditation states, is temporary, but afterwards the defilements are gone forever. This liberating insight is the consequence of the balanced development of all eight factors of the path. This is the eighth liberation.
These are the eight liberations.
When a mendicant enters into and withdraws from these eight liberations—in forward order, in reverse order, and in forward and reverse order—wherever they wish, whenever they wish, and for as long as they wish; This passage emphasizes that this person is fully adept and has mastered all the states of meditation. The Buddha claimed such mastery (AN 9.41:16.1), and retained the ability even on his deathbed (DN 16:6.8.1). and when they realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life, and live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements, they’re called a mendicant who is freed both ways. Here we see the terms “one who is freed” used in two ways. All arahants have “freedom of heart” (by means of samādhi) and “freedom by wisdom” (the realization of the Dhamma). At the same time, one who emphasizes samādhi is said to have “freedom of heart” in contrast with one who emphasizes wisdom, who has “freedom by wisdom”. One who has consummate mastery of both samādhi and wisdom is said to be “freed both ways”. And, Ānanda, there is no other freedom both ways that is better or finer than this.”
That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, Venerable Ānanda was happy with what the Buddha said.
Quote:
Middle Discourses 72
With Vacchagotta on Fire
So I have heard. This sutta depicts Vacchagotta, having gained a degree of faith as depicted in MN 71, question the Buddha regarding the undeclared points. This is just a taste of Vacchagotta’s curiosity, as the 55 suttas of SN 33 all deal with the same topic, as do SN 44.7, SN 44.8, and SN 44.11. Underlying all these questions is the assumption of a self, which Vacchagotta asks directly about at SN 44.10. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
“Mister Gotama, is this your view: ‘The cosmos is eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The cosmos is finite. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The cosmos is infinite. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are the same thing. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘The soul and the body are different things. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘A realized one still exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘A realized one no longer exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘A realized one both still exists and no longer exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Then is this your view: ‘A realized one neither still exists nor no longer exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”
“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”
“Mister Gotama, when asked these ten questions, you say: ‘That’s not my view.’ Seeing what drawback do you avoid all these convictions?”
“Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. They’re beset with anguish, distress, and fever. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”
“But does Mister Gotama have any convictions at all?”
“A realized one has done away with convictions. The Buddha, or indeed any arahant, has no “convictions” (diṭṭhigata), i.e. theories to attach to, since his “right view” (sammādiṭṭhi) is grounded in what he has “seen” (diṭṭha). For a realized one has seen: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ That’s why a realized one is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceiving, all churning, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.” At Thag 14.2, mathita means “oppressed, weighed down”, and the same sense probably applies at Thag 1.102. At Dhp 349, however, the root sense of “churn” fits the context of “thoughts”, while at MN 90:12.14 it refers to starting a fire by “churning” with a fire-drill, a common Vedic usage (Rig Veda 3.23.1a, 3.29.12a, 8.48.6a; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.1.4.8, 3.7.3.3, etc.). Its unique appearance in this context anticipates the simile of fire.
“But Mister Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”
“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they not reborn?”
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?”
“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?”
“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Mister Gotama, when asked all these questions, you say: ‘It doesn’t apply.’ I fail to understand this point, Mister Gotama; I’ve fallen into confusion. And I’ve now lost even the degree of clarity I had from previous discussions with Mister Gotama.”
“No wonder you don’t understand, Vaccha, no wonder you’re confused. Vacchagotta’s confusion on this same point is addressed at SN 44.9:5.3. For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. It’s hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, and belief, unless you dedicate yourself to practice with the guidance of tradition.
Well then, Vaccha, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. When Vacchagotta is out of his depth, the Buddha helps him by coming back to a simple, grounded metaphor.
What do you think, Vaccha? Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know: ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
“Yes, I would, Mister Gotama.”
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”
“I would answer like this: ‘This fire burning in front of me burns in dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”
“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know: ‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”
“Yes, I would, Mister Gotama.”
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”
“It doesn’t apply, Mister Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”
“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. Here “realized one” (tathāgata) pertains to any arahant, as at SN 54.12. The Pali commentary and one of the Chinese parallels here (SA2 196 at T ii 445a18) agree in saying that a “living being” (satta) is meant. However, tathāgata and satta are exact verbal parallels: tathā (“real”) + gata (“come to the state of”) and sa (“real”) + tta (“state of”). Thus it seems likely that this was originally intended as a mere verbal gloss to resolve the compound. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.
Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”
When he said this, the wanderer Vacchagotta said to the Buddha:
“Mister Gotama, suppose there was a large sal tree not far from a town or village. And because it’s impermanent, its branches and foliage, bark and shoots, and softwood would fall off. After some time it would be rid of branches and foliage, bark and shoots, and softwood, pure, and consolidated in the core. In the same way, Mister Gotama’s dispensation is rid of branches and foliage, bark and shoots, and softwood, pure, and consolidated in the core.
Excellent, Mister Gotama! … From this day forth, may Mister Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”
Quote:
John Blofeld; Hui Hai - The Zen Teaching of Hui Hai on Sudden Illumination;
28. Q: It’s stated that the eight consciousnesses are turned into the Four Wisdoms, and then the Four Wisdoms bind together forming the trikaya; which, then, of these eight states will pool together to form one Buddha-wisdom and then, which Wisdoms are then said to be the transformation into One Consciousness? A: The five senses (smell, taste, etc.) relate to the five states of consciousness thereby forming the Perfecting Wisdom. Intellect (sixth state), or the mental consciousness, becomes the Wonderful Observing Wisdom. The seventh state with its discriminating awareness becomes the Universal Wisdom. Lastly, the eighth consciousness alone becomes the Mirror-Like Wisdom. Q: Well, then, do the Four Wisdoms really differ from one another or are they the same? A: In Substance they remain the same, only the names vary. Q: Well if their Substance is identical, why do they bare different appellations? And if it is true that these designations are only used as expedients, what is it that is constitutive of one substance that is named “Great-Mirror Wisdom”? A: That which is still and void—motionless—is the Great Mirror Wisdom. That which is capable of facing mind-defilements without attaching to them through love or aversion, is the Universal Wisdom. That which has the ability to discriminate and discern the wide-field of sensory impressions, while at the same time never experiencing unbridled and reactionary patterns of thought is Wonderful Observing Wisdom. That which can direct all the sense faculties into observing phenomena without being constrained by dualism is known as Perfecting Wisdom. Q: When the Four Wisdoms combine to form the trikaya, which of them solely becomes one body, and which of them comes-together to form one Body? A: The Great Mirror Wisdom solely makes up the Dharmakaya. Universal Wisdom exclusively constructs the Sambhogakaya. While both Wonderful Observing Wisdom and Perfecting Wisdom constitutes the Nirmanakaya. Of course, the three Bodies are only specified differently to expediently assist those worldlings who lack the necessary insight to comprehend their unifying nature. For those who are fruitfully endowed with Buddha-gnosis, their Absolute Nature is neither rooted in permanence nor non-permanence.
29. Q: How can one perceive the true nature of the Buddhakaya? A: It means that one no longer perceives or considers anything as existing or non-existing. Q: What are you actually saying? A: Quite simply it means forever avoiding such dual-constructs as existence or non-existence. Remember, once you avoid either one of them the other can never stand on its own footing. Thus, detaching oneself from this duality of existence versus non-existence, one will finally and unequivocally SEE the True Body of the Buddha. Q: Yet, even if the constructs of existence/non-existence have no true legitimacy, then how can the construct of the Buddhakaya as well have any validity? A: It becomes conceptualized only when one asks about it. If you never ask, the conceptual framework of the Buddhakaya would never arise. This is something similar to that of a bright mirror—in itself empty of all images, but if an image were to be suddenly thrust in front of it, it would reflect the image. In and of itself it reflects no-thing, it is clear and boundless imagelessness.
30. Q: What is the meaning of “never being separate from the Buddha”? A: When one’s mind is completely free and void of the concepts birth and death and remains just in quiescent-stillness—in that motionlessness one is perpetually with the Buddha.
31. Q: What is the meaning of the Supramundane Dharma? A: It is mere worldliness. Q: Excuse me? I inquired about the “Supramundane”, why do you refer to it as being worldly? A: In mundane parlance the Supramundane Dharma as you so imply would derive its meaning as it apparently relates to worldly factors. The Actual Supramundane neither exists nor non-exists, thus it pertains neither to the worldly nor to the transcendental. The Diamond Sutra states, “If their minds cling to the notion of a Dharma, then they are still entrapped in the notion of an ego-self; if their minds should cling to the notion of a non-Dharma, then they would continue to be entrapped in the notion of an ego-self. Hence, one should not cling to the notion of a Dharma or non-Dharma.” This is embracing the True Dharma. If one understands this non-dual doctrine then one is truly delivered.
32. Q: What is the meaning behind “The Middle Way”? A: It designates the extremes. Q: I don’t understand. I asked about the meaning behind “The Middle Way” and you reply that it designates the extremes??? A: The conceptual notion of extremes derives from the middle and vice versa. And yet, if you never postulate the notion of extremes then wherein would be the middle? The “Middle” you are referring to was first employed in relation to extremes. Hence “Middle” and “extremes” are derivative of one-another and both are impermanent. The same holds true to the Skandhas: form, sensation, thought, volitional movement, and mortal consciousness. Q: What is the essence behind these “Skandhas”? A: When the mind allows what is essentially non-formal to become formal so much so that they become “birthed” within, then this is known as the aggregate of form. This leads to the accumulation of the “eight winds” [benefit and loss; fame and ignominy; praise and ridicule; suffering and happiness.] which produces a wrong series of ideations that become manifested into the aggregate of sensation. Thereafter, the deluded mind proceeds to activate a series of perceptions that these sensations arouse, thus leading to the aggregate of thought. This inevitably leads to the piling-up of reactionary motivations based on these irregular thought ideations of certain causal preferences, thereby forming the aggregation of excessive volitional movement. As a result of these accumulated interactions of these given aggregates, they become concretized into a mortal consciousness with its hoarding-chamber (alaya-vijnana) creating an incessant whirlpool of these aggravated impressions.
33. Q: What does it mean when a sutra discusses “the twenty-five elements of existence”? A: This indicates the nature of undergoing future rebirth or incarnations within the six realms of impermanence. Because of a delusion-filled existence during their life-cycles sentient beings become heavily laden with all manner of karmic aftereffects, and thus experience future rebirths commensurate with these karmic ramifications—reincarnation. However, if in one’s present life-cycle one is determined to transcend these karmic states by embracing the way of the Unborn, then the severing of all past karmic associations becomes a real possibility. In this way one is forever linked with the Dharmakaya which is none other than the Buddha Body of the Absolute—Buddhakaya. Q: So, then, what are the different qualities of these twenty-five elements? A: Their essential nature is of one substance. Yet, when each of them are named given their various functions, they are said to be twenty-five. This all breaks down as the ten virtues, ten vices, and the five aggregates. Q: What are these ten virtues and ten vices? A: The ten vices are as follows: killing, stealing, recklessness, lying, an abhorrent tongue, decadence, defamation, greed, anger and deceitful views. The ten virtues are simply the absence of the ten vices.
34. Q: At one time you referred to the notion of “No-thought”; please further expound on this notion. A: No-Thought means not fixating upon anything whatsoever—even to the extent of seeking something or not seeking anything. No-Thought means remaining uncommitted and motionless in the face of a myriad associations, whether material or mental. Abstaining from any such associations is referred to as remaining solely in the Unborn Mind. Keeping the thought-process in perpetual motion is alien to Right-View. How so? A sutra says, “Excessively engaging in the six meritorious thoughts is wrong thinking, while abandoning them is right thinking.” A sutra also says, “The Shining Ones always abide in the Dharma of No-Thought, thus becoming resplendent with the golden color and thirty-two marks of the Buddha. In so doing, they emit a marvelous radiant light that illuminates the whole cosmos. These merits thus gained are inconceivable and cannot be properly described, even by the Buddhas. Mind adepts who follow this Dharma of No-Thought, wherein the six organs of perception are no longer functional, are empowered to receive the Noble insights of the Tathagatas. When this realization is Self-realized, one is said to enter into the mind-treasury of all Buddhas, also known as the treasury of the Dharma, or sitting in the Dharma-chair of the Tathagatas. That same sutra states, “All Buddhas are thus Nobly Enlightened by this sutra.” … Those who initiate spontaneous illumination transcend the three realms of existence (desire, form, formlessness) within this very life! The sutra also says, “Never try to extinguish the world; rather, transcend it. Do not wrestle with sensate defilements; rather, enter into Nirvana.” Thus, if one does not practice the Spontaneous Illumination method, he will be likened unto a wild fox that fancies itself to be a lion—this will never happen given a hundred thousand and endless kalpas of trying.
35. Q: Is the nature of Absolute Reality really void? To say that it is not void is to imply in some sense that is has the nature of form; and yet, to say that it is void somehow implies extinction. In the latter sense, sentient beings would have nothing to depend upon to rise to liberation. A: The nature of Absolute Reality is neither void nor non void. The marvelous substance of Absolute Reality is without form and cannot be perceived, so in that sense, it is void. Yet, since the formless void also contains a myriad functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, revealed in many diverse circumstances, it is also described as not being void. As a sutra states, “Understand this one point, and a thousand others will also become abundantly clear. Yet, misunderstanding this one point will open the door to the ten-thousand delusions. Those who hold-fast to that “one” will not find the need to ask further questions.” The sutra additionally says, “All forms of views bears the imprint of one Dharma.” How is this possible? All good meritorious effort depends upon Right Practice. If one fails to overcome the effects of the carnal mind and depends solely upon words to attain liberation, then one is wasting their efforts. One is merely being deceitful. Therefore, let one be perpetually vigilant, never grasping at phenomena and never allowing mind to just settle upon anything that comes under its purview. If one practices in this fashion, then one will soon be able to put-on the Nirvanic Mind and celebrate the Unborn. This is also known as walking through the Dharma-door of the Non-Dual, no longer carrying or entertaining divergent views, and focusing exclusively upon a singular perfected Gnosis THAT is absolutely clear; no longer strutting-about with an ego and skandhic-personality, or experiencing the vicissitudes of love and hate; devoid now of a false-self, such a resilient one knows the voidness of all duality. This is the period of Absolute Equanimity with no contention-filled fits whatsoever. Be mindful, though, this Doctrine should never be transmitted to those who are non-practitioners but exclusively entrusted to those who uphold the Way of the Unborn. Similarly, be most attuned to any adept who exhibits advanced-potential; make sure that they are totally devoted and will never regress before expounding this Doctrine. Also, be aware that in the coming generations there will be many of mixed-viewpoints. Share the Unborn Light with them, but never take-on their own karma-forming propensities.
First and foremost, I have not advanced these teachings for the sake of personal fame or profit, but only for those diligent ones who will practice them faithfully and unequivocally. In this way I follow the example of all Buddhas who have expounded countless expedient measures to deliver many from all varieties of mental confusion. Remember, in following this Absolute Mind Doctrine never form conceptual ideations, just allow Mind to dwell no-where in particular—motionless and still in the void. Likewise, none of you should seek personal fame and fortune, to do so will only incur stinging-karma and an endless array of needless suffering. Be careful. Remember that sentient beings must attend to liberating themselves and never relying upon Buddhas to do it for them; as a sutra says, “Those who seek the Buddhadharma will never find it by clinging to the Buddhas!”
Quote:
Burton Watson; Chuang Tzu - The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu;
"Shun asked Ch’eng, “Is it possible to gain possession of the Way?”
“You don’t even have possession of your own body — how could you possibly gain possession of the Way!”
“If I don’t have possession of my own body, then who does?” said Shun.
“It is a form lent you by Heaven and earth. You do not have possession of life — it is a harmony lent by Heaven and earth. You do not have possession of your inborn nature and fate they are contingencies lent by Heaven and earth. You do not have possession of your sons and grandsons — they are castoff skins lent by Heaven and earth. So it is best to walk without knowing where you are going, stay home without knowing what you are guarding, eat without knowing what you are tasting. All is the work of the Powerful Yang in the world. How then could it be possible to gain possession of anything?”"
Quote:
Adi Shankara;
“There is no class of substance to which the Brahman belongs, no common genus. It cannot therefore be denoted by words which, like ’being’ in the ordinary sense, signify a category of things. Nor can it be denoted by quality, for it is without qualities; nor yet by activity, because it is without activity— it is ’at rest, without parts or activity’ according to the Scriptures. Neither can it be denoted by relationship, for it is ’without a second’ and is not the object of anything but its own self. Therefore it cannot be defined by word or idea; as the Scripture says, it is the One ’before whom words recoil’.”
Quote:
Dalai Lama - Kalachakra Tantra: Rite of Initiation;
"If the I and the body are one, after death when the body is burned, the I also would be burned. Or, just as the I transmigrates to the next life, so the body also would have to transmigrate. Or, just as the body does not transmigrate, so the I also would not transmigrate. If due to having meditated on such reasonings, you come to think that the I is probably not the same as the body but is probably one with the mind, you are instructed to consider the following fallacies. Since it is obvious that the suffering of cold arises when the I is without clothes and that the sufferings of hunger and thirst arise when the I lacks food and drink, these would – if the I were merely mental – be mental in origin, in which case you could not posit a reason why the same suffering would not be experienced in a life in a Formless Realm. Since the mind would be one with the I, it would still have to make use of gross forms such as food and clothing."
Quote:
William Blake - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell;
"The notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by ... melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid."
And as always...
Quote:
Yoka Daishi;
“The philosophers indeed are clever enough, but wanting in wisdom (moodha); As to the others, they are either ignorant or puerile! They take an empty fist as containing something real and the pointing finger as the object pointed at. Because the finger is adhered to as though it were the Moon, all their efforts are lost.”
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 18,116
Last seen: 4 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: DividedQuantum] 3
#28776402 - 05/16/24 12:48 PM (1 month, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I found this quote by the Dalai Lama:
Quote:
According to the Buddhist explanation, the ultimate creative principle is consciousness. There are different levels of consciousness. What we call innermost subtle consciousness is always there. The continuity of that consciousness is almost like something permanent, like [particles]. In the field of matter, that is the [particles]; in the field of consciousness, it is the Clear Light... The Clear Light, with its special energy, makes the connection with consciousness.
So it is consciousness. I've been trying all throughout this thread to determine what it is that reincarnates between lives. The Dalai Lama says it is the consciousness of the Clear Light. So now I have an answer.
Interesting quote. The Dalai Lama often references his fascination with projectors as a child.
But I think it's important to remember the Tibetans have a unique view and relationship to death and dying which is quite distinct to Tibetan culture. The Tibetan Book of the Dead is titled such to emphasize its origin point.
There can be long discussions about the different schools of Buddhism, but even the DL frequently references his inability to distinguish Tibetan Buddhism from Tibetan culture. They are highly enmeshed.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
saintdextro
Entheogen psychonaut



Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 596
Last seen: 29 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: Kickle] 1
#28776727 - 05/16/24 06:04 PM (1 month, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Yea, Mahayana Buddhist seem ok with a "ground of all consciousness" that is reborn/is eternal. But Theravada Buddhist, based closer to what the Buddha actually taught, it's "nothingness".
I've heard Eckhart Tolle say "being or non-being...their referring to the same thing." (Paraphrased)
Ram Dass similarly taught arguing one term over the other is just Hindu's being to busy being Hindu's or Buddhist being to busy being Buddhist.
I'm beginning to think like Meister Eckhart, who was a rare and profound thinker of the Christian Church in the middle ages who taught, without knowing any Buddhist or eastern philosophy, that God is Nothingness, that detachment, solitude, silence, stillness etc, are the way to realize God, the Christian God that is, as the Absolute source, Soul of each being, essence of everything and so on. He said something like "you have to go deeper into God by going into Nothingness, than you will realize the God that is beyond the concept of God that is real", those aren't his words exactly but basically.
-------------------- "He who finds peace and joy And radiance within himself That man becomes one with God And vanishes into God's bliss." -Bhagavad Gita, 5.24 One 21 - Building Better Bombs One 21 - Pacified One 21 - Two Sides Is Fine "Respectability is a cloak for the hypocrite" - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
tree frog
eats bugs



Registered: 09/14/23
Posts: 1,702
Loc: lives in trees
Last seen: 12 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: saintdextro] 1
#28784052 - 05/22/24 03:02 PM (1 month, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I've been practicing guided meditations under the theravada tradition and reading a lot of the same teacher's scholarly articles (Ven. Bhikkhu Analayo, a scholar of early buddhism).
My understanding is that consciousness is dependent on name and form (contact between the concept of an object and the physical object itself).
Name isn't thoughts, but something deeper. An infant has a concept mom for example. Safety. Milk. Pain. Warmth. Etc. These are inherited as part of being human. Consciousness is a reflex, when name and form both are manifested and not self.
To dip into a different tradition, Rinpochi Trungpa replied when a student asked, what is it that is reborn, 'your bad habits!'
So, my opinion, clinging. The habit of clinging to the aggregates is what survives. The habit of solidifying sense experience as permanent objects and closed systems rather than processes and open systems (impermanence and no-self).
Asking what is reborn from the perspective of the individual self is putting the cart before the horse. My actions affect every human that comes after. My bad habits and the way I've harmed others is carried forward. As is, hopefully, my intention for liberation and loving kindness.
Another Trungpa quote when explaining what the ego is. Territorial, ape, instinct. That's what survives. And what awakening overcomes. In my understanding. Not our individual consciosness, which isn't and never was individual. Itself, dependent on what we inherit and what we encounter, and arising out of relfex.
Not our soul, that seemingly unchanging sensation which disolves when invistigated during meditation, revealing what the tibetans call the natural dispensation and the theravada monks call the deathless. Mind unbound by clinging to the momentary arising of sensation. Especially that sensation I am.
No, just our clinging to the habit of selfing. That's all that's reborn. Because there never was an I am to begin with to be reborn. At least, never in that closed system/unchanging sort of way that people tend to mean when they use the word soul or self.
Anyway, some fun stuff I've been reading and listening too. By some of the people that influenced my views above.
Rebirth and Early Buddhism
And an interview with Bhikkhu Analayo and Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche (a Tibetan Dzogchen teacher).
--------------------

Edited by tree frog (05/22/24 03:34 PM)
|
tree frog
eats bugs



Registered: 09/14/23
Posts: 1,702
Loc: lives in trees
Last seen: 12 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Buddhism and the redefinition of the self [Re: tree frog]
#28784192 - 05/22/24 05:29 PM (1 month, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Also, rebirth isn't dependent on physical death.
An angry thought every time an ex's name is mentioned will often continue to come up until examined with mindfulness and understanding.
I don't know if energy patterns migrate into new beings directly when we die, like a soul. But I tend to believe this based on memories and reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
I think of it like a single color in a curtain of light forgetting it's an aurora. The entire aurora is awake, spilling into everything and remembering its original face. I think sometimes we pick up pieces from other lifetimes, even other worlds. As the aurora itself flickers in dimensions we aren't usually aware of.
Anyway that's how I understand rebirth, is by first remembering that consciousness is itself conditioned and interdependent, and trying to not attach to it as me or mine. While also being aware of the possibility that echoes of my own thoughts and actions affect the world around me, likely in ripples carrying out into many generations and in ways that I'll probably never be able to fully rationalize or comprehend with my ape brain.
--------------------

Edited by tree frog (05/22/24 05:35 PM)
|
|