There is no self

[SFJane]

You know, I have to say that I hadn't visited this thread in awhile but now that I am caught up on most of the last ten pages I am more sure then ever before of one thing.

 

This entire self-no self thing is complete pseudointellecutal bs on the part of alwayson. Over and over you brought up the term academia, academia, academia. It seems to me that is what Buddhism is to you. An interesting intellectual framework to nerdrage and wax pedantic about. You have not seen fit to share any original thinking and instead get all your talking points from giants that lived and died long before you took up this incarnation.

 

The real Buddhism is inner work and none of your posts reflect any hard ontological effort on your part but instead are regurgitations of the thoughts and ideas of people who put in actual practice and came to their own conclusions. You remind me of someone who read a book about how the internal combustion engine works and you fancy yourself a mechanic even though you've never done any actual repairs or rebuilds on actual engines. It's really pathetic and I am surprised more people haven't called you on it.

[Marblehead]

 

What's the end result of this method?

 

I would like to know.

 

I apologize. I failed to speak to this question and request.

 

The result of finding your own Way is that you will come to peace with your Self. When you are at peace with your Self you will no longer allow externals to disturb your inner peace. Being undisturbed you will be content and you will be able to live your life to its fullest capacity.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

You know, I have to say that I hadn't visited this thread in awhile but now that I am caught up on most of the last ten pages I am more sure then ever before of one thing.

 

This entire self-no self thing is complete pseudointellecutal bs on the part of alwayson. Over and over you brought up the term academia, academia, academia. It seems to me that is what Buddhism is to you. An interesting intellectual framework to nerdrage and wax pedantic about. You have not seen fit to share any original thinking and instead get all your talking points from giants that lived and died long before you took up this incarnation.

 

The real Buddhism is inner work and none of your posts reflect any hard ontological effort on your part but instead are regurgitations of the thoughts and ideas of people who put in actual practice and came to their own conclusions. You remind me of someone who read a book about how the internal combustion engine works and you fancy yourself a mechanic even though you've never done any actual repairs or rebuilds on actual engines. It's really pathetic and I am surprised more people haven't called you on it.

 

Alwayson has had insight into nondual, I believe. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. He's just a bit eager. Nothing wrong with that. I completely agree with him about the importance of refining concepts so that view accurately represents experience. Language plays a critical role in how we perceive reality so there is an interdependent qualia between conceptual view and actual experience.

 

As for the historical stuff... yeahhh probably a waste of time, but whatever For me it's like teramisu; totally awful but can't help but indulge once in a while.

Edited April 18, 2010 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

As for the historical stuff... yeahhh probably a waste of time, but whatever For me it's like teramisu; totally awful but can't help but indulge once in a while.

 

I am glad it was you and not I who said that.

 

I had to read all that stuff just in case there was something important said!

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

I don't see various histories as a waste of time when kept in proper perspective; thus they have importance although not of the primary importance related to the principles that they may convey. (or happenings and paths that they point towards with records)

[Marblehead]

I don't see various histories as a waste of time when kept in proper perspective; thus they have importance although not of the primary importance related to the principles that they may convey. (or happenings and paths that they point towards with records)

 

 

I know 3Bob. My post above was more of a joke and not meant to ba a significant comment.

 

I agree, we should understand the roots of our belief system as well as the time in history of when they were first presented as well as when and why important transitions occured.

 

Peace & Love!

[RongzomFan]

Amen.

Marblehead you might be interested in:

 

The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch, Rohit Dalvi- 2004

 

Refutes the fictious timelines presented in this thread

 

In summary, pretty much every school of Indian philosophy, including the ancient orthodox schools POST-date the Buddha

 

Even the Gita "can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era".

Edited April 18, 2010 by alwayson

[dwai]

Amen.

Marblehead you might be interested in:

 

The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch, Rohit Dalvi- 2004

 

Refutes the fictious timelines presented in this thread

 

In summary, pretty much every school of Indian philosophy, including the ancient orthodox schools POST-date the Buddha

 

Even the Gita "can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era".

 

Just because an Eliot Deutsch says it doesn't make it true. It be better to trust the internal records and traditional chronologies than Max Muller-influenced Eurocentric timelines (which invariably every western academic is guilty of)

 

Also, just because you claim Eliot Deutsch has said so, doesn't necessarily make it true. I have seen enough selective cognition of convenience from you to suspect that you are not entirely honest when you debate.

Edited April 18, 2010 by dwai

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

So... i'm sittin' here wondering how any of this affects 'Now'.. What i'm saying is, that regardless of history, there is matter of practical results.. do the claims made regarding personal states of Consciousness/Awareness/Existence actually manifest according to 'path' as described.. 'Does it work'? i really don't care if the 'source' is a razor-sharp truffle, the issue is "does it work"?

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

Hi Guys,

 

Yes, the history of early Indian philosophy/religion contains a lot of guess-work. I did a little research back in the early 1980s and I found variations in timelines as great as a thousand years.

 

And I agree that the British made it even worse by inaccurately documenting their 'histories'.

 

I think this is a perfect example of the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

To the average believer it probably really doesn't matter all that much. Of course, I am sure that most believers would say that 'their' belief came first.

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

About texts.

 

Do you think reading that stuff AFTER effects thru practice makes a difference? I really think it does. I often think, "Look! Someone took the time to write this stuff down!" What gets even more interesting IMO is what reading that stuff will do to a person. Especially some of the "funnier" (or stranger) texts where you're reading along and then you hit a word or a phrase and you go:

 

-aaaaragh

-the world drops out

-the world gets bigger (or smaller) very fast

-you realise you didn't know jack about anything

-you realise all your ideas about the "thing" were wrong

-something else very shocking - like a) it's all just a story or you made the words mean whatever you decided. I like this last one the best. I think it's why I read.

 

I believe being shocked through reading is an interesting adjunct to other practices. Whether whatever you're reading is the case or not

[dwai]

Hi Guys,

 

Yes, the history of early Indian philosophy/religion contains a lot of guess-work. I did a little research back in the early 1980s and I found variations in timelines as great as a thousand years.

 

And I agree that the British made it even worse by inaccurately documenting their 'histories'.

 

I think this is a perfect example of the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

To the average believer it probably really doesn't matter all that much. Of course, I am sure that most believers would say that 'their' belief came first.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

It is a lot of guesswork on part of the Eurocentric Philologists and Indologists who had an agenda...that was complete and unequivocal subjugation of Indians. The insidious nature of subversion and opression (both physical and intellectual) by the Europeans on India and other such "colonies" is mind-boggling (and not very well understood by the modern Westerner).

 

There is no or very little ambiguity when looking at the internal evidence of the texts and works of traditional scholars themselves (such as Aryabhatta, Sayanacharya, Badarayana, Bhaskaracharya, etc).

 

The debate between myself and Always and Haji was typical of a struggle to claim "antiquity" for one's system/tradition. This is an (in)security thing and I have seen Buddhists often feel this way, for they are afraid of being "subsumed" by Hinduism. So, being "older" gives the religion a greater claim to survival, since the "Other" never really existed, or was a young upstart. Of course, one could turn it around and say that the converse could be true as well...the answer to that is, it could be, but is not.

[Marblehead]

It is a lot of guesswork on part of the Eurocentric Philologists and Indologists who had an agenda...that was complete and unequivocal subjugation of Indians. The insidious nature of subversion and opression (both physical and intellectual) by the Europeans on India and other such "colonies" is mind-boggling (and not very well understood by the modern Westerner).

 

There is no or very little ambiguity when looking at the internal evidence of the texts and works of traditional scholars themselves (such as Aryabhatta, Sayanacharya, Badarayana, Bhaskaracharya, etc).

 

The debate between myself and Always and Haji was typical of a struggle to claim "antiquity" for one's system/tradition. This is an (in)security thing and I have seen Buddhists often feel this way, for they are afraid of being "subsumed" by Hinduism. So, being "older" gives the religion a greater claim to survival, since the "Other" never really existed, or was a young upstart. Of course, one could turn it around and say that the converse could be true as well...the answer to that is, it could be, but is not.

 

Your last sentence caused me a laugh. Hehehe. Of course you were going to say that.

 

I agree with all you said. The Europeans did the same thing with the cultures of Africa. (But the truth of that is now being exposed.)

 

I have heard that the age of written documents can be fairly dated by observing the writing style because the styles change over time. I recall an example (no specifics) where that was used in dating some of the early Chinese documents and one other as well but I fail to recall the culture it pertained to.

 

And it is true, the older we can present our belief system to be the more enduring it appears to be.

 

It has been too long since I read the stuff pertaining to Indian history to even get involved in the discussion. (Actually, I doesn't even really matter that much to me which is older as we all are aware that I am a Taoist and Taoism is older than all other belief systems. Hehehe.)

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

There are some Tibetan Buddhist iconography that depicts deities standing (crushing) on Ganesh and also other Hindu symbols.

 

 

ralis

Edited April 19, 2010 by ralis

[3bob]

There are some Tibetan Buddhist iconography that depicts deities standing (crushing) on Ganesh and also other Hindu symbols.

 

ralis

 

Do you have a copy of that picture Rails?

 

Lord Ganesha is a beloved Deity, son of Siva; I've never seen a picture such as you have mentioned? (although there are pictures of Kali standing on Siva which I believe is meant to show the analogy that without Shakti, Siva is not manifest.

 

Also the picture you mention would be of a Buddhist Deity standing on one of Hiduism, which is not noramlly done between the two faiths as far as I know! (?) Btw, I'm not sure of the source but there is text along the lines of the following: "prior to his incarnation as Gautama Siddhartha he lived in the heavenly realm, where he taught the law to the gods.... Truly, monks, the Buddha once said, I have been Indra, the ruler of the gods, thirty-six times". Perhaps our Buddhist brothers or sisters know the location and or history (not meant to add fuel to the fire, lol) of such a text?

 

Om

Edited April 19, 2010 by 3bob

[ralis]

[RongzomFan]

Just because an Eliot Deutsch says it doesn't make it true. It be better to trust the internal records and traditional chronologies than Max Muller-influenced Eurocentric timelines (which invariably every western academic is guilty of)

 

Also, just because you claim Eliot Deutsch has said so, doesn't necessarily make it true. I have seen enough selective cognition of convenience from you to suspect that you are not entirely honest when you debate.

 

 

 

I am done debating with you. Why not borrow from the library if they have it?

 

But if you are too lazy to do that....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy

 

All the times post-date the buddha, except jainism

 

P.S. Early european scholoarship had a romantic view of "Hinduism" which PRESUMED "Hinduism" lasted in ONE form for THOUSANDS of years......This is also YOUR position!

 

You are also ignorant of the fact every introductory indian religion course starts with the flaws of european scholarship. Even ones taught by caucasians!

Edited April 19, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

Xabir2005: "Actually no, he is in fact disappointed with his teachers who reached the 7th and 8th jhana as it clearly was not the liberation he sought. Disappointed, he left off himself in search of the way, and discovered something that nobody else taught him. One of his titles is the Rightly Self-Awakened One.

 

I don't exactly agree with your particular implications above... In information that I have come across the historic Buddha continued practicing and teaching the Jhanas his whole life, btw the jhanas were given key mention in the last moments of his life! Also, to this day and for around the last 2500 years the teachings related to the 8 jhanas remain as a fundamental and key part of Buddhist teachings!

 

No offense to anyone but I find the title, "Rightly Self-Awakened One" highly problematic and or oxymornic, because the term "Self" and its meanings make this title sound like a particular Self that awakens to no-self, all by a separate self - and as we have often heard there has been been long and sometimes even bitter debate around the terms related to self and its meanings; thus "go figure" why it would be used in a Buddhist title?

 

Om

Edited May 3, 2010 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

 

I don't exactly agree with your particular implications above... In information that I have come across the historic Buddha continued practicing and teaching the Jhanas his whole life, btw the jhanas were given key mention in the last moments of his life! Also, to this day and for around the last 2500 years the teachings related to the 8 jhanas remain as a fundamental and key part of Buddhist teachings!

From Wikipedia: The Buddha did not reject the formless attainments in and of themselves, but instead the doctrines of his teachers as a whole, as they did not lead to nibbana. He then underwent harsh ascetic practices with which he became disillusioned. He subsequently remembered entering jhāna as a child, and realized that "that indeed is the path to enlightenment." According to Ajahn Sujato, the key difference between the experience the Buddha had as a child and the experience he had as an adult was that, as a child, his mind was uncluttered by the views that would later obscure his path to enlightenment. Sujato interprets the statement to mean that while the states of samādhi were not the goal, they were indeed the path.[34]

 

Also I would like to add, there is a difference between Vipassana Jhana and Samatha Jhana. His Indian teachers taught him hard samatha jhanas, while the jhanas that lead to liberation is Vipassana Jhanas. However samatha jhana is also taught by Buddha, as it can profound a stable foundation for insight practice, but it is not the end goal, by itself samatha jhana does not lead to liberation. I believe when Buddha remembered the First Jhana he had as a child, he was refering to the First Vipassana Jhana.

 

What is Vipassana Jhana and what is Samatha Jhana? Dharma teacher and Arhat, Daniel M. Ingram explains it well:

 

The vipassana jhanas are a way of describing the stages of insight

that is a bit more broad than the map that breaks the stages down into

16 ñanas. They are two descriptions of the same territory, and both

have their uses. The vipassana jhanas differ from the concentration

jhanas (samatha jhanas) in that they include the perception of the Three

Characteristics, rather than the “pure” samatha jhanas that require

ignoring the Three Characteristics to get them to appear stable and

clean. However, the two may share many qualities, including very

similar widths of attention and other aspects. There are eight vipassana

jhanas, the first four that are formed, and the last four that are formless,

with the odd exception of the fact that the eighth vipassana jhana

(Neither Perception Nor Yet Non-Perception) cannot be easily

investigated, as it is generally too subtle to clearly reveal the Three

Characteristics. Thus, calling it a vipassana jhana is a bit problematic.

However, it is part of the standard pattern of progress, so is worthy of

inclusion, and helps explain some of the material found in the old texts.

No offense to anyone but I find the title, "Rightly Self-Awakened One" highly problematic and or oxymornic, because the term "Self" and its meanings make this title sound like a particular Self that awakens to no-self, all by a separate self - and as we have often heard there has been been long and sometimes even bitter debate around the terms related to self and its meanings; thus "go figure" why it would be used in a Buddhist title?

There is no problem at all using words like 'me', 'self', 'you', 'him', etc, as long as we understand that they are simply conventions, labels on transient aggregates of experiences that are changing moment to moment and arising according to conditions, which means to say that a self-existing, permanent entity called 'Self' cannot be found but is merely a label imputed upon a stream of experiences, that is fine. There is nothing wrong using conventions and labels. An awakened person knows conventions, sees reality. We musn't confuse conventions - i.e. we cannot say that 'I' and 'you' are the same, conventionally speaking (in terms of 'I' and 'you'), we are separate individuals with different mindstreams, and it will not make sense to say otherwise. However ultimately each mindstream are transient, dependently originated, empty of an inherent self.

 

Actually the topic of whether enlightened person can say "me", "I", is directly addressed by the Buddha:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

 

Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

 

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

 

"Consummate with taints destroyed,

One who bears his final body,

Would he still say 'I speak'?

And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

 

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

 

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

 

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions."

 

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

 

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;

For him all knots of conceit are consumed.

When the wise one has transcended the conceived

He might still say 'I speak,'

And he might say 'They speak to me.'

Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

Edited May 3, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

From Wikipedia: The Buddha did not reject the formless attainments in and of themselves,....

 

Actually the topic of whether enlightened person can say "me", "I", is directly addressed by the Buddha:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

 

Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

 

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

 

"Consummate with taints destroyed,

One who bears his final body,

Would he still say 'I speak'?

And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

 

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

 

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

 

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions."

 

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

 

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;

For him all knots of conceit are consumed.

When the wise one has transcended the conceived

He might still say 'I speak,'

And he might say 'They speak to me.'

Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

 

Xabir, I'll bite on the second part of your reply, it sounds ok although not the exactly the context I was inferring. Where-as the first part of your reply and the quoted material smells kinda fishy so I'll be doing some more research along those lines.

 

Good day, and thanks for your efforts, Bob

[lino]

Xabir2005: "Actually no, he is in fact disappointed with his teachers who reached the 7th and 8th jhana as it clearly was not the liberation he sought. Disappointed, he left off himself in search of the way, and discovered something that nobody else taught him. One of his titles is the Rightly Self-Awakened One.

 

I don't exactly agree with your particular implications above... In information that I have come across the historic Buddha continued practicing and teaching the Jhanas his whole life, btw the jhanas were given key mention in the last moments of his life! Also, to this day and for around the last 2500 years the teachings related to the 8 jhanas remain as a fundamental and key part of Buddhist teachings!

 

No offense to anyone but I find the title, "Rightly Self-Awakened One" highly problematic and or oxymornic, because the term "Self" and its meanings make this title sound like a particular Self that awakens to no-self, all by a separate self - and as we have often heard there has been been long and sometimes even bitter debate around the terms related to self and its meanings; thus "go figure" why it would be used in a Buddhist title?

 

Om

 

The problem that I see is the word "Awakened" rather than "Enlightened".

 

He might have been awakened to a whole set of old problems and new considerations.

[xabir2005]

Xabir, I'll bite on the second part of your reply, it sounds ok although not the exactly the context I was inferring. Where-as the first part of your reply and the quoted material smells kinda fishy so I'll be doing some more research along those lines.

 

Good day, and thanks for your efforts, Bob

To add on to my previous post, hope this passage from MCTB helps to clarify on the difference between Vipassana and Shamatha:

 

...There is a lot of confusion on the differences between concentration practices and insight practices. This may be caused in part by the Mushroom Factor, or may be due in part to other factors, such as concentration practice being easier than insight practices and distinctly more pleasant most of the time. Concentration practices (samatha or samadhi practices) are meditation on a concept, an aggregate of many transient sensations, whereas insight practice is meditation on the many transient sensations just as they are. When doing concentration practices, one purposefully tries to fix or freeze the mind in a specific state, called an absorption, jhana or dyana. While reality cannot be frozen in this way, the illusion of solidity and stability certainly can be cultivated, and this is concentration practice.

 

Insight practices are designed to penetrate the Three Illusions of permanence, satisfactoriness and separate self so as to attain freedom. (N.B., the illusion of satisfactoriness has to do with the false sense that continuing to mentally create the illusion of a separate, permanent self will be satisfactory or helpful, and is not referring to some oppressive and fun-denying angst trip). Insight practices (various types of vipassana, dzogchen, zazen, etc.) lead to the progressive stages of the progress of insight. Insight practices tend to be difficult and somewhat disconcerting, as they are designed to deconstruct our deluded and much cherished views of the world and ourselves, though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods....

~ Daniel Ingram

[Birch]

"though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods..."

 

...like a few breaths for example?

 

I wonder, I wonder, if many people on TTB's haven't already gotten the "no-self" thing conceptually? If not in practice. I suspect many have... I question: Do they/we even need to?

 

Many (illusory IMO) issues also come from teachers and scriptures which are designed (IMO) to be understood as saying that a person doesn't exist even before any clarification is offered. Scare them much? Oh I forgot that many religions require hell as well as heaven. I can't remember why, but still.

 

This is very different from suggesting straight up, a relatively simple (re)definition of "a person" which allows people to consider themselves somewhat differently - IME already what their own experience is telling them. A person as a "process in relationship" perhaps?

 

Further, if, as is often suggested, our whole early life education, family and society are to blame for contributing such that "a person" sees themselves de facto as a fixed "egoic self" who suffers because of this, then wouldn't it also be feasible that a society and early (or later even?) education could also help a person to shift perspective toward a more connected and integrated sense of being from which they experience the world?

 

This may/likely would fall short of "enlightenment" but wouldn't it be a leg up on the "enlightenment" ladder?

 

I'm sure we could do that quite easily. If we want people to be enlightened, why aren't we doing more?

 

I must apologise for any incomplete arguments or lack of logic. I followed a feeling when writing this post. Hopefully it will not offend anyone either. The intent was free inquiry.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods..."

 

...like a few breaths for example?

 

I wonder, I wonder, if many people on TTB's haven't already gotten the "no-self" thing conceptually? If not in practice. I suspect many have... I question: Do they/we even need to?

In my approach to no-self I remember two distinct experiences. One was that I wasn't the body or mind, wherein a great bliss took over my body. Everything opened up to a possibility and inquiry of "what am I?" and "what is this?" For few days my body seemed to take on a whole new experience, I felt immune to suffering both physically and mentally, my mind seemed to suddenly let go of a clog of self-obsessed blockages, etc. This was about 2 and a half years ago.

 

My second experience came when I came across the insight that there was absolutely no one here except for the experience and arising of phenomena. Oddly, it came when I was reading through Advaita stuff; that there was no agent of action, no will, just stuff happening. That there was nothing raining, just raining. This was about a year ago. Again my body convulsed with bliss, I sat in full lotus almost spontaneously for more than 30 minutes, which seemed impossible before since my knee joints couldn't handle even a minute or two.

 

A lot of meditation and other insights and Kunlun happened, but the two above were ones having to do with the whole "self" fiasco.

 

But I no longer fully agree with the "insight" I came across above. I don't think that is the right way to understand no-self teachings. After, I did not stop reading or contemplating, because something seemed amiss. It was probably because I came across no-self teachings through a "teacher" who was pompous and arrogant. I don't know. Something within me could not bring myself to disagree or agree. I'm still figuring it out.

 

Further, if, as is often suggested, our whole early life education, family and society are to blame for contributing such that "a person" sees themselves de facto as a fixed "egoic self" who suffers because of this, then wouldn't it also be feasible that a society and early (or later even?) education could also help a person to shift perspective toward a more connected and integrated sense of being from which they experience the world?

I personally believe that suffering is a necessary aspect of existence. People should dream if they like to dream and become enlightened only if they truly desire to. Earthly existence is good because it has a wide range of...everything. We should offer the possibility, but never educate without giving a choice. Egoic suffering is good in this sense. Just my 2 cents.

[xabir2005]

"though they can sometimes be outrageously blissful for frustratingly short periods..."

 

...like a few breaths for example?

To a few minutes.

I wonder, I wonder, if many people on TTB's haven't already gotten the "no-self" thing conceptually? If not in practice. I suspect many have... I question: Do they/we even need to?

Conceptually, I think at least 6 is pretty clear. Experientially, a few. Do they/we need to understand it? If your goal is freedom from all sufferings, ignorance, clinging, and liberation from birth and death.. then yes.

Many (illusory IMO) issues also come from teachers and scriptures which are designed (IMO) to be understood as saying that a person doesn't exist even before any clarification is offered. Scare them much? Oh I forgot that many religions require hell as well as heaven. I can't remember why, but still.

 

This is very different from suggesting straight up, a relatively simple (re)definition of "a person" which allows people to consider themselves somewhat differently - IME already what their own experience is telling them. A person as a "process in relationship" perhaps?

Not quite sure if I get you.

Further, if, as is often suggested, our whole early life education, family and society are to blame for contributing such that "a person" sees themselves de facto as a fixed "egoic self" who suffers because of this, then wouldn't it also be feasible that a society and early (or later even?) education could also help a person to shift perspective toward a more connected and integrated sense of being from which they experience the world?

 

This may/likely would fall short of "enlightenment" but wouldn't it be a leg up on the "enlightenment" ladder?

 

I'm sure we could do that quite easily. If we want people to be enlightened, why aren't we doing more?

What a child goes through is necessary. As I explained to bob3, learning the right conventions "I" "you" "him" are necessary. Imagine if we do not teach a child that right conventions, and he doesn't even know how to call his parents.

 

It is just that we (inevitably, btw) start to grasp the conventions as refering to an inherent entity, and we also begin to grasp the world dualistically.

 

In Buddhism we need to learn the conventions, but we investigate our experience through Vipassana and realise that reality is not how we think it is - as divided dualistically, and as solid entities.

 

There is nothing wrong with the current education, it is just that the current education teaches people to understand things through labelling and conventions (without which we will not be able to function in society), and not the ultimate nature of reality. Education teaches people to understand things by separating them and not as a Whole (ungraspable by concepts), and as I see it, it is inevitable and necessary.

 

The part to see the nature of reality, the Whole, in direct experience I think still belongs to the domain of spirituality.

 

Spirituality is subtle and I don't think everyone will have the interest to look into it deeply. I think at the most, we can teach simple mindfulness techniques or breath meditation to help students relieve stress.

Edited May 7, 2010 by xabir2005