Musings on psychic surgery

[Birch]

It came to me (although nowhere, suddenly) that Buddhist viewpoints allow for the elimination of suffering by cutting off many of the root (or could it be said the ONLY root) causes of suffering. In other words, the notion and (as I understand Buddhism calls it, the "belief" in a separate self).

 

Well, I wonder. I wonder if it's really as simple as that? I wonder if the removal of self as an entity isn't just another attempt to suppress one's "true" expression. I can expect at roughly (more or less) 5 minutes from now there will be an attempt to explain karma or dharma to me as if I were ignorant of such concepts. I am not. Unfortunately.

 

Yup yup, I get that if I don't think those awful suffering thoughts, I don't suffer. Thanks.

 

However, I guess I'm having an issue with that stuff. I can't live in denial of suffering - whether my own or others. I may even want to do something else to alleviate such. And I suspect it will be action, not just not-thinking.

[SeriesOfTubes]

the self is no one's illusion

[Vajrahridaya]

 

However, I guess I'm having an issue with that stuff. I can't live in denial of suffering - whether my own or others. I may even want to do something else to alleviate such. And I suspect it will be action, not just not-thinking.

 

Hmmm.... as far as I know, that's not a Buddhist goal. When and where did the Buddha say to stop thinking? When and where did the Buddha say to deny suffering?

 

Buddhism requires intuitive thinking, investigative thinking, logical thinking tempered with intuitive emotional thinking. More so than most other paths that say going into a state of trance or no-thought is enlightenment.

 

Also, the denial of suffering would be repression, and no where in any form of Buddhism is that a goal.

 

It's about understanding it's root causes from within. If a person is psychologically suffering, they will not be able to see themself or others objectively, because the psychological suffering will veil the possibility of direct insight, as it contracts and limits a persons state of mind. This can be understood directly through meditation and contemplation.

 

Now, there is empathy and appropriate action when one is not directly afflicted with psychological suffering and it's associated contracted mind state. Only then can one truly serve this manifestation from the highest perspective or state of mind.

 

The path of the Bodhisattva has never been one of non-action, no thinking, or denial, but of insight, mindfulness, empathy, understanding and right action.

 

Right action is number 4 in the 8 fold path of Buddhist cultivation. There's also number 2. Right Intention, and 3. Right Speech as well as 7. Right Mindfulness.

 

I don't see any teachings in the Buddhist Cannon that supports no-thinking and non-action.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

It came to me (although nowhere, suddenly) that Buddhist viewpoints allow for the elimination of suffering by cutting off many of the root (or could it be said the ONLY root) causes of suffering. In other words, the notion and (as I understand Buddhism calls it, the "belief" in a separate self).

 

Well, I wonder. I wonder if it's really as simple as that? I wonder if the removal of self as an entity isn't just another attempt to suppress one's "true" expression. I can expect at roughly (more or less) 5 minutes from now there will be an attempt to explain karma or dharma to me as if I were ignorant of such concepts. I am not. Unfortunately.

 

Yup yup, I get that if I don't think those awful suffering thoughts, I don't suffer. Thanks.

 

However, I guess I'm having an issue with that stuff. I can't live in denial of suffering - whether my own or others. I may even want to do something else to alleviate such. And I suspect it will be action, not just not-thinking.

 

 

You are correct that a Buddhist lecture was followed by the so called expert. It took about 1.5 hrs. I guess he just can't help but feel a need to preach the gospel of Buddha.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are correct that a Buddhist lecture was followed by the so called expert. It took about 1.5 hrs. I guess he just can't help but feel a need to preach the gospel of Buddha.

 

As you can't help taking a jab at me, every chance you get.

 

What can one expect? I saw you coming a mile away.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Ryan Randolph]

It came to me (although nowhere, suddenly) that Buddhist viewpoints allow for the elimination of suffering by cutting off many of the root (or could it be said the ONLY root) causes of suffering. In other words, the notion and (as I understand Buddhism calls it, the "belief" in a separate self).

 

Well, I wonder. I wonder if it's really as simple as that? I wonder if the removal of self as an entity isn't just another attempt to suppress one's "true" expression. I can expect at roughly (more or less) 5 minutes from now there will be an attempt to explain karma or dharma to me as if I were ignorant of such concepts. I am not. Unfortunately.

 

Yup yup, I get that if I don't think those awful suffering thoughts, I don't suffer. Thanks.

 

However, I guess I'm having an issue with that stuff. I can't live in denial of suffering - whether my own or others. I may even want to do something else to alleviate such. And I suspect it will be action, not just not-thinking.

 

Understandable to think that. It's a confusion about the individual divinity vs the unitive divinity.

 

As Caroline Myss says, Divinity works in paradoxes. In Taoist philosophy, anything driven to excess becomes its opposite. So in this case, the paradox is that by honoring the individual divinity with you, you simultaneously honor the global divinity in the world around you.

 

In Christianity, this shows up as a major spiritual error that is very common: It's the mistaken belief that by denying the self, and sacrificing your own wants and needs, that you come closer to God. While it may assist us in realizing God as Transcendant (God as up in the sky overlooking us), it blocks us from realizing God as Immenant (God as within us).

 

It stems from seeing God as a parent (a projection from the unconscious), and therefore, to stay in God's good Graces you make yourself less to lift them up. This is just false humility; humility for the sake of a hidden payoff of specialness and God's approval.

 

Nothing honors God more than honoring the divine spark within you, in fact, that is the only way you become capable of honoring the divine spark in others and in the world.

 

That is why they call the ultimate reality "The Self" with a capital S. Your self dissolves into your Self.

 

So most of our spiritual work is clearing that little self that is unaware of its own divinity, which simply originated from being in a human body. We are just bringing light into this creation called human.

 

We are creating in a creation.

[3bob]

some handles that may be helpful to some, and not to others.

 

http://myanalyses.com/aziz.html

 

Om

[ralis]

I believe Dr. Valerie Hunt discusses psychic surgery in her book "Infinite Mind." She states that she went to the Philippines and witnessed the technique first hand. No evidence of fraud of trickery was found. She is trained in anatomy and physiology.

 

What she found is that a scalar wave field was created to perform this technique.

[ben]

[Birch]

Thanks for the replies.

 

The musing continues on. The teaching of "no-self" is a human (moral) religious construct that to me seems harmful, however on the flip side, telling someone who they "are" and should "be" from the cradle and reinforcing that with cruelty when the being doesn't live up to par is also harmful IMO because it sets the stage for the being to wish to resolve such an issue (or series) and so it stocks it all away to be carried out to resolution over the course of it's life - sometimes with disastrous results for itself and other beings. Telling that same being that it doesn't exist is just another insult IMO.

 

Further, IMO the "ego" itself is the "false" self that has been thrust upon one so I have no qualms with getting rid of it.

 

I guess I'm not good at explaining things but you just are and any attempt to "be" otherwise seems to me to be a bad idea. I wonder if we'll ever get to a society which is "being"-friendly...

[Vajrahridaya]

Telling that same being that it doesn't exist is just another insult IMO.

 

 

The "no-self" teaching does not mean you do not exist, but rather that you have relative existence to all else.

 

You exist because all else exists. Your self basically is not your self, but relative to all selves. That's what the Buddha teaches, not that you don't exist.

 

Buddhism is not nihilistic.

 

So, there is no negative grasping in Buddhism.

 

At the same time, when you investigate yourself through contemplation of the causes and conditions relative to your existence, you don't find anything inherent there, just a stream of causes and conditions within many, many layers like an onion.

 

So, Buddhism is also not Eternalistic.

 

Teachings that say there is something inherent there that self exists and self shines from it's own power like all Theistic teachings say are an extreme view that is not conducive to liberation from the point of view of Buddhahood and these teachings are called the extreme of Eternalism. Because there is still a subtle, even if considered a positive grasping.

 

So Buddhism is the middle way between these two extremes of Nihilism and Eternalism, positive and negative.

 

So, the teaching of Anatta has to be understood in this way.

 

I think Kate, what you are doing is interpreting it in a Nihilistic fashion, which is not conducive to understanding what the Buddha taught at all.

[Birch]

"I think Kate, what you are doing is interpreting it in a Nihilistic fashion, which is not conducive to understanding what the Buddha taught at all."

 

Nod to Vaj learning to say "I think what is going on is..."

 

 

Perhaps I am. Still, I keep musing it and I much prefer the life-affirming (IMO) Taoist (IME) perspective. Coming from a "non-life-affirming" culture (technologically advanced, materially-advanced, emotionally and "spiritually" impoverished) I guess could explain the direction I'm going.

[devoid]

Hi Kate,

 

IMHO when Buddha said to give up the self, he meant that one should give up all the "I need/want"'s as in "I need/want a huge house", "I need/want a big car", "I need/want a big tasty ice cream", etc.

 

Instead, the point I believe he was trying make is that only if you do not pursue your (egoistic) desires for pleasure of the physical senses will you be able to get to know your true nature - i.e. the one in which you take notice of none of your worldly senses such as smell, taste, lust, etc. - the one that you can only experience in meditation once you have let go of all current sensual desires (as well as perhaps, when you're dead...)

 

I can't imagine that Buddha would have suggested that one should attempt to attain this faster, artificially, i.e. through self-destruction.

[Birch]

Hi Kate,

 

IMHO when Buddha said to give up the self, he meant that one should give up all the "I need/want"'s as in "I need/want a huge house", "I need/want a big car", "I need/want a big tasty ice cream", etc.

 

Instead, the point I believe he was trying make is that only if you do not pursue your (egoistic) desires for pleasure of the physical senses will you be able to get to know your true nature - i.e. the one in which you take notice of none of your worldly senses such as smell, taste, lust, etc. - the one that you can only experience in meditation once you have let go of all current sensual desires (as well as perhaps, when you're dead...)

 

I can't imagine that Buddha would have suggested that one should attempt to attain this faster, artificially, i.e. through self-destruction.

 

 

Meh, I'm still not "into" the buddhist explanations for some reason. I like my senses I meditate and practice and like I said in the other post, there's something not quite right (to me) about Buddhism (although as I have said before, I've enjoyed some of the practices that come from there as an adjunct to others, but my practice is ultimately its own thing. Which I personally believe to be the point of doing it (or "it doing you" as is sometimes suggested).

 

I think there's a lot of stuff "out there" that purports to be "what the Buddha said" or worse "what he would have said" or worse, interpretations of "what he might have said, maybe, had I had it my way"

 

I wonder why Buddha suffered in the fist place? We don't seem to get to hear about that part.

[ben]

[SeriesOfTubes]

I don't really get what people find so threatening about Anatta. I think of it as a sort of doorway into the present. I find it refreshing to consider that the self concept (which I consider a subject and object relation) is basically just another habitual thought, no more or less substantial. This seems to be consistent with experience, I mean if you're in your car and you suddenly need to slam the brakes, there is just the action of slamming the brakes, no need for a self concept or "doer" to explain the phenomenon as it occurs in the present.

 

It would also seem to be fairly consistent with plant-based entheogenic experience across the board, that the first thing such a plant medicine alters (or removes) is a stable sense of self, i.e., dissipation of the background feeling of subject and object relations in order to teach. It also seems consistent with many indigenous cultures where the orientation is more toward the communal purpose and good or ceremony rather than individual. I don't think it denies the senses but rather affirms experience, just not an "experiencer", which is an abstraction, a pulling away from the senses into a concept.

 

to each their own though. I always found the idea of the "witness" to be a boring and useless culdesac so maybe it's just my orientation.

 

*edit* I guess not literally useless since dissociated states can produce anesthesia as well as temporary relief from emotional pain that taxes an individual beyond their current resources and environmental support.

Edited January 4, 2011 by SeriesOfTubes

[3bob]

[Birch]

[devoid]

"If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate."

 

Neat quote. What do you reckon "to cultivate" means here? I'd akin it to "cultivation" of consciouness (which IMO and small dubious experience) is the "self" to which the sutra refers.

 

Exactly, Kate!

 

Once you have peeled off all the layers of the egoistic self which keep popping up in the untrained mind, will you be able to cultivate (i.e. nurture, support, listen to, etc.) the true self.

[Vajrahridaya]

"I think Kate, what you are doing is interpreting it in a Nihilistic fashion, which is not conducive to understanding what the Buddha taught at all."

 

Nod to Vaj learning to say "I think what is going on is..."

 

 

Perhaps I am. Still, I keep musing it and I much prefer the life-affirming (IMO) Taoist (IME) perspective. Coming from a "non-life-affirming" culture (technologically advanced, materially-advanced, emotionally and "spiritually" impoverished) I guess could explain the direction I'm going.

 

I think your interpretation of Buddhism as non-life affirming is reflective in your misinterpretation of Anatta.

 

You might like to study more Vajrayana if the Pali context seems too extreme in renunciation.

 

Padmasambhava was a master of all the tantras, including the tantras of sex and embracing the pleasure of life.

 

But hey! Taoism is awesome... have a safe trip.

[Vajrahridaya]

Meh, I'm still not "into" the buddhist explanations for some reason. I like my senses I meditate and practice and like I said in the other post, there's something not quite right (to me) about Buddhism (although as I have said before, I've enjoyed some of the practices that come from there as an adjunct to others, but my practice is ultimately its own thing. Which I personally believe to be the point of doing it (or "it doing you" as is sometimes suggested).

 

I think there's a lot of stuff "out there" that purports to be "what the Buddha said" or worse "what he would have said" or worse, interpretations of "what he might have said, maybe, had I had it my way"

 

I wonder why Buddha suffered in the fist place? We don't seem to get to hear about that part.

 

Vajrayana practices and philosophy incorperates all the senses in contemplation focusing more on renouncing ego rather than the senses.

 

The Buddha saw the suffering of birth, sickness, old age, and death in a flood in one day as his father protected him from all these things his entire life for 30 years. So, when he left the palace for the first time, it was overwhelming to see that people get sick and even die! He had no idea about the reality of death.

 

So he made a promise to all beings to find a way out of this suffering. Most people just accept the things in life and don't question thinking it's all inevitable and ireversable.

 

He didn't think this.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't think it denies the senses but rather affirms experience.

 

I found that the more Anatta is realized, the more sensual and in touch with my senses I become. The more I realize dependent origination, the more joy I derive from my senses.

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

"If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate."

 

 

This is referencing the constant state of enlightenment and compassionate expression of a Buddha.

 

Neat quote. What do you reckon "to cultivate" means here? I'd akin it to "cultivation" of consciouness (which IMO and small dubious experience) is the "self" to which the sutra refers.

 

Compassion, selflessness and loving kindness.

 

This self he's asking people to cultivate is selfless.

[3bob]

VJ, detach from your conceptual fixations.