Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

[RongzomFan]

I think we are confusing the Freudian ego with the colloquial everyday 'ego'.

 

The Freudian ego is packaged with 'superego' and 'id'.

[konchog uma]

and the idea that the id is the primordial base of human experience contrasts the buddhist idea that wakefulness is the base.

[Maddie]

I was under the impression that to see into ego you did Vipassana and to be calm you did Samatha. But lately I've been mostly doing Samatha and having a lot of spontaneous insights into ego anyways... hmm.....

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I was under the impression that to see into ego you did Vipassana and to be calm you did Samatha. But lately I've been mostly doing Samatha and having a lot of spontaneous insights into ego anyways... hmm.....

If done with awareness, Samatha clears the water I`d say, making the impurities more obvious and easily scooped away.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[XieJia]

Vipassana occurs when awareness and other faculties, one being samadhi are balanced; the mind is neither wandering or fixated.

 

The funny thing is that one can't force them into a equilibrium, so most teachers will teach the student cultivate Samatha for samadhi first or mindfulness first.

[Simple_Jack]

explain please!! lol I want to know.

 

The problem is you're trying to understand this through deluded perspectives.This can't be thoroughly recognized through the sphere of logic alone, but there is an opportunity for direct understanding by continually familiarizing yourself with the 3 characteristics in all experiences (while realization is ultimately alogical, I'm not saying that this can't be pointed out to others or that conceptual understanding doesn't lead to insight and is unimportant). It not about negating (or affirming) any of the processes of the 5 aggregates.

 

The Buddha in various places in the Pali canon, already made it quite clear on how one skillfully attends oneself, in order to foster the conditions for the 8-fold noble path which starts with right view and ends with right contemplation/meditation. Throughout the Pali canon, it's seen that he taught in such a way as to rid practitioners of wrong view in order to directly intuit the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path. It deals with a lot of the common views that you can still come across even in modern times.

 

I posted some suttas which are relevant to this discussion in this thread http://thetaobums.com/topic/28497-the-skeptical-buddhistcritical-thinking-buddhism/page-2#entry437005.

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html:

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html:

"...the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"

"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html:

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.[7]

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html:

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html:

"‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

 

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness."

 

 

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

Kalakarama Sutta:

 

"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower."

[Simple_Jack]

I think we are confusing the Freudian ego with the colloquial everyday 'ego'.

 

The Freudian ego is packaged with 'superego' and 'id'.

 

That's even more ambiguous than the how it's used by Freud and Jung. It's also packaged with conscious and unconscious (aka. 'subconscious') divisions in experience among other things that don't relate to Indian concepts. "Ego", is overly simplistic and an inadequate concept in comparison to Indian philosophical thought.

 

The twelve links of dependent origination is a conceptual model which accurately describes an individual experience of samsara starting from the condition of ignorance. Nagarjuna simplified this to a revolving cycle of samskaras, karma, dukkha:

 

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/nagarjuna/heart-dependent-origination:

 

The Heart of Dependent Origination

by Arya Nagarjuna

In the language of India: pratityasamutpada hridaya karika

In the language of Tibet: རྟེན་ཅིང་འབྲེལ་པར་འབྱུང་བའི་སྙིང་པོའི་ཙིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ།, (ten ching drelpar jungwé nyingpö tsik le'ur jepa)

Homage to Mañjushri, the Youthful!

1. These different links, twelve in number,

   Which Buddha taught as dependent origination,

   Can be summarized in three categories:

   Mental afflictions, karma and suffering.

2. The first, eighth and ninth are afflictions,

   The second and tenth are karma,

   The remaining seven are suffering.

   Thus the twelve links are grouped in three.

3. From the three the two originate,

   And from the two the seven come,

   From seven the three come once again—

   Thus the wheel of existence turns and turns.

4. All beings consist of causes and effects,

   In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.

   From phenomena which are exclusively empty,

   There arise only empty phenomena.

   All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.

5. Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,

   A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,

   So also with the continuation of the aggregates—

   The wise should know they are not transferred.

6. Then, as for extremely subtle entities,

   Those who regard them with nihilism,

   Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,

   Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising.

7. In this, there is not a thing to be removed,

   Nor the slightest thing to be added.

   It is looking perfectly into reality itself,

   And when reality is seen, complete liberation.

This concludes the verses on ‘The Heart of Dependent Origination’ composed by the teacher Arya Nagarjuna.

| Translated by Adam Pearcey, Rigpa Translations, 2008.

[Simple_Jack]

Excerpts from an article that I think gives some practical advice on applying vipassana which could apply to anyone. I think Buddha's instructions to his son Rahula is an especially good life skill for a parent to teach their children in order to instill good habits for later in life (good since it teaches introspection and for learning how to assess their own actions; which is something I should learn myself).

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html

 

Observing Everyday Actions The Buddha told Rahula — who was seven at the time — to use his thoughts, words, and deeds as a mirror. In other words, just as you would use a mirror to check for any dirt on your face, Rahula was to use his actions as a means of learning where there was still anything impure in his mind. Before he acted, he should try to anticipate the results of the action. If he saw that they'd be harmful to himself or to others, he shouldn't follow through with the action. If he foresaw no harm, he could go ahead and act. If, in the course of doing the action, he saw it causing unexpected harm, he should stop the action. If he didn't see any harm, he could continue with it.

If, after he was done, he saw any long-term harm resulting from the action, he should consult with another person on the path to get some perspective on what he had done — and on how not to do it again — and then resolve not to repeat that mistake. In other words, he should not feel embarrassed or ashamed to reveal his mistakes to people he respected, for if he started hiding his mistakes from them, he would soon start hiding them from himself. If, on the other hand, he saw no harm resulting from the action, he should rejoice in his progress in the practice and continue with his training.

The right name for this reflection is not "self-purification." It's "action-purification." You deflect judgments of good and bad away from your sense of self, where they can tie you down with conceit and guilt. Instead, you focus directly on the actions themselves, where the judgments can allow you to learn from your mistakes and to find a healthy joy in what you did right.

When you keep reflecting in this way, it serves many purposes. First and foremost, it forces you to be honest about your intentions and about the effects of your actions. Honesty here is a simple principle: you don't add any after-the-fact rationalizations to cover up what you actually did, nor do you try to subtract from the actual facts through denial. Because you're applying this honesty to areas where the normal reaction is to be embarrassed about or afraid of the truth, it's more than a simple registering of the facts. It also requires moral integrity. This is why the Buddha stressed morality as a precondition for wisdom, and declared the highest moral principle to be the precept against lying. If you don't make a habit of admitting uncomfortable truths, the truth as a whole will elude you.

The second purpose of this reflection is to emphasize the power of your actions. You see that your actions do make the difference between pleasure and pain. Third, you gain practice in learning from your mistakes without shame or remorse. Fourth, you realize that the more honest you are in evaluating your actions, the more power you have to change your ways in a positive direction. And finally, you develop good will and compassion, in that you resolve to act only on intentions that mean no harm to anyone, and you continually focus on developing the skill of harmlessness as your top priority.

All of these lessons are necessary to develop the kind of wisdom measured by the Buddha's test for wisdom; and, as it turns out, they're directly related to the first meaning of emptiness, as an approach to meditation. In fact, this sort of emptiness simply takes the instructions Rahula received for observing everyday actions and extends them to the act of perception within the mind.

Emptiness as an Approach to Meditation

Emptiness as an approach to meditation is the most basic of the three kinds of emptiness. In the context of this approach, emptiness means "empty of disturbance" — or, to put it in other terms, empty of stress. You bring the mind to concentration and then examine your state of concentration in order to detect the presence or absence of subtle disturbance or stress still inherent within that state. When you find a disturbance, you follow it back to the perception — the mental label or act of recognition — on which the concentration is based. Then, you drop that perception in favor of a more refined one, one leading to a state of concentration with less inherent disturbance.

In the discourse explaining this meaning of emptiness (MN 121), the Buddha introduces his explanation with a simile. He and Ananda are dwelling in an abandoned palace that is now a quiet monastery. The Buddha tells Ananda to notice and appreciate how the monastery is empty of the disturbances it contained when it was still used as a palace — the disturbances caused by gold and silver, elephants and horses, assemblies of women and men. The only disturbance remaining is that caused by the presence of the monks meditating in unity.

Taking this observation as a simile, the Buddha launches into his description of emptiness as an approach to meditation. (The simile is reinforced by the fact that the Pali word for "monastery" or "dwelling" — vihara — also means "attitude" or "approach.") He describes a monk meditating in the wilderness who is simply noting to himself that he is now in the wilderness. The monk allows his mind to concentrate on and enjoy the perception, "wilderness." He then steps back mentally to observe and appreciate that this mode of perception is empty of the disturbances that come with perceptions of the village life he has left behind. The only remaining disturbances are those associated with the perception, "wilderness" — for example, any emotional reactions to the dangers that wilderness might entail. As the Buddha says, the monk sees accurately which disturbances are not present in that mode of perception; as for those remaining, he sees accurately, "There is this." In other words, he adds nothing to what is there and takes nothing away. This is how he enters into a meditative emptiness that is pure and undistorted.

Then, noting the disturbances inherent in the act of focusing on "wilderness," the monk drops that perception and replaces it with a more refined perception, one with less potential for arousing disturbance. He chooses the earth element, banishing from his mind any details of the hills and ravines of the earth, simply taking note of its earthness. He repeats the process he applied to the perception of wilderness — settling into the perception of "earth," fully indulging in it, and then stepping back to notice how the disturbances associated with "wilderness" are now gone, while the only remaining disturbances are those associated with the singleness of mind based on the perception of "earth."

He then repeats the same process with ever more refined perceptions, settling into the formless jhanas, or meditative absorptions: infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither perception nor non-perception, and the objectless concentration of awareness.

Finally, seeing that even this objectless concentration of awareness is fabricated and willed, he drops his desire to continue mentally fabricating anything at all. In this way he is released from the mental fermentations — sensual desire, becoming, views, ignorance — that would "bubble up" into further becoming. He observes that this release still has the disturbances that come with the functioning of the six sense spheres, but that it's empty of all fermentation, all potential for further suffering and stress. This, concludes the Buddha, is the entry into a pure and undistorted emptiness that is superior and unsurpassed. It's the emptiness in which he himself dwells and that, throughout time, has never been nor ever will be excelled.

Throughout this description, emptiness means one thing: empty of disturbance or stress. The meditator is taught to appreciate the lack of disturbance as a positive accomplishment, and to see any remaining disturbance created by the mind, however subtle, as a problem to be solved.

When you understand disturbance as a subtle form of harm, you see the connections between this description of emptiness and the Buddha's instructions to Rahula. Instead of regarding his meditative states as a measure of self-identity or self-worth — in having developed a self that's purer, more expansive, more at one with the ground of being — the monk views them simply in terms of actions and their consequences. And the same principles apply here, on the meditative level, as apply in the Buddha's comments to Rahula on action in general.

Here, the action is the perception that underlies your state of meditative concentration. You settle into the state by repeating the action of perception continually until you are thoroughly familiar with it. Just as Rahula discovered the consequences of his actions by observing the obvious harm done to himself or to others, here you discover the consequences of concentrating on the perception by seeing how much disturbance arises from the mental action. As you sense disturbance, you can change your mental action, moving your concentration to a more refined perception, until ultimately you can stop the fabrication of mental states altogether.

At the core of this meditation practice are two important principles derived from the instructions to Rahula. The first is honesty: the ability to be free of embellishment or denial, adding no interpretation to the disturbance actually present, while at the same time not trying to deny that it's there. An integral part of this honesty is the ability to see things simply as action and result, without reading into them the conceit "I am."

The second principle is compassion — the desire to end suffering — in that you keep trying to abandon the causes of stress and disturbance wherever you find them. The effects of this compassion extend not only to yourself, but to others as well. When you don't weigh yourself down with stress, you're less likely to be a burden to others; you're also in a better position to help shoulder their burdens when need be. In this way, the principles of integrity and compassion underlie even the most subtle expressions of the wisdom leading to release.

This process of developing emptiness of disturbance is not necessarily smooth and straightforward. It keeps requiring the strength of will needed to give up any attachment. This is because an essential step in getting to know the meditative perception as an action is learning to settle into it, to indulge in it — in other words, to enjoy it thoroughly, even to the point of attachment. This is one of the roles of tranquility in meditation. If you don't learn to enjoy the meditation enough to keep at it consistently, you won't grow familiar with it. If you aren't familiar with it, insight into its consequences won't arise.

However, unless you've already had practice using the Rahula instructions to overcome grosser attachments, then even if you gain insight into the disturbances caused by your attachment to concentration, your insight will lack integrity. Because you haven't had any practice with more blatant attachments, you won't be able to pry loose your subtle attachments in a reliable way. You first need to develop the moral habit of looking at your actions and their consequences, believing firmly — through experience — in the worth of refraining from harm, however subtle. Only then will you have the skill needed to develop emptiness as an approach to meditation in a pure and undistorted way that will carry you all the way to its intended goal.

 

The Wisdom of Emptiness

Thus the last two types of emptiness ultimately lead back to the first — emptiness as an approach to meditation — which means that all three types of emptiness ultimately lead to the same destination. Whether they interpret emptiness as meaning empty of disturbance (suffering/stress) or empty of self, whether they encourage fostering insight through tranquility or tranquility through insight, they all culminate in a practice that completes the tasks appropriate to the four noble truths: comprehending stress, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path to that cessation. Completing these tasks leads to release.

What's distinctive about this process is the way it grows out of the principles of action-purification that the Buddha taught to Rahula, applying these principles to every step of the practice from the most elementary to the most refined. As the Buddha told Rahula, these principles are the only possible means by which purity can be attained. Although most explanations of this statement define purity as purity of virtue, the Buddha's discussion of emptiness as an approach to meditation shows that purity here means purity of mind and purity of wisdom as well. Every aspect of the training is purified by viewing it in terms of actions and consequences, which helps to develop the integrity that's willing to admit to unskillful actions, and the mature goodwill that keeps aiming at consequences entailing ever less harm, disturbance, and stress....In building the path to this emptiness on the same principles that underlie the more elementary levels of action-purification, the Buddha managed to avoid creating artificial dichotomies between conventional and ultimate truths in the practice. For this reason, his approach to ultimate wisdom helps validate the more elementary levels as well. When you realize that an undistorted understanding of emptiness depends on the skills you develop in adopting a responsible, honest, and kind attitude toward all your actions, you're more likely to bring this attitude to everything you do — gross or subtle. You give more importance to all your actions and their consequences, you give more importance to your sense of integrity, for you realize that these things are directly related to the skills leading to total release. You can't develop a throwaway attitude to your actions and their consequences, for if you do you're throwing away your chances for a true and unconditional happiness. The skills you need to talk yourself into meditating on a cold, dark morning, or into resisting a drink on a lazy afternoon, are the same ones that will eventually guarantee an undistorted realization of the highest peace...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Some good and helpful info here on distinguishing the Freudian term from Buddhist term.

 

Something to consider too though, is that when people use "ego" in translations, they are likely taking the use from the same place Freud took it, and that is its Greek meaning which is simply "I." It's this base of meaning that the French word for selfish, "égoïste," contains, and I'm suspecting that that "égoïste" came before Freud's use of the word "ego" as there is no other French term for this adjective (if you find one, please let me know..).

 

So we could also extract the word "ego" from it's Freudian ramifications and use it as it existed before it was superimposed upon with Freud's likely inspired by Buddhist and Daoist theories, though most people will still think we are referring to a Freudian term, rather than the term that has existed since before being redefined by Freud.

[RongzomFan]

"It is not asserted that a chariot is something other than its parts.
It is not something that is not other, nor does it possess them.
It does not exist in the parts, nor do the parts exist in it.
It is neither their mere collection nor the shape—thus is the analogy."

-Candrakīrti's ''Madhyamakāvatāra''

[Tibetan_Ice]

http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Chandrakirti.FOUR_.ILLUSIONS.Advice.for_.Travelers.on_.the_.Bodhisattva.Path_.buddhism.pdf

 

One day, while circumambulating the main temple at Nland, Candrakirti hit his head

on a pillar. A scholar who was with him asked, “You are the believer in the selfnaturelessness

of both persons and phenomena. Why, then, does anything happen

when your head hits the column?” The Bodhisattva replied, “Column? What column?”

and put his hand through the column as though it were not there. Another time there

was an extremely heavy rainy season, and all the cows sought shelter deep in the

jungle. The monks wanted milk and said to Candrakirti, “If everything is really without

an intrinsic nature of its own, why donʹt you get us some milk from that picture of a

cow?” Candrakirti milked the cow in the picture and presented the milk to the Sangha.

In such ways he led many followers of the other Mahayana schools to the Prsagika‐

Mdhyamika. (Wangyal 1978, 28)

 

 

 

...

 

 

In the Mulamadhyamakakarikah, Nagarjuna refers to an early Mahayana scripture, the

Kyapaparivarta in which the Buddha speaks of the therapeutic value of emptiness. In

this text, the Buddha asks Kasyapa to determine if a patient would be cured under these

circumstances: a doctor gives medicine to a patient, but after it cures his symptoms it

remains in his bowels without being expelled (KP §95–97). If it remains, Kasyapa

replies, the patientʹs problems would become worse. The Buddha encourages him to

regard emptiness in the same way. Nagarjuna similarly regards emptiness as a

therapeutic antidote to the ill effects of attachment to views:

 

The Buddhas have said that

Emptiness is a purgative for all views.

But they have said that those who hold

Emptiness as a view are incurable. (MMK XIII.8)

 

Emptiness functions like a laxative to free blockages of the mind. After it has

accomplished its purpose, there is no reason to continue using it. Nagarjuna caustically

suggests that people who hold on to emptiness will be no better off than the

unfortunate patient with chronic constipation. He further condemns the destructive

psychological effects of attachment to views in his Yuktiak (Sixty Verses on Logic). He

warns (vv. 47–51) that engaging in divisive debates makes people vulnerable to attack

by the “snakes of the afflictions (klea).” The snake of desire poisons debaters who want

their own views to succeed and the snake of anger attacks them when their opponentsʹ

views prevail.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

Yes Madhyamaka is the definitive sutra teaching. That's not my opinion, but the opinion of the normative Indian professors such as Atisa,

[Maddie]

The problem is you're trying to understand this through deluded perspectives.This can't be thoroughly recognized through the sphere of logic alone, but there is an opportunity for direct understanding by continually familiarizing yourself with the 3 characteristics in all experiences (while realization is ultimately alogical, I'm not saying that this can't be pointed out to others or that conceptual understanding doesn't lead to insight and is unimportant). It not about negating (or affirming) any of the processes of the 5 aggregates.

 

So is what your saying in a nut shell is that to really penetrate into what "self" is can really only be understood through meditation? I've noticed that at first meditation made everything seem quite and serene. Then it started to seem that I began to become more aware of just how busy my mind (ego)/ clinging are.

[RongzomFan]

As long as you breathe, the mind will be active. They are linked according to tantric theory.

[Simple_Jack]

So is what your saying in a nut shell is that to really penetrate into what "self" is can really only be understood through meditation?

 

The conditions which lead to insight can be cultivated in the meditative and post-meditative periods.

[Maddie]

The conditions which lead to insight can be cultivated in the meditative and post-meditative periods.

That is definitely happening and its blowing my mind lately lol.

[konchog uma]

from Glimpses of Abhidharma by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche

as found in The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa vol. 2 page 274

 

Student: Would you explain what is meant by "ego game"?

 

Rinpoche: I think that is what we have been discussing all along in this seminar. The basic notion of ego is the notion of survival, trying to maintain oneself as "I am", as an individual. Now, as we just said, there is a tendency for the coherency of that occasionally to break down. Therefore one needs to find all sorts of means of confirmation, of confirming a coherent, consistent me, a solid me. Sometimes, quite knowingly, ego has to play a game as though nothing had gone wrong with it. It pretends seeing through ego never happened, even though secretly it knows better. So ego trying to maintain itself leaves one in the strange position of trying to indoctrinate oneself oneself. This is a false pursuit, of course. But even knowing it is false does not particularly help, because ego says, "that's not the point. We have to go on trying to learn to survive, playing this survival game of grasping, using any situation available in the present moment as part of the survival technique." This involves a power game as well because at a certain stage the defense mechanisms you have set up become more powerful than you are. They become overwhelming. Then, when you become used to the overwhelming quality of the defense mechanisms, when for a moment, they are absent, you feel very insecure. That game of polarities goes on and on. On the whole, ego's game is played in terms of ignoring what is really happening in a situation. You constantly, quite subbornly want to see it from your point of view rather than seeing what really is happening there.

[Cheshire Cat]

Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

Yes, it is.

If it's something that one can do, it's the business of the self.

 

Is loving others as we love ourselves not the manifest action of seeing through the illusion of self?

The "manifest action of seeing through the illusion of the self" should have a subject.

Who is it that sees through the illusion of the Self?

 

Do you pretend that not only he doesn't exist, but he love himself and others?

 

Must we continue to stare down Samsara rather than going out and living love, free from the selfish ego-trip of self-liberation?

The point of following the path is to see the "suffering" and decide to get rid of it.

If one doesn't feel the suffering, what's the use of this path?

 

But if one see the suffering and follow this path, he sees that suffering is born from desire and when his desires diminish after some time, he understand that the Buddha had some wisdom.

 

 

After all, there is no ego, so why make liberating it the central focus of your time and effort, instead of living as though it's already gone?

To get rid of suffering.

 

 

Try to speak to one who is very hungry and tell him

"You cannot eat now, so why thinking about food instead of living as if your belly is full of delicious cakes?"

Edited June 20, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Jadespear]

Yes, what exactly makes one a Buddha?

 

It seems that the Buddha we mostly refer to, was a person who had penetrating insight into himself, others, and the world.

 

If the stories are true, the Buddha was also able to communicate with rocks, trees, animals, and spirits.

 

I don't think philosophical realizations alone constitute any form of being a Buddha....

 

It seems the only real difference between a Buddha and you or I, is the simple fact that the Buddha is able to do things beyond the normal faculties of a person- levitating, moving things with the mind, etc.

 

Some monks can do these things as well, but they do not call themselves Buddhas, because Buddha is just a title. One they are afraid of bestowing on themselves.

 

Like, if I could perform miracles like Jesus... I would not call myself the Christ or Jesus. Because I'm not, I'm jadespear.

 

The fastest way to help others is to help them. We don't need to become super beings to help one another.

 

Some people believe that when The Buddha defeated lord Mara, the celestial realm opened up and previous Buddhas deemed Siddartha worthy of the title.

 

So to become a Buddha, someone else must bestow it on you?

[Simple_Jack]

The problem is you're trying to understand this through deluded perspectives.This can't be thoroughly recognized through the sphere of logic alone, but there is an opportunity for direct understanding by continually familiarizing yourself with the 3 characteristics in all experiences (while realization is ultimately alogical, I'm not saying that this can't be pointed out to others or that conceptual understanding doesn't lead to insight and is unimportant). It not about negating (or affirming) any of the processes of the 5 aggregates.

 

The Buddha in various places in the Pali canon, already made it quite clear on how one skillfully attends oneself, in order to foster the conditions for the 8-fold noble path which starts with right view and ends with right contemplation/meditation. Throughout the Pali canon, it's seen that he taught in such a way as to rid practitioners of wrong view in order to directly intuit the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path. It deals with a lot of the common views that you can still come across even in modern times.

 

I posted some suttas which are relevant to this discussion in this thread http://thetaobums.com/topic/28497-the-skeptical-buddhistcritical-thinking-buddhism/page-2#entry437005.

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html:

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html:

"...the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"

"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html:

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.[7]

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html:

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html:

"‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

 

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness."

 

 

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

Kalakarama Sutta:

 

"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower."

 

Bump.

 

These suttas clearly delineate the exact meaning of Right View in Buddhism and insight into the 3 characteristics (i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta).

[Songtsan]

All spiritual paths are ego trips - until they are not!

[doc benway]

Yes, what exactly makes one a Buddha?

 

It seems that the Buddha we mostly refer to, was a person who had penetrating insight into himself, others, and the world.

 

If the stories are true, the Buddha was also able to communicate with rocks, trees, animals, and spirits.

 

I don't think philosophical realizations alone constitute any form of being a Buddha....

 

It seems the only real difference between a Buddha and you or I, is the simple fact that the Buddha is able to do things beyond the normal faculties of a person- levitating, moving things with the mind, etc.

 

Some monks can do these things as well, but they do not call themselves Buddhas, because Buddha is just a title. One they are afraid of bestowing on themselves.

 

Like, if I could perform miracles like Jesus... I would not call myself the Christ or Jesus. Because I'm not, I'm jadespear.

 

The fastest way to help others is to help them. We don't need to become super beings to help one another.

 

Some people believe that when The Buddha defeated lord Mara, the celestial realm opened up and previous Buddhas deemed Siddartha worthy of the title.

 

So to become a Buddha, someone else must bestow it on you?

 

Nothing makes one a Buddha, no one can bestow Buddhahood.

Buddha is always already there in everyone, we're just asleep.

Samsara and Nirvana both, are but dreams of Buddha.

Buddha can be found in the space between your last thought and your next thought.

And in the thought itself.

You just need to be quiet and listen and watch.

[doc benway]

So is what your saying in a nut shell is that to really penetrate into what "self" is can really only be understood through meditation? I've noticed that at first meditation made everything seem quite and serene. Then it started to seem that I began to become more aware of just how busy my mind (ego)/ clinging are.

 

That is exactly what he's saying (I think - sorry if I'm being presumptuous).

No one says it better (IMO) than the Dzogchen masters.

 

At first meditation seems serene and quiet, this is a lessening of attention to the external stimuli, bodily sensations...

- this is the coarsest level of input

Next, it becomes obvious how ridiculously busy the thoughts are, absolutely uncanny!

- this is a bit more subtle at first but soon becomes very obvious and can be overwhelming

Next, as the thoughts space out and awareness clings less and stabilizes, a subtler, more insidious type of mental formation becomes obvious - transient images that are less than the verbal chatter, not quite fully formed thoughts, just fragments and flashes.

Next, as these begin to lessen, even more subtle, fleeting feelings, emotions, and urges bubble up to the surface...

And layer after layer, we peel back the onion... by continuing to quiet and let go.

 

The Dzogchen masters talk about the 3 keys -

 

1. Recognition, referred to as "carefree detachment at the subject/object junction" - this involves awareness of the arising of all thoughts, ideas, images,... and simply observing without preference or bias, without discrimination or separation, without clinging or riding the thought train, without distinction between subject and object

 

2. Actualization of potency, described as "self sprung awareness" which is the attending to mental formation as it arises within the "indeterminate space of pristine awareness" in order to allow it to reach its full potential, rather than suppression or ignorance which guarantees it will remain and recycle. Often referred to as a "bird's traceless trajectory" and having the quality that nothing can remain or stain this space of awareness, nothing leaves a trace once it has blossomed and assimilated

 

3. Automatic dissolution, which occurs within the "all-inclusive spaciousness" that allows all things to reach their full potential and then vanish through assimilation into that space. This is likened to waves in a "unitary billowing ocean."

 

The quotes are from Natural Perfection - Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen by Keith Dowman. One of many great books on the subject.