Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

 

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

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, and then there is a mountain.

 

After sages go into the mountain and see past the self, they return to the crowd with love for all, love for themselves, for their body, even for their robe which are all as much a part of the all as the others.

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

(edited to take the 'k' out of 'robek')

Edited April 5, 2013 by Harmonious Emptiness

[xabir2005]

Until the illusion of self is seen through in direct realization, even trying to "live as though it is gone" is an ego trip.

Edited April 5, 2013 by xabir2005

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Of course, what I'm referring to is all the time spent talking about this level and that level and free me from this and that, all the while, if successful, it leads to a life where you are free of attachment to self and willingly love others as one's self, which is the liberation -- not being so attached to this needy self.

 

Why do people not talk more about "loving others as one's self," which is something worth working towards, rather than this ego trip (and I mean that as mostly as a pun) of being at this level of liberation and that level of liberation. What is the point of all of that if it only for the self - which doesn't exist.?

[Cheshire Cat]

edited

Edited April 5, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[RongzomFan]

The infinite aspiration to help infinite sentient beings makes the Sambhogakaya be infinite. If you want to help people, reach Buddhahood as fast as possible.

 

of being at this level of liberation and that level of liberation.

The bhumis and path are illusory.

[RongzomFan]

After sages go into the mountain and see past the self, they return to the crowd with love for all, love for themselves, for their body, even for their robe which are all as much a part of the all as the others.

 

Which sages are you talking about?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The infinite aspiration to help infinite sentient beings makes the Sambhogakaya be infinite. If you want to help people, reach Buddhahood as fast as possible.

 

The bhumis and path are illusory.

 

Without getting unnecessarily technical, why do we need wait until Buddhahood to experience the joy of oneness? Why can't oneness be the path instead?

 

Which sages are you talking about?

 

The one's I described.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

Without getting unnecessarily technical, why do we need wait until Buddhahood to experience the joy of oneness? Why can't oneness be the path instead?

Because unless you're a Buddha, oneness is a contrived conceptualisation. If we live as though we don't have the illusion of ego, but we actually still have that illusion, that's just forcing cognitive dissonance on yourself. Delusion is transcended by cultivation.

 

You seem to think that metta/selfless service and seeking Buddhahood are mutually exclusive. Cultivating virtue and doing good is a fairly large chunk of the path; which doesn't become an ego trip just because we also practice shamatha and wisdom... especially if we have bodhichitta.

[Simple_Jack]

Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

Yes, always.

 

 

Without getting unnecessarily technical, why do we need wait until Buddhahood to experience the joy of oneness? Why can't oneness be the path instead?

As a "Buddhist" practitioner, I do not aim for the experience of "Oneness," but for the omniscience of Buddhahood which is free from all extremes.

 

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11728&start=40

 

As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality.

 

In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.

 

~ Lopon Malcolm

[RongzomFan]

The one's I described.

 

Then I have no idea what you are talking about.

[RongzomFan]

Without getting unnecessarily technical, why do we need wait until Buddhahood to experience the joy of oneness?

 

Mahayana isn't about oneness. Its about emptiness (nonarisal/illusion).

 

".......illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams."

-Candrakirti

Edited April 6, 2013 by alwayson

[Guest Jason Croft]

One of my favorite books: http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_m.htm

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Oneness, omnicience, emptiness.. To quote Chapter One of the Dao De Jing

 

同謂之玄。

The competing names create more obscuration

玄之又玄，

Mysteries become further mysterious

眾妙之門

And this becomes a gate between people and the beautiful subtleties of life.

 

(if you wish to contend my translation, please see post #237 here)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One of my favorite books: http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_m.htm

 

Whoo! Great website !

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Because unless you're a Buddha, oneness is a contrived conceptualisation. If we live as though we don't have the illusion of ego, but we actually still have that illusion, that's just forcing cognitive dissonance on yourself. Delusion is transcended by cultivation.

 

Well, can you not, rather than going in to see there is no "I," go out to see there is only "all?"

 

You seem to think that metta/selfless service and seeking Buddhahood are mutually exclusive. Cultivating virtue and doing good is a fairly large chunk of the path; which doesn't become an ego trip just because we also practice shamatha and wisdom... especially if we have bodhichitta.

 

See, this is good. This is what I'm talking about.. But it seems as though (many) people forfeit this side of it and spend all their time on this ego, which again, doesn't even exist.

 

 

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

Well, can you not, rather than going in to see there is no "I," go out to see there is only "all?"

Do one, and you must automatically do the other, because they're rooted in the same insights... just 2 equally valid ways of looking at it.

 

See, this is good. This is what I'm talking about.. But it seems as though (many) people forfeit this side of it and spend all their time on this ego, which again, doesn't even exist.

I'm sure many people do.

 

Virtue alone can make you a pleasant fool.

Shamatha alone can make you focused and stable.

Wisdom alone can make you a philosopher.

All 3 makes you a Buddha.

 

Of course, the more you advance in one the more you should end up doing the others.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Seeker of the Self

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Shamatha alone can make you focused and stable.

 

and (possibly) closed to the world....

 

to again quote the Dao De Jing, "[the virtue of water] dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain - Wherein it comes near to the Tao. (Chapter 8, Lin Yutan trans.)"

 

not that shamatha is, or should, not be a part of Buddhist practice

[Guest Jason Croft]

Wrap your ego around this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLMZNmxFUZU

[idiot_stimpy]

Isn't any effort towards anything an ego trip?

[Guest Jason Croft]

The next step: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVUU3p5iHMA

[Guest Jason Croft]

So - where does the final step begin to form ?

There can be only one - the Tao

[manitou]

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

 

 

But that's the hard part. Seeing through the illusion of self. Loving the self is hard. There are many who strive to love others as themselves, but haven't a clue as to their own inner workings. Love, true love, can't be achieved until the self and the ego has been clarified within ourselves. This takes some serious work.

[sevendays]

Love is a biased emotion, its opposite being hate. In Buddhism the ultimate expression is compassion, which is different from love because its not partial or biased. It also arises spontaneously and naturally, uncontrived, when we abide in our Buddha nature.

 

Furthermore there is no ultimate self in Buddhism. Although its recognized that we have a self that has arisen through causes and conditions (through dependent origination), its viewed that this self is a impermanent entity composed of a combination of the elements mixed with ones karmic accumulations. The Buddha nature is primordial emptiness, our own primordial nature. Although empty of existence (meaning it has not arisen as an object to be seen, held, smelled, and so forth) it is in fact a thing with qualities, its qualities are listed variously, but most generally speaking its open, spontaneous, indestructible, non dual, indivisible.

 

Its when we abide in our Buddha nature that spontaneous compassion for all beings arises, but it does so without any imputation of oneself or other as being real entities. In fact, its the very knowledge that there is no self that gives rise to compassion in the first place, because its seen very clearly that peoples belief in themselves and objects as absolutely real and permanent is what gives rise to suffering (through attachment to and aversion from objects/self).

 

Its a complicated subject and not easily understood intellectually. Better to meditate and try to directly experience the emptiness nature of phenomena for oneself.

[RongzomFan]

Are you talking about the Buddha Nature of the sutras (Tathagatagarbha Sutras) or tantras (Mahamudra)?

 

You can't just say Buddha Nature without stating which one you are talking about...

[DragonsNectar69k]

To me the ego is something that doesn't know what it wants. It is a mere state of being. That is all.

 

I think Shamatha is enough in most cases, atleast for me. I am not truly familiar with all the buddhist terms, but there is definitely something about 'nothingness' that my soul finds relevant. Something eternal.

 

 

 

Also, where can I read up on the Buddhi mind? Besides google and wikipedia... Any scriptures?