What Is Is That 'Makes' Someone Choose To Become Bhuddist?

[christiaan]

What is it that makes a human choose to become Bhuddist? (or a catholic, or a Muslim, Bahai or Hindu, what ever) In fact this is a question meant for everyone who has choosen to become Buddhist. Since the majority of 'Buddhists" are born into Buddhist culture , one of the systems of active conditioning (children in Thailand are learned about Buddhism at most schools and at home) in the world, it is part of institutionalized religions, this question will not be applicable to most of those Buddhists becos they did not choose.. Allthough I can imagine there will be a number of born Buddhist who did come to an active choice towards Buddhism..

So this question will surely and mainly be applicable to all humans, mainly males, that did not have a buddhist background and at some point in their .life choose to become Buddhist.

The question could be: is it the ego that made the choice to become Buddhist, is it the self that made this choice, or the soulles person, or maybe .......?

So my question on forehand is not why somebody made the choise to become Buddhist but what inside made the choice.

It could be interesting to look at the question itself also, I have no objection to that.

I would like to point at the fact that it could be fruitfull to handle this as looking and describing a phenomenon like: by what ways can a potter make a cup to drink. So lets observe when we see our self making a dialogue to become a competition.

[phetaroi]

In my case, after my first three visits to Thailand I started thinking very seriously about why people who live in relative poverty are also relatively happy. So I began to think more about my visits to Buddhist temples and the talks I had had with Thai friends, and then began asking questions of monks. The very first book I read about Buddhism -- which was a Theravada book written by a Thai and published in Thailand -- had a preface that went something like this -- As you read this book, think about whether what you are reading can be incorporated into your life. You can adopt that which seems logical to you, and perhaps later you will adopt more of what you read. I like that no one (well there is one here on the forum) is telling me I will go to hel_l for not believing some particular aspect of Buddhism.

I should also comment that in more recent years I would change the way I see Thais -- maybe not so much "happy" as "content" or "accepting".

[fabianfred]

Quite often people are dissatisfied with the religion they were brought up with at home..... it isn't giving them the answers they require and isn't much of a support in difficult times, so they are spiritually shopping for something, generally being inclined towards a spiritual type of person.

For me Buddhism is very logical and answers any questions I have...

[christiaan]

petharoi and fabianfred,

I would say both your answers are more in the field of why, in fact showing the proces of - possibly -becoming buddhist, the question however is what

[camerata]

It's a process of cause and effect. Genetic programming and life experience create mental dispositions - mostly operating at the subconscious level - that provide the basis for our conscious decisions in life. We can label those collective dispositions a "self" if we want, but from the Buddhist perspective there is no "agent" involved. Having made the decision to practise Dhamma, most probably because of a desire to be happy, we can then start to change those subconscious dispositions, take control of our life and gain true freedom.

[rockyysdt]

Obviously our ego initially may make the choice.

Until enlightened, we all live our lives through filtered eyes.

Pretty well anything we do, including charitable works will have an element of ego driving them.

Most things Buddhism offers (freedom from suffering, enlightenment, Nirvana, salvation from the cycle of rebirth, a path from the pain of karmic fruit) will appeal to the ego.

What I've also personally experienced is that my conditioning (developed over my lifetime and perhaps over countless lifetimes) plays its part.

This means that my ego will eventually be attracted to the path due to decisions I make and which were influenced by my suffering and the sense of awareness which we develop from this.

Many things which have happened to me have taken me to places far from Buddhism and it seems have eventually returned me back to its path.

Although initially egotistical in nature l understand that my experience of practice will eventually yield egoless loving kindness which is our inner nature.

Edited September 1, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

It's a process of cause and effect. Genetic programming and life experience create mental dispositions - mostly operating at the subconscious level - that provide the basis for our conscious decisions in life. We can label those collective dispositions a "self" if we want, but from the Buddhist perspective there is no "agent" involved. Having made the decision to practise Dhamma, most probably because of a desire to be happy, we can then start to change those subconscious dispositions, take control of our life and gain true freedom.

This looks 'general' to me. When it is just cause and effect is it cause making the decission? Is the subconscious making the decission? Does the Buddhist perception make the decission and if so what decides the Budhist perception makes the decission?

[christiaan]

Obviously our ego initially may make the choice.

Until enlightened, we all live our lives through filtered eyes.

Pretty well anything we do, including charitable works will have an element of ego driving them.

Most things Buddhism offers (freedom from suffering, enlightenment, Nirvana, salvation from the cycle of rebirth, a path from the pain of karmic fruit) will appeal to the ego.

What I've also personally experienced is that my conditioning (developed over my lifetime and perhaps over countless lifetimes) plays its part.

This means that my ego will eventually be attracted to the path due to decisions I make and which were influenced by my suffering and the sense of awareness which we develop from this.

Many things which have happened to me have taken me to places far from Buddhism and it seems have eventually returned me back to its path.

Although initially egotistical in nature l understand that my experience of practice will eventually yield egoless loving kindness which is our inner nature.

When the ego makes the choise what about cause and effect. I would say it should have an effect when it is the ego that makes the choice, Would this choioce ten not be defiled by the ego.

Maybe the question should have to be : What is it that makes somene to make an un-defiled choise to become a buddhist?

[Brucenkhamen]

This looks 'general' to me. When it is just cause and effect is it cause making the decission? Is the subconscious making the decission? Does the Buddhist perception make the decission and if so what decides the Budhist perception makes the decission?

Camerata explained it quite well I think.

When I lift up my hand is it the finger lifting? the elbow? the bones? the muscle?

One could try and break it down and say this piece or that piece is the culprit but our mind and body process is made up of many component parts, how we break those down or aggregate them up is just a function of our conceptual mind.

You want to know what makes the decision, I'd reply what wants to know.

The Buddhist practice is to reflect and understand all of our experience is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. The Buddhist practice is not to setup a new conceptual framework to explain things away.

[christiaan]

I just liftet up my hand and I noticed it was not my arm, not my elbow, not my finger, it were not my muscles deciding to lift up anything but it was something inside me that made me lift up my hand. So I would agree not to try to break down anything but just stick to the question:

What is it that makes someone choose in an un-defiled way to become a Buddhist.

[Xangsamhua]

There are many parts to Christiaan's question: What is it that 'makes' someone choose to become Buddhist? The bolded italic words are the keywords. The question doesn't really have much to do with Buddhism specifically.

Interesting that when Stephen Batchelor entered the Zen monastery in Korea their main practice was to sit and contemplate the question: What is it? It's a question that may have many answers or none.

But Christiaan's question is What is it, if "it" is something that makes us do something? That is, if it is an agent. Camerata and Brucenkhamen have addressed that part of the question, the latter going further into the question of free will (If I lift my hand what is it that does the lifting?). Possibly nothing in particular - rather a complex of forces. Schopenhauer argued that the will to lift my finger and the the mechanism by which the finger is lifted are equally and simultaneously involved. There is no identifiable "it" as agent. All four Aristotelian causes may be involved. Schopenhauer spoke of this as indicative of the absence or unidentifiability of free will, which leads in to the next part of Christiaan's question (which should be preceded by "If there is an agentive "it".

If we can't really identify the necessary and sufficient agent then we can't really say it "makes" us do anything, but if we did and it actually made us do something then we would not be able to "choose". However, let's think of predispositions, as Camerata and Rocky mentioned. If I have what seems to be an abiding predisposition to mysticism, it might be hard for any agent to "make" me become a Buddhist. However, certain events, conditions and circumstances may lead my mystical predispositions into, say, life as a Trappist monk. But all I know about my predispositions is that they have predisposed me toward certain things up to date. They are, however, not permanent. I used to have a "predisposition" to drink wine with my evening meal. That disappeared several years ago after a bout of flu. I now haven't the slightest predisposition to drink wine each evening, though I never set out with any intention of stopping. Maybe that's a "disposition" rather than a "predisposition", but the point is that we change and we don't always know how and when we'll change.

And because we are changing "beings" (aggregations of aggregations, all in process), then we're all about becoming, all the time. For the sake of argument one may "choose" to become a Buddhist, but having chosen, one continues to "become" a Buddhist. One does not remain the same. Nor does one's Buddhism; nor does Buddhism as defined by others remain fixed. If one has become fixed in a form of Buddhism, which may itself be fixed (i.e. fossilised), then one is no longer a Buddhist, but one attached and craving stability. "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Christiaan's question is interesting as a platform for philosophical speculation. That's all. Christiaan seems to be a philosophical realist, suggesting that behind things there is a higher reality which gives the thing its character, its "thingness". There would be no actual nameable and empirical agents if there were no higher agency from which each derives its agentiveness. I suspect that Buddhists overall are not realists, but nominalists, and believe that a thing derives its thingness not from a universal and metaphenomenal form but from its illusory status in an endless process of interdependent causation, and everything is never just being, but always becoming. Stop the process and everything falls into chaos. It doesn't return to a Higher Source.

[IMA_FARANG]

What made me become a "Buddhist". Well, that's a long story.

First of all, I call myself a "student" of Buddhisim, not a "follower". The difference is in the intent. I seek understanding, not a religion. (if that makes sense to you). So my journey to Buddhisim is one-to-one with my journey to the understanding of my nature, my place, what life means to me, and how I live my life.

To be short, I began with a study of Taoism. From that I moved on to Zen Buddhisim. From Zen I expanded my study to more Buddhist texts and writings, a lot of it Chinese and Japanese influenced texts.

Let me tell you a short story, that does show some of my experience of coming to Buddhisim.

A traveller is trying to get to a small cottage he knows is nearby. It is dark, and he can barely see the road. The cottage, and shelter, is not far away...but he can't find it. A storm is coming, and he dispairs that he will ever find shelter before the storm arrives. He is getting worried. Then suddenly a flash of lightning startles him. In the flash of lightning he thinks he sees the cottage! Then another lightning flash, and then another. In the flashes he can make out the cottage, and shelter! He is not far off, now he knows the way. He no longer worries, he knows the path to his goal. He will find safety.

[camerata]

I meant that cause and effect is the process that creates your dispositions up to the point where you make any particular decision. On the genetic level, perhaps your father had a very short temper and your mother did not, so no surprise that you are born with a moderately short temper. Your parents were religious and sent you to Sunday School, so you believe in God. A black guy mugged you when you were 13, so you are distrustful of anyone with dark skin, etc, etc.

When the time comes to make a decision, I believe all these subconscious dispositions are weighed up to form the solution that will be most likely to bring happiness and ensure survival (something else that is genetically programmed). On top of that, assuming there is enough time, conscious logic can also play a big part. So it's usually a combination of the two, conscious and subconscious. In a crisis situation, like putting yourself in danger to save someone's life, most likely it will be 99% subconscious. In my experience, at times when I have made a carefully considered decision based on logic, I have regretted it the instant I committed to it because I ignored my "gut feeling" or intuition. Or perhaps my logic was faulty.

From the Buddhist perspective, the decision-making process has no agent behind it. It's like a computer program that is designed (in this case by natural selection) to provide the best solution in any given situation, and the solution will depend on the quality of the information and the mental dispositions available. Practising Dhamma enables us to gradually switch from the overriding objective of short-term happiness to a more lasting one of diminished suffering.

As I understand it, arahants act in the interest of all beings all the time rather than mainly in their own interest. That's why they are the ideal.

[Brucenkhamen]

What is it that makes someone choose in an un-defiled way to become a Buddhist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in an un-defiled way". We all have defilement, the purpose of Buddhist practice is to free the mind from defilement.

So when one makes the decision to practice as has been mentioned a whole host of causes have led to that moment.

However I don't think one becomes a Buddhist the way one becomes "born again" in another well known religion, Buddhist is just a label, a concept, it means different things to different people.

It's not important what label one carries but whether one is in a process of change towards freedom from defilement, this is a moment to moment choice, each moment of choice builds from previous causes and conditions and one chooses what to do with those.

[christiaan]

There are many parts to Christiaan's question: What is it that 'makes' someone choose to become Buddhist? The bolded italic words are the keywords. The question doesn't really have much to do with Buddhism specifically.

Interesting that when Stephen Batchelor entered the Zen monastery in Korea their main practice was to sit and contemplate the question: What is it? It's a question that may have many answers or none.

But Christiaan's question is What is it, if "it" is something that makes us do something? That is, if it is an agent. Camerata and Brucenkhamen have addressed that part of the question, the latter going further into the question of free will (If I lift my hand what is it that does the lifting?). Possibly nothing in particular - rather a complex of forces. Schopenhauer argued that the will to lift my finger and the the mechanism by which the finger is lifted are equally and simultaneously involved. There is no identifiable "it" as agent. All four Aristotelian causes may be involved. Schopenhauer spoke of this as indicative of the absence or unidentifiability of free will, which leads in to the next part of Christiaan's question (which should be preceded by "If there is an agentive "it".

If we can't really identify the necessary and sufficient agent then we can't really say it "makes" us do anything, but if we did and it actually made us do something then we would not be able to "choose". However, let's think of predispositions, as Camerata and Rocky mentioned. If I have what seems to be an abiding predisposition to mysticism, it might be hard for any agent to "make" me become a Buddhist. However, certain events, conditions and circumstances may lead my mystical predispositions into, say, life as a Trappist monk. But all I know about my predispositions is that they have predisposed me toward certain things up to date. They are, however, not permanent. I used to have a "predisposition" to drink wine with my evening meal. That disappeared several years ago after a bout of flu. I now haven't the slightest predisposition to drink wine each evening, though I never set out with any intention of stopping. Maybe that's a "disposition" rather than a "predisposition", but the point is that we change and we don't always know how and when we'll change.

And because we are changing "beings" (aggregations of aggregations, all in process), then we're all about becoming, all the time. For the sake of argument one may "choose" to become a Buddhist, but having chosen, one continues to "become" a Buddhist. One does not remain the same. Nor does one's Buddhism; nor does Buddhism as defined by others remain fixed. If one has become fixed in a form of Buddhism, which may itself be fixed (i.e. fossilised), then one is no longer a Buddhist, but one attached and craving stability. "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Christiaan's question is interesting as a platform for philosophical speculation. That's all. Christiaan seems to be a philosophical realist, suggesting that behind things there is a higher reality which gives the thing its character, its "thingness". There would be no actual nameable and empirical agents if there were no higher agency from which each derives its agentiveness. I suspect that Buddhists overall are not realists, but nominalists, and believe that a thing derives its thingness not from a universal and metaphenomenal form but from its illusory status in an endless process of interdependent causation, and everything is never just being, but always becoming. Stop the process and everything falls into chaos. It doesn't return to a Higher Source.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

It is very helpfull to develop my question.

So it could be more specific to describe it as follows:

What is inside each human that moves that human to choose in an un-defiled way to become a Buddhist.

So there is no it anymore but just what.

So this is not the same question as Stephen Batchelor, Would it be the same, the question to contemplate about could have been: What moves inside this present human (to be here)

The question of a hand raising as I described it cannot be generally described as something not particular.

I would rater say it is always something special.

It are complex forces. Becaus first something happened inside me, and then , with awareness I lifted my arms and with awareness I concluded it was not my arm that choosed to be lifted but something inside me. There are ofcourse situations in wich my arm does move without my awareness, in a reflex, or in a trained craft.

But I think it would be better not to go into that further because that is just another part,

My question of becoming a Buddhist is related to awareness. I consider it a healthy thought to think nobody ever waked up one morning or afternoon and was suddenly told by his or her awareness he or she actualy became to be a Buddhist without being aware of doing so.

That we do not see the difference in the will to lift up our arm with and actually doing so can only be seen as a situation of low awareness. When I lift up my arm and tell me to do so in two minutes I very well can see the proces of free will and actual movement of my muscles. So in observation my free will in this situation is very identifiable. Despite what Schopenhauer told about 190 years ago.

Looking at the simple cause and effect, that will help me to answer other contributions, do we have to understand this cause and effect situation is like being a billiart ball in a (life as a complex) billiart game?

Are we aware no ball will continuously move when there would not be continuing outer movement moving the ball(s)?

Isn't it so that when there is nothing outside and the balls are moving , very soon all movement will stop?

I played billiart and I can tell you, when there is no outer force moving a billiart ball nothing moves anymore in this billiartpool world.

Looking to all the different balls on the pooltable by some illusion then one could think all balls are soulles contemplating and meditating for the rest of their existence.

So is this the cause and effect situation we are 'living in? When someone hits us, we always move in the always opposite direction of the way by wich we are hit (receiving energy)? And is life complex and hard to understand because we are continously hit by many many balls in a short period of time? And if so, do we then have responsibillity at all for any of our movements and are we then accountable for any of these movements and can we collect Karma in such a depending situation?.

Does a billiart ball know how and especially when a position change in a 100% movement depending situation? And what about the disposition of a billiartball?

Well we know, billiartballs are in fact dead bodies without any faculty of inner movement, Because they are round they can move at any direction when hit at some point. Can Billiartballs ever or never choose to become buddhists and if not so what is it that makes this possible or impossibe?

In contrast to billiartballs we are multidimensional changing beings and always 'becoming'.

So I think we are not dead like billiartballs.

Isn't it so that when 'one' may choose to become a Buddhist for the sake of argument then still the question will be: What inside is moving to make this a choice? Is it the 'one' ? (And this beside the question 'how' )

I do not categorise myself as a philosophical realist. Philosophical realisme is a collection of different positions to other phillosophies. I am a person evolving to autonomous thinking.

I do not live by suggestion but by investigation.

I do not exclude chaos from my perception. How could I when being aware that each of our lifes start in the womb of a woman in a complete chaos at the direct moment when male sperm and female egg meet eachother.

[christiaan]

Thank you for your contribution

Excuse me to take the freedom to change something in your text. I do to prevent writing a long reaction. I coloured the part orange that I think could be your answer to my question, if not so I would be happy to have more information. I coloured every moving I noticed, like becoming a buddhist also is a moving. Then I noticed for every act of moving you wrote I

Is that your answer to my (corrected) question: What is inside a human................

When I understand your story well, finding the 'cottage' was the intentional goal, as the outcome of a choice made ?

What made me become a "Buddhist". Well, that's a long story.

First of all, I call myself a "student" of Buddhisim, not a "follower". The difference is in the intent. I seek understanding, not a religion. (if that makes sense to you). So my journey to Buddhisim is one-to-one with my journey to the understanding of my nature, my place, what life means to me, and how I live my life.

To be short, I began with a study of Taoism. From that I moved on to Zen Buddhisim. From Zen I expanded my study to more Buddhist texts and writings, a lot of it Chinese and Japanese influenced texts.

Let me tell you a short story, that does show some of my experience of coming to Buddhisim.

In the following story I make the connection, since you made this part of your experience (some people would call this projection), that you are seeing your self simillar as the traveller. When I am not right you ofcourse correct me. So would it be justified to write your story from your postion in the following way?:

(A traveller is) I was trying to get to a small cottage (he knows) I knew is nearby. It is dark, and (he) I can barely see the road. The cottage, and shelter, is not far away...but (he) I can't find it. A storm is coming, and (he) I dispair(s) that (he) I will ever find shelter before the storm arrives. (He is) I am getting worried. Then suddenly a flash of lightning startles (him) me. In the flash of lightning (he) I think(s)(he) I see(s) the cottage! Then another lightning flash, and then another. In the flashes (he) I can make out the cottage, and shelter! (He is) I am not far off, now (he) I know(s) the way. (He) I no longer worrie(s), (he) I know(s) the path to (his) my goal. (He) I will find safety.

[christiaan]

I meant that cause and effect is the process that creates your dispositions up to the point where you make any particular decision. On the genetic level, perhaps your father had a very short temper and your mother did not, so no surprise that you are born with a moderately short temper. Your parents were religious and sent you to Sunday School, so you believe in God. A black guy mugged you when you were 13, so you are distrustful of anyone with dark skin, etc, etc.

When the time comes to make a decision, I believe all these subconscious dispositions are weighed up to form the solution that will be most likely to bring happiness and ensure survival (something else that is genetically programmed). On top of that, assuming there is enough time, conscious logic can also play a big part. So it's usually a combination of the two, conscious and subconscious. In a crisis situation, like putting yourself in danger to save someone's life, most likely it will be 99% subconscious. In my experience, at times when I have made a carefully considered decision based on logic, I have regretted it the instant I committed to it because I ignored my "gut feeling" or intuition. Or perhaps my logic was faulty.

From the Buddhist perspective, the decision-making process has no agent behind it. It's like a computer program that is designed (in this case by natural selection) to provide the best solution in any given situation, and the solution will depend on the quality of the information and the mental dispositions available. Practising Dhamma enables us to gradually switch from the overriding objective of short-term happiness to a more lasting one of diminished suffering.

As I understand it, arahants act in the interest of all beings all the time rather than mainly in their own interest. That's why they are the ideal.

Thank you for explaining your previous contribution.

I would advocate for writing what we mean.

Reading the first line of this contribution I think I have to understand that allthough cause and effect have influence it is actual 'you' who make any particular decision ?

And it is you who has to decide in relation to all given faculties?

It is explaining when you tell how the proces of making a choice is affecting you and what you have to consider in doing so.

Is it so that when you put yourself in danger, you would do probably not regretting afterwards?

Do we choose to save someone by at that moment unaware actions, we afterwards recognise as being faculties we learned and trained before in life with awareness. Like fireman are trained to do what they need to do in rescuing people out of life threathening situations.?

It is interesting you pay attention to intuition as being a quality that could play a role in coming to a choice.

Well I would like to have more information about that Buddhist aspect.

I mean we both know computerprogramms are designed by someone 'outside' the computer and I would say computerprogramms are defiled and always evolving by people 'outside' the computer.

Looking to the Buddhist perspective it could be the question to see if Buddha himself is the agent, maybe the writer of the computerprogram you mention, for humans who moved inside to the choice to have Buddha become the agent. Would'nt that be a kind of illusion?

Is it not about the same question to ask what moves a human to choose to become a Buddhist as to ask what moves a human to decide to live according the teachings of Buddha?

I do not understand Arahants becos I just maybe met some and how to understand an Aharant when I not met him? I do however understand the description of what a Arahant should be to be an Arahant. I maybe experienced two of them that in my view probably could be Arahants. It is only by experiencing them in real life in my level of awareness that I by my intuition was thinking this could be a high evolved spirit. One of them was Krishnamurti. These spirits only play a significant role in someones life when this person choose to move in that direction. And even then each human deals with this experience in its own way, as I noticed.

What brings us to the same question again. What is moving inside a human .................

Well, summarising, am I right, that at this moment, the what that is moving to make decisions by your description is the ' You' you write about in this contribution?

The 'you' that has to take into account when making decisions it has to deal with conditions manifested in life before.?

[Brucenkhamen]

Thank you for your contribution

Excuse me to take the freedom to change something in your text. I do to prevent writing a long reaction. I coloured the part orange that I think could be your answer to my question, if not so I would be happy to have more information. I coloured every moving I noticed, like becoming a buddhist also is a moving. Then I noticed for every act of moving you wrote I

Is that your answer to my (corrected) question: What is inside a human................

When I understand your story well, finding the 'cottage' was the intentional goal, as the outcome of a choice made ?

What made me become a "Buddhist". Well, that's a long story.

First of all, I call myself a "student" of Buddhisim, not a "follower". The difference is in the intent. I seek understanding, not a religion. (if that makes sense to you). So my journey to Buddhisim is one-to-one with my journey to the understanding of my nature, my place, what life means to me, and how I live my life.

To be short, I began with a study of Taoism. From that I moved on to Zen Buddhisim. From Zen I expanded my study to more Buddhist texts and writings, a lot of it Chinese and Japanese influenced texts.

Let me tell you a short story, that does show some of my experience of coming to Buddhisim.

In the following story I make the connection, since you made this part of your experience (some people would call this projection), that you are seeing your self simillar as the traveller. When I am not right you ofcourse correct me. So would it be justified to write your story from your postion in the following way?:

(A traveller is) I was trying to get to a small cottage (he knows) I knew is nearby. It is dark, and (he) I can barely see the road. The cottage, and shelter, is not far away...but (he) I can't find it. A storm is coming, and (he) I dispair(s) that (he) I will ever find shelter before the storm arrives. (He is) I am getting worried. Then suddenly a flash of lightning startles (him) me. In the flash of lightning (he) I think(s)(he) I see(s) the cottage! Then another lightning flash, and then another. In the flashes (he) I can make out the cottage, and shelter! (He is) I am not far off, now (he) I know(s) the way. (He) I no longer worrie(s), (he) I know(s) the path to (his) my goal. (He) I will find safety.

What you have highlighted is a function of language, it's just how we refer subjectively to the speaker in english. I don't think it is any evidence that IMA_FARANG thinks he is a distinct, semi permanent, and separate self. I'm sure IMA_FARANG will corect me if I'm wrong and he does think he's a self.

If he had wrote the above in terms of the processes involved as we'd see it in Buddhism rather than using normal english usage it would have been cumbersome to read.

Sometimes in the cartoons my daughter watches characters use words like I, me, mine etc Do you think that evidence that Mickey Mouse is a real a distinct, semi permanent, and separate self?

If you are actually interested in the Buddhist approach to this subject rather than expounding your own ideas these articles are good;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

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

Edited September 1, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[christiaan]

What is it that makes someone choose in an un-defiled way to become a Buddhist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in an un-defiled way". We all have defilement, the purpose of Buddhist practice is to free the mind from defilement.

So when one makes the decision to practice as has been mentioned a whole host of causes have led to that moment.

However I don't think one becomes a Buddhist the way one becomes "born again" in another well known religion, Buddhist is just a label, a concept, it means different things to different people.

It's not important what label one carries but whether one is in a process of change towards freedom from defilement, this is a moment to moment choice, each moment of choice builds from previous causes and conditions and one chooses what to do with those.

There has been written text before suggesting it could be the 'ego' moving inside the human to come to a choise to become Buddhist.

I just wondered, when seeing the ego as a lower part, a defiled part of being a human, how it would and could be possible that part could make a decision to become Budhist.

I think it is possible but then the question would be: would a Buddhist becoming a Buddhist out of defiled ego also become a defiled 'Buddhist'?

And if he or she would have become a defiled 'Buddhist' then the question would be: what moves inside a human to make the choice to become a un-defiled Budhist since we alreayd know what what moves inside a human to become an defiled Buddhist.

To keep it simple however, I just use the option to have the question as: what moves inside a human to make the decision, or come to the desission to become a un-defiled Buddhist.

To be born again is more a matter of how, and to limit the dialogue I prefer to exclude this for the moment out of this dialogue.

I wonder if 'Buddhist' is just a label, I would think it is a special label with very special characteristics what not exclude some differences within te characteristics. But to be more precise, a Buddhist is not the same as a Muslim or a Jehova witness.

When you write about cause and effect are you then talking about cause and effect as on the billiart table?

I would not disagree there are processes of change, sometimes even from freedom to defilement, and these processes are from 'moment to moment' related to causes and conditions. That is merely a partly description of movement, the question however is: what is moving within this proces in all moments of actual choices?

But I think I did read clearly you write in the last part: " one chooses what to do with those".

What is this one choosing what to do with those (causes and conditions)?

[christiaan]

What you have highlighted is a function of language, it's just how we refer subjectively to the speaker in english. I don't think it is any evidence that IMA_FARANG thinks he is a distinct, semi permanent, and separate self. I'm sure IMA_FARANG will corect me if I'm wrong and he does think he's a self.

If he had wrote the above in terms of the processes involved as we'd see it in Buddhism rather than using normal english usage it would have been cumbersome to read.

Sometimes in the cartoons my daughter watches characters use words like I, me, mine etc Do you think that evidence that Mickey Mouse is a real a distinct, semi permanent, and separate self?

If you are actually interested in the Buddhist approach to this subject rather than expounding your own ideas these articles are good;

http://www.accesstoi...o/notself2.html

http://www.accesstoi...ro/notself.html

This post has been edited by Brucenkhamen: 48 minutes ago

As I wrote before , this is not meant to be a competition.

Mickey Mouse is a projection of the human, so humans project themself in animals this way.

It is not Mickey Mouse himself drawing and writing a cartoon.

But I think that you are not suggesting the contribution of Ima-Farang is a cartoon?

I do not think you know what I read so no need to suggest this way.

I am quit free from conditionings and doctrines and religious and spiritual attachments.

I am very capable of independent thinking.

[Brucenkhamen]

I do not think you know what I read so no need to suggest this way.

So having read Thanissaro's clear explanation what do you think of it? Does it clear up your questions? Your question about what it is that decides seems rather redundant in the light of the Buddhas teaching does it not?

The the Buddhist process is to ask that very question, not in the way that one expects to get a packaged answer off the internet that one can file away with other facts and figures. Rather it is asked in a way that questions what our deep seated assumptions about what we experience as being a distinct and separate self.

Now you might think that that which decides is your self, you are in good company as most people do. But notice does that belief lead to attachment and suffering or does it lead to freedom, or if you see it as a process does that lead to attachment and suffering or does it lead to freedom.

I am quit free from conditionings and doctrines and religious and spiritual attachments.

If you think so then you are deluding yourself, we all are subject to conditionings and attachment, realising this for what it is is one of the first steps on the path to liberation.

I am very capable of independent thinking.

But are you capable of discussing Buddhist practice on a Buddhist discussion board? I don't mean this as a criticism but a question are you here to discuss Buddhism or something else?

Edited September 2, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

There has been written text before suggesting it could be the 'ego' moving inside the human to come to a choise to become Buddhist.

I just wondered, when seeing the ego as a lower part, a defiled part of being a human, how it would and could be possible that part could make a decision to become Budhist.

I think it is possible but then the question would be: would a Buddhist becoming a Buddhist out of defiled ego also become a defiled 'Buddhist'?

And if he or she would have become a defiled 'Buddhist' then the question would be: what moves inside a human to make the choice to become a un-defiled Budhist since we alreayd know what what moves inside a human to become an defiled Buddhist.

Defilement isn't all pervasive, it isn't like saying we are in some way evil. It's just saying that we all have some degree of wrong view or destructive habits. The Buddhist practice is to fully see that the wrong views and destructive habits are unnecessary and can be dropped. Obviously there is also some degree of right view and constructive habits in order for somebody to make those choices.

Why does the notion of a defiled 'Buddhist' surprise you? surely only sick people need a doctor.

To keep it simple however, I just use the option to have the question as: what moves inside a human to make the decision, or come to the desission to become a un-defiled Buddhist.

This is a good topic of contemplation, and a recommend you truly contemplate and reflect on what you perceive as making that decision is what you really believe it is, this is Buddhist practice.

I wonder if 'Buddhist' is just a label, I would think it is a special label with very special characteristics what not exclude some differences within te characteristics. But to be more precise, a Buddhist is not the same as a Muslim or a Jehova witness.

Yes it's just a label, of course having read the label you have the option of opening the jar and using the contents or not.

I would not disagree there are processes of change, sometimes even from freedom to defilement, and these processes are from 'moment to moment' related to causes and conditions. That is merely a partly description of movement, the question however is: what is moving within this proces in all moments of actual choices?

But I think I did read clearly you write in the last part: " one chooses what to do with those".

What is this one choosing what to do with those (causes and conditions)?

If it tell you that that what that you are looking for is called a Worzelwidget would you believe me? Would that satisfy you? If so I'd be disappointed.

Instead I recommend that you investigate to process in an objective impersonal way and come to understand it yourself, this is Buddhist practice.

[phetaroi]

petharoi and fabianfred,

I would say both your answers are more in the field of why, in fact showing the proces of - possibly -becoming buddhist, the question however is what

Perhaps we were confused by the two words you used in your OP -- "makes" versus "chooses".

[phetaroi]

...

To keep it simple...

Sometimes, as I read your very long writings, I wonder if you would be better served by, indeed, keeping things more simple. It sometimes seems as if you try to make every little aspect of Buddhism extremely complex.

[camerata]

Well, summarising, am I right, that at this moment, the what that is moving to make decisions by your description is the ' You' you write about in this contribution?

The 'you' that has to take into account when making decisions it has to deal with conditions manifested in life before.?

"You" is just a label that makes it easy to refer to a human being. It doesn't imply there is some agent involved in the decision-making process. It's what monks call "conventional talk" as opposed to "Dhamma talk." The computer program I referred to as an analogy for the workings of the mind evolved in a process of natural selection, it wasn't designed by any external entity. But it isn't a perfect analogy because most computer programs aren't as complex as the brain/mind and don't keep evolving.

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

[camerata]

Two trollish off-topic posts have been deleted.

[Xangsamhua]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

If I can add a little to this, and it's subsumed in your statement, the internal needs, e.g. "to be happy, to relieve stress, etc", may be more than just emotional ones.

The sense of needing to know what makes most sense, to the extent of our ability to understand, in thinking and speaking about matters of "ultimate concern" may trigger our investigation of Buddhism.

We may be quite happy in conventional terms and not particularly stressed - indeed one of the obstacles for many contemporary people in well-organised and well-resourced societies is that they may not have a strong sense that their life is about "suffering", no matter how we nuance it - but we still may want to know the Buddha's take on the Big Questions, and we may find his essential teachings (and silences) persuasive. This doesn't mean we land on a particular Buddhist square, though, and never move from it.

I am not personally interested in examining what gives rise to this "sense" (of needing to know) or to analyse it. It's just there in some way, though in itself lacking form or duration. It is identified through our responses - asking questions (to ourselves or others), reading books, considering implications, and so on.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

We may be quite happy in conventional terms and not particularly stressed - indeed one of the obstacles for many contemporary people in well-organised and well-resourced societies is that they may not have a strong sense that their life is about "suffering", no matter how we nuance it - but we still may want to know the Buddha's take on the Big Questions, and we may find his essential teachings (and silences) persuasive. This doesn't mean we land on a particular Buddhist square, though, and never move from it.

I am not personally interested in examining what gives rise to this "sense" (of needing to know) or to analyse it.

But you seem to think it may not be emotional. It may be in part due to genetically programmed curiosity, but IMO a lot of it is fear of our identity being snuffed out at death. Perhaps many people don't experience dukkha (or aren't aware of it) over much of their lives, but the majority will encounter it during old age, sickness and imminent death. Anyway, anyone who becomes a Buddhist to find out the Buddha's take on the Big Questions will only find that his solution to the dukkha they create is to stop asking them.

[Xangsamhua]

We may be quite happy in conventional terms and not particularly stressed - indeed one of the obstacles for many contemporary people in well-organised and well-resourced societies is that they may not have a strong sense that their life is about "suffering", no matter how we nuance it - but we still may want to know the Buddha's take on the Big Questions, and we may find his essential teachings (and silences) persuasive. This doesn't mean we land on a particular Buddhist square, though, and never move from it.

I am not personally interested in examining what gives rise to this "sense" (of needing to know) or to analyse it.

But you seem to think it may not be emotional. It may be in part due to genetically programmed curiosity, but IMO a lot of it is fear of our identity being snuffed out at death. Perhaps many people don't experience dukkha (or aren't aware of it) over much of their lives, but the majority will encounter it during old age, sickness and imminent death. Anyway, anyone who becomes a Buddhist to find out the Buddha's take on the Big Questions will only find that his solution to the dukkha they create is to stop asking them.

Yes, the fear of death, even if it doesn't appear imminent, is a significant factor for lots of people. Even so, many come to terms with the fact they will die, especially as they get older and closer to the end of average life expectancy as well as the very real possibility that tomorow they could have a heart attack, a stroke or be diagnosed with a terminal and possibly very unpleasant illness. That's life. Get over it. (I'm 66 and have no parents or siblings left.)

Actually, I don't think I suggested "it" was not emotional. I was trying to say it might be not only emotional, but I guess it's pretty hard to separate the emotional from the intellectual, or the intuitive or the instinctive for that matter. I don't think I disagree with you at all.

I'm not sure about ceasing to ask about the Big Questions though. I like asking myself these questions and interrogating the literature. It's not a matter of putting the Buddha or anyone else to the test all the time, but generally leadng an "examined life" (Socrates) and being ready to critique the things people say. In Western universities we are asked to "interrogate the obvious" and "make the familiar strange". This is not the same as being constantly contrary or even radically skeptical - just open and curious about the possibilities and alternatives.

[orchis]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

Exactly that in my case, though I wouldn't call myself a buddhist rather a student of it.