Awareness Is Not Enough!

[lungmi]

yes i agree. i was only pointing out tht the "self" discussed in the term anatta is something different which buddhism denies exists. again , the use of one word for two different concepts causes confusion.

but this is a forum on buddhism

Gestaltheoretical Psychology defines "Me" or "Self" as I, here, now (subject, location, time). it's a tridimensonial (even multidimensional) field where all factors exists in an impermanent unstable and labile balance with the tendency towards homeostasis.

Awareness is a more or less working stabilizer but the field is multidimensional - the past (memory ) and the future (wishes, daydreams) and and and... are interfering in every moment.

Co-dependent origination - Kamma - law of nature.

Kammuna vattati loko - the world is directed by Kamma

That definition looks pretty compatible with Buddhism to me.

Many gestaltheoretical psychotherapists in Germany have a Buddhist background and use for Awarenesstraining of Borderline Personalty Disorder patients modified walking meditation and Anapanasati, especially at the <deleted> of Berlin.

[rockyysdt]

if you are correct, i can only assume he is delibrately picking a fight by coming to a buddhist site and denying one of the basic tenet of buddhism. which is anunderstandable desire i guess, but not one that will hold my attention.

the 'self" referred to in the buddhist tradition is an enduring, permanent unchanging entity which they believe does not exist. the self you are referring to is something entirely different. In a forum on buddhism, it would be helpful to use a different label. perhaps personality or some other word? this would eliminate confusion.

You could be right but I doubt it. He's also used the word "soul" a few times and that's pretty unambiguous. Also if by "self" he meant to say personality or similar I don't really see why it's necessary to often use the word several times in a sentence.

As Buddhists shouldn't we refrain from making assumptions?

It reminds me of a recent dhamma talk which went something like;

Through introduction a gentleman was fascinated by the words of a Buddhist teacher and was excited about attending a retreat to learn more.

The teacher gave him his contact details and suggested he should call when he was ready to take things further.

The following week he called only to be told that the teacher hadn't arrived.

Not leaving a message, he tried later in the day with the same result.

He then said to the receptions: "I know what this means. I was never meant to learn meditation".

The receptionists replied: "No, it means the teacher is not in".

Most of us operate with filters which color experience and interpretation.

With Christiaan, language barrier and interpretation is a large contributor to most of the disagreement on both sides.

On the subject of soul, I think this is only mentioned in the Mahayana tradition.

Nirvana is thought of as a universal soul into which the enlightened become absorbed.

The Buddha remained silent on this aspect, so theoretically they could be correct!

Personal experience will tell.

Having said that, although everyone agrees that I, ego, self, mind, body & thoughts are all impermanent & conditioned and that there is no one inside in control, there is some agreement that there must be something associated with each of us which has been referred to in the past as your ultimate reality.

Without that, what is the point, particularly as when the I, ego, self, mind, body & thoughts die it's all over for you.

Edited December 16, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

if you are correct, i can only assume he is delibrately picking a fight by coming to a buddhist site and denying one of the basic tenet of buddhism. which is anunderstandable desire i guess, but not one that will hold my attention.

the 'self" referred to in the buddhist tradition is an enduring, permanent unchanging entity which they believe does not exist. the self you are referring to is something entirely different. In a forum on buddhism, it would be helpful to use a different label. perhaps personality or some other word? this would eliminate confusion.

You could be right but I doubt it. He's also used the word "soul" a few times and that's pretty unambiguous. Also if by "self" he meant to say personality or similar I don't really see why it's necessary to often use the word several times in a sentence.

As Buddhists shouldn't we refrain from making assumptions?

It reminds me of a recent dhamma talk which went something like;

Through introduction a gentleman was fascinated by the words of a Buddhist teacher and was excited about attending a retreat to learn more.

The teacher gave him his contact details and suggested he should call when he was ready to take things further.

The following week he called only to be told that the teacher hadn't arrived.

Not leaving a message, he tried later in the day with the same result.

He then said to the receptions: "I know what this means. I was never meant to learn meditation".

The receptionists replied: "No, it means the teacher is not in".

Most of us operate with filters which color experience and interpretation.

With Christiaan, language barrier and interpretation is a large contributor to most of the disagreement on both sides.

On the subject of soul, I think this is only mentioned in the Mahayana tradition.

Nirvana is thought of as a universal soul into which the enlightened become absorbed.

The Buddha remained silent on this aspect, so theoretically they could be correct!

Personal experience will tell.

Having said that, although everyone agrees that I, ego, self, mind, body & thoughts are all impermanent & conditioned and that there is no one inside in control, there is some agreement that there must be something associated with each of us which has been referred to in the past as your ultimate reality.

Without that, what is the point, particularly as when the I, ego, self, mind, body & thoughts die it's all over for you.

Like with your other contribution - referring to the Mahayana - I can agree with many things you write.

However one of the things I certainly do not agree with is the dead of the I

To die is a physical phenomenon, in general only humans realy die, plants and animals only die when they are extinct as a specimen from earth existence.

The I cannot die since it is not physical but completely spiritual.

The I transforms - by the connection to the material life with a Self living in a physical body on earth - , but not dies.

You cannot be sure what you write about the dead of the I becos it is not your experience, it is also not my experience yet since my I is still there as an experince all the time working in my Self.

I have no problems when we disagree about this. People can have different opinions and concepts about their experiences.

[christiaan]

It might be possible to made things more clear by this way, but to some people this might be too long.

Yes

So for you I will shorten my contribution and limit it to one of the things you were writing about to show the difference in thinking and so writing.

Cold and heat also are - in the first place - experiences, the fact that a Thai defines and handles cold different as a Westerner does not change this experience.

The used definitions and descriptions of cold and heat are thoughts in the mind of humans, nobody would mistake the experience of cold and heat in an actual experience and clear observing. Nobody would walk out of his house in swimming clothes when its freezing outside, nobody would put on a thick fur coat to have holliday in Thailand.

The unit of measure on a thermometer is the manifestation of the conceptual thought about measurement of humans, but it does not change ,nor has any influence on the actual happening and experience of the movement of the mercury in the mercurythermometer

The thermometer itself is just the human expression of an attempt to contain the reality of a phenomenon, in this case the phenomenon of temperature variation.

Your way of thinking is an atempt to mak an abstraction of reality.

Concepts are not the main contributors to awareness and are not the right filters but thinking, logical thinking is.

This logical thinking is inner activity of an impermanent individual self living on an imparmenent earth in an impermanent physical body.

Making an abstraction of the reality by Buddhism is an interpretation of the teachings of Buddha.

Short enough?

[rockyysdt]

However one of the things I certainly do not agree with is the dead of the I

To die is a physical phenomenon, in general only humans realy die, plants and animals only die when they are extinct as a specimen from earth existence.

The I cannot die since it is not physical but completely spiritual.

The I transforms - by the connection to the material life with a Self living in a physical body on earth - , but not dies.

You cannot be sure what you write about the dead of the I becos it is not your experience, it is also not my experience yet since my I is still there as an experince all the time working in my Self.

I have no problems when we disagree about this. People can have different opinions and concepts about their experiences.

The ego, I, & mind will die.

Believing our ego is immortal is pandering to our ego.

Our ego desires immortality.

However I did say there is an ultimate reality.

Non of us knows what it is as we do not have personal experience of it.

What ultimate reality is and our association with it can only be discovered through enlightenment.

We know these things due to the Buddhas teachings (dhamma).

Can I ask?

What is the source of your knowledge of the existence of soul, and/or that your "l" is immortal?

Is it Buddhist or other?

[lungmi]

What logical thinking do you mean? Aristotle? Newton mechanics? Nagarjuna? TheTaoist tetra-lemme?Logic of the Theory of Relativity, of Quantum physics? Ch'an (Zen) logic? Trivalent logic of Ockham? Polyvalent logic of Lukasiewicz?

Nils Bohr admitted that his model of atomic system not fits with physics, but with chemistry and sometimes with biology. He created the logic of complementarity. Every model to explain the world is a pragmatic limited one. You can use it

inside this limits successfully, but you have to know the limits. The psychoanalysis of Freud works in an limited zone, but not for Inuits or Aborigines. The ethno- psychoanalysis of Geore Devereux took the basic structures of the psychoanalysis

and adapted them to the ethnic and cultural factors he met : the principle of complementarity .

[lungmi]

However one of the things I certainly do not agree with is the dead of the I

To die is a physical phenomenon, in general only humans realy die, plants and animals only die when they are extinct as a specimen from earth existence.

The I cannot die since it is not physical but completely spiritual.

The I transforms - by the connection to the material life with a Self living in a physical body on earth - , but not dies.

You cannot be sure what you write about the dead of the I becos it is not your experience, it is also not my experience yet since my I is still there as an experince all the time working in my Self.

I have no problems when we disagree about this. People can have different opinions and concepts about their experiences.

The ego, I, & mind will die.

Believing our ego is immortal is pandering to our ego.

Our ego desires immortality.

However I did say there is an ultimate reality.

Non of us knows what it is as we do not have personal experience of it.

What ultimate reality is and our association with it can only be discovered through enlightenment.

We know these things due to the Buddhas teachings (dhamma).

Can I ask?

What is the source of your knowledge of the existence of soul, and/or that your "l" is immortal?

Is it Buddhist or other?

It's Hinduism, the metaphysical believe of rebirth in this or that way. All the discussions about "next" life and rebirth the Buddha put on her place: Secondary, not important, no relevance for the " you, here, now and your dhammic duty. Don't struggle for your rebirth as Bhoddhisattva, Arahant , Brahman, millionaire or whatever.

Buddhadasa Bhikku rejected them strictly, Tan Dhammapitaka (P.A.Payutto) classified them as unnecessary. ( www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/good_evil_beyond.pdf - ).

[christiaan]

However one of the things I certainly do not agree with is the dead of the I

To die is a physical phenomenon, in general only humans realy die, plants and animals only die when they are extinct as a specimen from earth existence.

The I cannot die since it is not physical but completely spiritual.

The I transforms - by the connection to the material life with a Self living in a physical body on earth - , but not dies.

You cannot be sure what you write about the dead of the I becos it is not your experience, it is also not my experience yet since my I is still there as an experince all the time working in my Self.

I have no problems when we disagree about this. People can have different opinions and concepts about their experiences.

The ego, I, & mind will die.

Believing our ego is immortal is pandering to our ego.

Our ego desires immortality.

However I did say there is an ultimate reality.

Non of us knows what it is as we do not have personal experience of it.

What ultimate reality is and our association with it can only be discovered through enlightenment.

We know these things due to the Buddhas teachings (dhamma).

Can I ask?

What is the source of your knowledge of the existence of soul, and/or that your "l" is immortal?

Is it Buddhist or other?

Thanks for your answer Rocky,

When you consider the I to be the same as the ego you are right.

But the I is not your ego.

Your I is your permanent transcending completely spiritual essence that tells you : ' to look for the truth '

The mind is an abstraction, it is a concept about our thinking.

Your soul , the mediator living in your body, is a 'tool' to make it possible this spiritual essence can work in your soul.

Your I is transparent living awareness.

Awareness cannot die.

I know what I know by experience and by thinking about my experiences and by thinking about my thinking.

Ofcourse I do not know this without practice and study for the last 30 years.

So experience, practice, study and thinking about my thinking are the sources of my knowledge.

I am studying anthroposophy for 30 years now and this inspires me to study all other philosophies, in fact all other thinking in the world.

Anthroposophy encourages to study all phenomenons in the world and to become aware of the living spiritual idea working in them.

When one learns to know anthroposophy one will not have a hard time to find writings about Buddhism and one will be impressed when discovering the practice of meditiation as described in anthroposophy.

Buddhism as I meet in general, also on this forum, is not very impressive to me.

It is just a shadow of what Buddhism probably ever has been.

Maybe Buddhism is atractive to many westerners since it offers great potential for abstracting reality.

And abstracting the reality, the experience of life, has become more and more a western way of thinking, a kind of new 'religion'.

Any idea how many children nowadays do not like to drink ' milk from cows but only from the milkfactory ' just to name one of the thousand examples how modern people are loosing the connection to actual experience.

Anthroposophy is - not yet - a religion (allthough for some people it is already and they will probably corrupt this like Buddhism and other human experience has been corrupted )

To me it is not a set of rules, or " the teachings of Rudolf Steiner" but it is the inspriration to free thinking, enhancing individual spiritual experiences and personal transformation.

When one would think I compare Buddhism with antroposophy, or that I try or tried to 'push' some kind of other 'religion' in this forum I can only tell they are not aware of the importance of Buddhism out of the view of anthroposophy.

One probably can be an anthroposophist and a Buddhist at the same time.

But to understand this one first has to study.

I close my contribution at this point.

Thanks for the interesting dialogues, I am sure we all learned.

[Brucenkhamen]

As Buddhists shouldn't we refrain from making assumptions?

Most of us operate with filters which color experience and interpretation.

I'm not aware of that precept.

Of course we have to make assumptions every day, I assume the car that is supposed to give way will do so, I assume if I turn up for work the boss will pay me, I assume if I continue to practice I will continue to get the results I got before.

The important thing I think is not to get attached to the assumptions as if they were fact, to realise they are just a hypothesis based on limited information and are subject to change like anything else.

The filters which color experience and interpretation are one aspect of conceptual reality. Once we realise those filters are not my self then we have the objectivity not to buy into them.

With Christiaan, language barrier and interpretation is a large contributor to most of the disagreement on both sides.

It makes it hard work, but I'm not convinced it's the main problem. I think most of us on Thaivisa regularly deal with people with English skills far less advanced than Christaans.

On the subject of soul, I think this is only mentioned in the Mahayana tradition.

Nirvana is thought of as a universal soul into which the enlightened become absorbed.

The Buddha remained silent on this aspect, so theoretically they could be correct!

Personal experience will tell.

Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone presenting this view as it's origin is a school of Buddhism. While the idea of a universal soul is closet theism I think it does have a similar affect by subordinating what we habitually consider to be my "self" to something much bigger.

Without that, what is the point, particularly as when the I, ego, self, mind, body & thoughts die it's all over for you.

That would be an assumption.

Whether or not this is the case the point is moot as the practice is to view all experience in terms of it being not self, as was mentioned before this is a major tenet of Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

Cold and heat also are - in the first place - experiences, the fact that a Thai defines and handles cold different as a Westerner does not change this experience.

You are correct, that's why we separate the subjective experience of the Thai and the Westerner (and call this conceptual or relative reality) from the actual reality of hot/cold.

Your way of thinking is an atempt to mak an abstraction of reality.

How so? How is separating the abstraction from the reality and expressing a distrust of the abstraction an attempt to make an abstraction?

Concepts are not the main contributors to awareness and are not the right filters but thinking, logical thinking is.

Thinking, whether logical or no, is based on concepts so by definition is a conceptual reality.

True awareness is direct experience without adding any concepts or thinking to it.

[Brucenkhamen]

However I did say there is an ultimate reality.

Non of us knows what it is as we do not have personal experience of it.

What ultimate reality is and our association with it can only be discovered through enlightenment.

We know these things due to the Buddhas teachings (dhamma).

Actually that's not the definition of ultimate reality that I'm talking about. My take on it is we experience ultimate reality every day all of the time except we do so through the filters of concepts. To a certain extent the concepts are necessary but the problem is we take them for real. So the path to enlightenment is among other things learning to discard concepts that aren't needed and learning to see objectively and clearly those that are.

The concept of self is just one of those.

[rockyysdt]

However I did say there is an ultimate reality.

Non of us knows what it is as we do not have personal experience of it.

What ultimate reality is and our association with it can only be discovered through enlightenment.

We know these things due to the Buddhas teachings (dhamma).

Actually that's not the definition of ultimate reality that I'm talking about. My take on it is we experience ultimate reality every day all of the time except we do so through the filters of concepts. To a certain extent the concepts are necessary but the problem is we take them for real. So the path to enlightenment is among other things learning to discard concepts that aren't needed and learning to see objectively and clearly those that are.

The concept of self is just one of those.

Ultimate reality was the closest expression I could use to describe a contentious situation.

Had I said "higher self", then I'm treading on egg shells, as we all agreed that l, ego, mind, & self are conditioned and impermanent, there is nothing inside which is in control, and there is no soul.

But this raises a problem.

If the above is true, then "what" becomes enlightened?

Also what is special about the l, ego, mind, & self, which is associated with enlightenment, compared to the other l, egos, minds, & selves, which failed?

If our l, ego, mind, & self fail to become enlightened what concern is it to us, if this results in endless rebirths occurring which will involve other l, egos, minds, & selves.

Khammic fruit will no doubt result in much future suffering, but how does this concern us as we will have ended?

One could say that we do it to become enlightened but for each enlightenment millions of l, egos, minds, & selves won't even get near.

Unless of course there is something associated with l, ego, mind, & self, which I referred to as ultimate reality.

I'm open to thoughts.

Edited December 17, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

As Buddhists shouldn't we refrain from making assumptions?

Most of us operate with filters which color experience and interpretation.

I'm not aware of that precept.

Of course we have to make assumptions every day, I assume the car that is supposed to give way will do so, I assume if I turn up for work the boss will pay me, I assume if I continue to practice I will continue to get the results I got before.

The important thing I think is not to get attached to the assumptions as if they were fact, to realise they are just a hypothesis based on limited information and are subject to change like anything else.

The filters which color experience and interpretation are one aspect of conceptual reality. Once we realise those filters are not my self then we have the objectivity not to buy into them.

Put that one down to inarticulate expression.

Never meant for it to have been interpreted as quoting a precept.

More as an example of AyJay's filter coloring his interpretation of Christiaan's intentions.

We practice mindfulness and awareness so we can eventually recognize and avoid filtering reality

Edited December 17, 2010 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

you clarify my thoughts better than i can. thanks[

[AYJAYDEE]

if the people trying to practice buddhism that come to this site are not very impressive to you, why do you come here? to ridicule? to tease? to instruct? to convert? to show off?to learn from less than impressive people?

[rockyysdt]

you clarify my thoughts better than i can. thanks[

I was guilty of the same thing myself, several times today.

My speech was far too quick for my mindfulness to catch.

I hope you don't take my posts in a personal way, but in the spirit of Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm open to thoughts.

You're not the first to ask these questions and won't be the last.

To my mind the point of the Buddhas teaching is that what we habitually believe to be my "self" is the major attachment in our lives, it raises barriers between us and others, it causes much suffering. So the practice is to gain freedom from that attachment, this is the point of the Buddhas teaching of anatta.

I'm not certain that there isn't some kernel of essence in each of us, but I am certain that if there is what we habitually believe to be my "self" is not it.

For me the freedom I've gained from loosening that attachment is reward enough, I'm unconcerned what may or may not happen after my death and if I were that would be just another attachment. Though I can't help thinking that if the next life doesn't remember this life, as is the norm, then my story has ended so and I wonder what's left to pass over.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[AYJAYDEE]

pure undifferentiated energy?

I'm open to thoughts.

You're not the first to ask these questions and won't be the last.

To my mind the point of the Buddhas teaching is that what we habitually believe to be my "self" is the major attachment in our lives, it raises barriers between us and others, it causes much suffering. So the practice is to gain freedom from that attachment, this is the point of the Buddhas teaching of anatta.

I'm not certain that there isn't some kernel of essence in each of us, but I am certain that if there is what we habitually believe to be my "self" is not it.

For me the freedom I've gained from loosening that attachment is reward enough, I'm unconcerned what may or may not happen after my death and if I were that would be just another attachment. Though I can't help thinking that if the next life doesn't remember this life, as is the norm, then my story has ended so and I wonder what's left to pass over.

[AYJAYDEE]

im here to learn. thanks for your input. and im grateful to bruce for his ability to put MY thoughts in his words!! LOL

you clarify my thoughts better than i can. thanks[

I was guilty of the same thing myself, several times today.

My speech was far too quick for my mindfulness to catch.

I hope you don't take my posts in a personal way, but in the spirit of Buddhism.

[rockyysdt]

To my mind the point of the Buddhas teaching is that what we habitually believe to be my "self" is the major attachment in our lives, it raises barriers between us and others, it causes much suffering. So the practice is to gain freedom from that attachment, this is the point of the Buddhas teaching of anatta.

Agreed.

There's much to gain from the practice of mindfulness & meditation.

I'm not certain that there isn't some kernel of essence in each of us, but I am certain that if there is what we habitually believe to be my "self" is not it.

This the stumbling block which most seem to skirt around.

If there is such an essence then our need to label opens up reference to such things as soul again.

Perhaps it's our inability to describe this essence correctly but soul appears convenient.

To be associated with many re births, and take part in enlightenment (Nirvana) such an essence must has have an element of permanence and unconditionality.

This opens up the speculation of soul.

Without such an essence, a traveler can hedge their bets.

Either take the path of abstinence (ultimately 227 precepts) in search of a better outcome or live it up while they can, knowing in each case death is the end.

Or they can discard Buddhism (eight fold path) but utilise some of its teaching such as mindfulness and meditation in order to enhance their lives.

For me the freedom I've gained from loosening that attachment is reward enough, I'm unconcerned what may or may not happen after my death and if I were that would be just another attachment. Though I can't help thinking that if the next life doesn't remember this life, as is the norm, then my story has ended so and I wonder what's left to pass over.

Is it too personal to ask you to share some of the personal freedoms you've gained?

How much effort (time) was required?

Edited December 18, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

This the stumbling block which most seem to skirt around.

If there is such an essence then our need to label opens up reference to such things as soul again.

Perhaps it's our inability to describe this essence correctly but soul appears convenient.

To be associated with many re births, and take part in enlightenment (Nirvana) such an essence must has have an element of permanence and unconditionality.

This opens up the speculation of soul.

Without such an essence, a traveler can hedge their bets.

Either take the path of abstinence (ultimately 227 precepts) in search of a better outcome or live it up while they can, knowing in each case death is the end.

Or they can discard Buddhism (eight fold path) but utilise some of its teaching such as mindfulness and meditation in order to enhance their lives.

Further this situation makes cessation of re birth confusing.

The Buddha indicated cessation of re birth leads to end of suffering.

If there is no kernel of essence, then cessation of re birth would appear to lead to permanent death or non existence.

There is no suffering when there is no existence.

On the other hand cessation of re birth may lead to awareness of the kernel of essence (enlightenment) which then rejoins the pool of essences (Nirvana as Mahayana teaches).

I can see the logic in Mahayana belief.

In Theravada, the Buddha said: "Don't worry about this (anything beyond the non enduring self), just follow these steps and you will become enlightened".

In Mahayana, its authors fleshed out what the hidden or unhelpful bits might be.

Which ever way you look at it, it opens the notion of soul for want of a better expression.

Without a kernel of essence, you are just an impermanent vehicle for the enlightenment of ??

Having said all of this the Buddha taught both, the need for some faith, and the importance of questioning.

Edited December 18, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

This the stumbling block which most seem to skirt around.

If there is such an essence then our need to label opens up reference to such things as soul again.

Perhaps it's our inability to describe this essence correctly but soul appears convenient.

To be associated with many re births, and take part in enlightenment (Nirvana) such an essence must has have an element of permanence and unconditionality.

This opens up the speculation of soul.

I think it's only a stumbling block when we limit our perspective to that of our conceptual/relative understanding which is rooted in understanding things in terms of I, me, mine, you, and yours etc.

The most common interpretation I've heard is that it's actually kamma that gets reborn, not a soul getting slipped out of one body and popped into another. This is perfectly compatible with the teaching of not self, and also makes more sense than assuming a soul gets a memory wipe before being sent on it's way. It's also compatible with the the teaching of dependant origination a very important teaching being the impersonal process of cause and affect in that kamma has an energy of it's own that keeps on going even after the body has died.

The way I see it the teaching on kamma and rebirth were probably a given in Indian culture at the Buddhas time, whereas his teachings on not self and on dependant origination are unique to his teaching and very important.

When teaching dependant origination as an impersonal process of cause and affect I think the Buddha would likely have faced a lot of resistance so I think being a pragmatist he would have used what was also deeply ingrained in the culture, ie kamma and rebirth, to help him explain how dependant origination works.

So if there is any contradiction, and I'm not sure there is, I'd be inclined to ditch anything that is less likely to be a unique teaching of the Buddha.

Is it too personal to ask you to share some of the personal freedoms you've gained?

How much effort (time) was required?

For me my life before Buddhist practice there was a lot of judging myself, comparing with others, seeing myself as unsuccessful, but that was just on the surface. As I began Buddhist practice I realised how much attention and energy was used up maintaining the idea of self, protecting it, trying to define and it project it to others in a better light. It was a huge relief to be able to let go of that, on a coarse level it happened almost overnight but the following 15 years has been about dealing with it on more subtle levels, like peeling layers of an onion. Self view I think is the last delusion to be eradicated before enlightenment is achieved.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[AYJAYDEE]

Without a kernel of essence, you are just an impermanent vehicle for the enlightenment of ??

this may be one of those instances where the buddha said, 'your question goes beyond you". perhaps we are not equipped to see the answer to this question UNTIL we are enlightened. in the meantime, we all can get great benefit from the path without worrying about the end game. like bruce, i have found great comfort in unshackling myself (somewhat) from the constant comparisons etc that ego consciousness demands. so i will be content with what benefits i am getting and anything else will be a bonus.

This the stumbling block which most seem to skirt around.

If there is such an essence then our need to label opens up reference to such things as soul again.

Perhaps it's our inability to describe this essence correctly but soul appears convenient.

To be associated with many re births, and take part in enlightenment (Nirvana) such an essence must has have an element of permanence and unconditionality.

This opens up the speculation of soul.

Without such an essence, a traveler can hedge their bets.

Either take the path of abstinence (ultimately 227 precepts) in search of a better outcome or live it up while they can, knowing in each case death is the end.

Or they can discard Buddhism (eight fold path) but utilise some of its teaching such as mindfulness and meditation in order to enhance their lives.

Further this situation makes cessation of re birth confusing.

The Buddha indicated cessation of re birth leads to end of suffering.

If there is no kernel of essence, then cessation of re birth would appear to lead to permanent death or non existence.

There is no suffering when there is no existence.

On the other hand cessation of re birth may lead to awareness of the kernel of essence (enlightenment) which then rejoins the pool of essences (Nirvana as Mahayana teaches).

I can see the logic in Mahayana belief.

In Theravada, the Buddha said: "Don't worry about this (anything beyond the non enduring self), just follow these steps and you will become enlightened".

In Mahayana, its authors fleshed out what the hidden or unhelpful bits might be.

Which ever way you look at it, it opens the notion of soul for want of a better expression.

Without a kernel of essence, you are just an impermanent vehicle for the enlightenment of ??

Having said all of this the Buddha taught both, the need for some faith, and the importance of questioning.

[rockyysdt]

This the stumbling block which most seem to skirt around.

If there is such an essence then our need to label opens up reference to such things as soul again.

Perhaps it's our inability to describe this essence correctly but soul appears convenient.

To be associated with many re births, and take part in enlightenment (Nirvana) such an essence must has have an element of permanence and unconditionality.

This opens up the speculation of soul.

I think it's only a stumbling block when we limit our perspective to that of our conceptual/relative understanding which is rooted in understanding things in terms of I, me, mine, you, and yours etc.

The most common interpretation I've heard is that it's actually kamma that gets reborn, not a soul getting slipped out of one body and popped into another. This is perfectly compatible with the teaching of not self, and also makes more sense than assuming a soul gets a memory wipe before being sent on it's way. It's also compatible with the the teaching of dependant origination a very important teaching being the impersonal process of cause and affect in that kamma has an energy of it's own that keeps on going even after the body has died.

The way I see it the teaching on kamma and rebirth were probably a given in Indian culture at the Buddhas time, whereas his teachings on not self and on dependant origination are unique to his teaching and very important.

When teaching dependant origination as an impersonal process of cause and affect I think the Buddha would likely have faced a lot of resistance so I think being a pragmatist he would have used what was also deeply ingrained in the culture, ie kamma and rebirth, to help him explain how dependant origination works.

So if there is any contradiction, and I'm not sure there is, I'd be inclined to ditch anything that is less likely to be a unique teaching of the Buddha.

I'm aware that one of my attachments is that I can be determined and single minded about subjects of interest.

It's part of my need to know and to be content that my path is correct.

The Buddha did not want people to accept his word as fact but to make their own enquries and pursue self experience.

The Buddha is quoted as looking back over his previous lives only to stop due to the endless procession.

Whether khamma is the force which generates re birth or not, there is either a kernel of essence linking these lives or there is nothing other than the khammic force.

If there is nothing linking these lives, then each is independent to the others mind, memory, experience, ego, self, l, & body and in practical terms strangers.

I suppose my question remains unanswered.

Is there a kernel of essence which links each re birth and is present upon reincarnation, or what becomes enlightened?

Is the mind, memory, experience, ego, self, l, & body associated with enlightenment, the one that hits the jackpot and is elevated or was there something associated with every re birth?

Something which is permanent & unconditioned.

The end of suffering by extinguishing re birth becomes irrelevant to us as must continue to live our lives subject to khammic fruit.

Isn't the cessation of life associated with the next re birth which is saved from suffering not you, and further as that life will never live, isn't it preferable to live with some suffering than to have never existed?

[rockyysdt]

Without a kernel of essence, you are just an impermanent vehicle for the enlightenment of ??

this may be one of those instances where the buddha said, 'your question goes beyond you". perhaps we are not equipped to see the answer to this question UNTIL we are enlightened. in the meantime, we all can get great benefit from the path without worrying about the end game. like bruce, i have found great comfort in unshackling myself (somewhat) from the constant comparisons etc that ego consciousness demands. so i will be content with what benefits i am getting and anything else will be a bonus.

You're are probably right AyJay.

I don't think anyone can answer these questions without enlightenment.

I must say l also take great comfort in the benefits to daily life.

However regarding my questions, the Buddha did reveal many things.

As he himself would have wanted, their logic should be scrutinized as following a philosophy for life which turns out to be false can be a great tragedy to ones life.

Many follow Christianity which also offers many benefits.

Followers are encouraged to live charitable, loving, and moral lives.

However science has exposed the validity of its testaments.

Buddhism also has benefits, but if its overall philosophy turns out to be false, then many, living their lives withdrawing from the pleasures of the senses might be wasting their lives.

The only way any of us will know is through life long devotion to practice at the end of which it might be too late to reconsider.

Edited December 18, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm aware that one of my attachments is that I can be determined and single minded about subjects of interest.

It's part of my need to know and to be content that my path is correct.

It's good to be aware of that, then you'll have the opportunity to observe and better determine when it's skilful and when it's not.

Isn't the cessation of life associated with the next re birth which is saved from suffering not you, and further as that life will never live, isn't it preferable to live with some suffering than to have never existed?

I think it's the delusion of self that ceases to exist, I don't think that necessarily means that one never existed. A tree doesn't think it's a self, a mountain doesn't think it's a self, at least I assume they don't, but nobody would suggest that that means they don't exist.

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism also has benefits, but if its overall philosophy turns out to be false, then many, living their lives withdrawing from the pleasures of the senses might be wasting their lives.

The only way any of us will know is through life long devotion to practice at the end of which it might be too late to reconsider.

I think you are assuming one must either accept the whole philosophy hook line and sinker, or reject the whole philosophy, I think that's only really necessary with evangelical religions. I don't think Buddhism is a set of doctrines to be believed or rejected.

Yes it's possible that one could wake up one day and feel he has wasted his life, the same could be true if someone spent 40 years doing a 9 to 5 job for the post office.

I think in Buddhism we are encouraged to embrace the uncertainties in life, this goes for both uncertainty over whether I'll die tomorrow, as well as uncertainties over the unverifiable aspects of the teachings.

It's up to you to determine if time spent in practice is worthwhile, if there's something else that you find more meaningful then do that instead.

[AYJAYDEE]

buddhadassa bhikkhu sad we can enjoy all the pleasures of life as long as they dont harm us or others as long as we dont cling to them. its the clinging that causes problems, not the pleasures.

I'm aware that one of my attachments is that I can be determined and single minded about subjects of interest.

It's part of my need to know and to be content that my path is correct.

It's good to be aware of that, then you'll have the opportunity to observe and better determine when it's skilful and when it's not.

Isn't the cessation of life associated with the next re birth which is saved from suffering not you, and further as that life will never live, isn't it preferable to live with some suffering than to have never existed?

I think it's the delusion of self that ceases to exist, I don't think that necessarily means that one never existed. A tree doesn't think it's a self, a mountain doesn't think it's a self, at least I assume they don't, but nobody would suggest that that means they don't exist.

[Xangsamhua]

buddhadassa bhikkhu sad we can enjoy all the pleasures of life as long as they dont harm us or others as long as we dont cling to them. its the clinging that causes problems, not the pleasures.'

As long as in doing so you acknowledge that you are mentally defective, according to Phra Buddhadassa.

From Keys to Natural Truth (1999), a collection of his Dhamma talks:

No sane person would get ever up and dance! It has been calculated that a person has to be at least 15% mad in order to overcome his sense of shame to get up and dance. (p. 52) (I'm inclined to agree, but my wife would kill me if I said so.)

Laughter is the behaviour of the infant in his cradle... Think of an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and grinning at you." (p. 51)

Singing ... is like someone weeping.... A real song ... is a paean of joy at having seen the Dhamma.

Re marriage: Two people with correct wants and needs are united as one. Physical contact between them is unnecessary, though there may be other forms of contact, such as letter writing. (p. 48)

So next time your partner gets that look in her/his eye, offer to write him/her a letter!

To 'play' is to rejoice in the Dhamma. (p. 46)

[lungmi]

buddhadassa bhikkhu sad we can enjoy all the pleasures of life as long as they dont harm us or others as long as we dont cling to them. its the clinging that causes problems, not the pleasures.'

As long as in doing so you acknowledge that you are mentally defective, according to Phra Buddhadassa.

From Keys to Natural Truth (1999), a collection of his Dhamma talks:

No sane person would get ever up and dance! It has been calculated that a person has to be at least 15% mad in order to overcome his sense of shame to get up and dance. (p. 52) (I'm inclined to agree, but my wife would kill me if I said so.)

Laughter is the behaviour of the infant in his cradle... Think of an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and grinning at you." (p. 51)

Singing ... is like someone weeping.... A real song ... is a paean of joy at having seen the Dhamma.

Re marriage: Two people with correct wants and needs are united as one. Physical contact between them is unnecessary, though there may be other forms of contact, such as letter writing. (p. 48)

So next time your partner gets that look in her/his eye, offer to write him/her a letter!

To 'play' is to rejoice in the Dhamma. (p. 46)

The is no antagonism! The teaching of Tan Buddhadasa is ambivalent. Everyone can check the meaning by himself. For the straight way to awakening - and/or joy of life in a clean way. I don't see the problem.

Tan Buddhadasa supported dhammic art (music, chanting, body work /dancing/ tai ch'i, handicraft, painting)