Mindfulness Without Religion

[autonomous_unit]

Thought I'd try to write down a recurring question that popped to mind again while working out today... this is perhaps aimed at what you might call "pragmatic Buddhists", i.e. people interested in some aspects of Buddhism without believing its more mystical tenets. My rambling disclaimer and explanation follows, ending with the question.

I have not had any Buddhist teachers. However, from what I have read over the years, I think that at a young age, I taught myself something like the "mindful meditation" (as also described in some other threads in this forum). However, I do not believe in souls nor mystical connections nor other dualist philosophies. I think we live and die and that is that...

For me, this means that I find the mindfulness to be a bit of a hollow victory, or almost a guilty pleasure. At the least, eliminating attachment and focusing on the "unself" of our existence means that we are distancing ourselves from all the emotional people around us---have you ever been a passive participant in an argument, i.e. someone is trying to force you to "choose sides" in what seems a false dichotomy? At the worst, it could even mean we start absolving ourselves of personal responsibility. When everything is looked at from the outside, a certain level of ambivalence can emerge. Why bother to act at all, when you find yourself not having preferences? I could imagine someone going too far with this mindfulness and becoming nearly catatonic... interested in everything, but motivated in nothing!

So, from my practical viewpoint, it seems like mindfulness is something that might be a useful tool but which must be practiced in moderation. Otherwise, it interferes with the realities of life as a human among other humans. We need to be emotionally attached to others, and to have desires and urges to motivate productive action, e.g. to feed and protect our familes. I cannot really see the difference between complete mindfulness (detachment, lack of self, observing our thoughts from the outside) and detachment through drug use or other socially unacceptable avenues.

Does one have to believe the notions like reincarnation, karma, and enlightenment for mindfulness to seem like a wholly positive thing? Or, am I missing some other point about how Buddhists moderate these behaviors to remain healthy humans? It seems like a nuanced distinction between mindfulness, fatalism, and nihilism... but maybe that is another topic for another time...

[chownah]

I'm not sure that your idea of mindfulness is the same as the Buddha's ideas about it.

I'm not sure if your idea of detachment is the same as the Buddha's ideas about it.

It is very possible that someone can experience some ideas that are very similar to the ideas that the Buddha taught....but at the same time the ideas experienced are not the same and will take you in another direction entirely...perhaps a bad direction or one that does not lead to the goal of the Buddha's teachings i.e. the end of Dukkha (Dukkha=suffering, stress, discomfort, pain, angst, unsatisfactoryness, etc.).

It is likely that someone who is immersed in the world of everyday existence would look at where the Dhamma (The Path) leads and reject it. One of the most famous monks in Thailand named Luangtha Maha Boowah has flatly stated that the path is not what most people are looking for.

One does not need to believe in any of those things you have listed to believe that mindfulness is wholly a postitive thing.

My understanding of the Buddha's teachings is that he was teaching at least a total transformation of the thought process....this does not lend itself to maintaining your existing sense of social connectedness....perhaps this is why your understanding of mindfulness is disconcerting.

I am writing from a Theravada Buddhist bias so other types of Buddhists might disagree with what I've posted. You mentioned that you have read some about Buddhism. What types of stuff have you read and do you know what type of Buddhism it represented?

Chownah

[autonomous_unit]

...

My understanding of the Buddha's teachings is that he was teaching at least a total transformation of the thought process....this does not lend itself to maintaining your existing sense of social connectedness....perhaps this is why your understanding of mindfulness is disconcerting.

I am writing from a Theravada Buddhist bias so other types of Buddhists might disagree with what I've posted. You mentioned that you have read some about Buddhism. What types of stuff have you read and do you know what type of Buddhism it represented?

Chownah

Yes, I am not sure my ideas are the same thing either... To answer your question, I am not sure I can distinguish the forms of Buddhism prevalent around S.E.A., certainly not at an academic level, and in some ways I guess my personal philosophy has more in common with Zen ideas than what little I know of the Thai-style Buddhism. I've also read a bit here and there on different goals and methods of meditation, and also some more scientific views on the physiology of meditation. To be honest, I get turned off with so many writings that start to delve into spiritual stuff. So I probably browse around too much without digging in. I want to read about it in the manner of modern, western philosophical writing... delineated in terms of mind, perception, logic, epistemology, etc.

What I mean by mindfulness is a sort of heightened self-awareness, where you can clearly see the causal relationships of your own thoughts and the environment, and objectively watch the sea-changes of your own emotions. The "unself" part of this reflection is in seeing how easily one can adjust the boundaries of identity, deciding what is a core belief or experience and what is transient cause-and-effect with little import. The detachment I speak of is drawing in these boundaries until your self is miniscule observer of all other thoughts and emotions that, of course, are also part of your (larger) self; having been detached, the exact states don't really matter to you so much. You can easily guide, manipulate, and override your own responses without feeling any threatened or real loss of self.

It is a very relaxing and almost blissful experience. My discomfort is on reflecting later from my western ethical viewpoint. It seems like escapism. I can just decide to be contented, and then be so. It sounds so lazy.

That's probably enough for one night, but what you said above that I kept quoted also rings true in my mind. One of my gut feelings about all of this is that to pursue a line of mental transformation is to make oneself alien in his community. Eventually your changes in mental response will emerge as behavioral changes, right? If you have to then focus more on controlling your behavior to blend in, what have you really gained? What a psychological catch-22...

[bina]

interesting ....

this may mean u have a 'jai yen' personality already i.e. u are aware of your anger etc etc and know the source etc...

however, i find that my friends etc find 'detachment' a 'bad' quality as in not getting emotionally involved since expressing emotions and related actions/feeling is a western (or at least my areas of the western world) is thought to be a positive thing

detatchment NOT as avoidance but as being aware of where your thoughts and actions and reactions are coming from does mean that often u dont take sides or get tangled in other lives but deal with your own, alone.

but u arent manipulating or guiding your emotions, u are pondering them and are aware that they are not permanent, and well, maybe better let chowna direct u to more coherent explanations..... just that there is a difference between avoidance of emotion (drugs, etc) and awareness of the causes and affects of the emotions

[camerata]

Does one have to believe the notions like reincarnation, karma, and enlightenment for mindfulness to seem like a wholly positive thing? Or, am I missing some other point about how Buddhists moderate these behaviors to remain healthy humans? It seems like a nuanced distinction between mindfulness, fatalism, and nihilism... but maybe that is another topic for another time...

My understanding is that to follow the Buddha’s teachings we have to have Right View, which is a three-step process. The first step is to accept what we can verify for ourselves - that following his advice leads to a better mental state and situation in this life. The resulting confidence and practice of meditation leads to the second step, an understanding of how kamma works over multiple rebirths. I don’t think it matters whether you believe those rebirths take place in your current physical existence (as per Phra Buddhadasa’s teaching) or not. The third step is the ultimate proof of nibbana.

I don’t think one has to "believe" in rebirth or kamma at the outset, although personally I don’t see how one could be a Buddhist and not believe in nibbana. Nibbana is only a mystery because we can’t know it without experiencing it directly, but it’s entirely rational that negation of the self with strict training would lead to such a state. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu says, you just have to take kamma and rebirth as a working hypothesis to be proved by experiment.

As I understand it, the gradual diminishing of ego results in a corresponding increase in compassion. So instead of becoming disinterested in our fellow humans, we increasingly want to serve them – in the case of monks, usually by teaching (As I recall, it was either Aj Sumedho or Aj Chah who said this). I think this is why in some developed countries – Japan comes to mind – there are strong lay Buddhist organizations.

If we take Right Livelihood seriously, doing productive work or activities isn’t a problem. And as Aj Chah said, every situation – especially those that cause suffering – is an opportunity to see Dhamma and to learn.

[camerata]

One of my gut feelings about all of this is that to pursue a line of mental transformation is to make oneself alien in his community. Eventually your changes in mental response will emerge as behavioral changes, right? If you have to then focus more on controlling your behavior to blend in, what have you really gained? What a psychological catch-22...

I don’t think becoming a less ego-driven personality is going to make you an alien in the community. After all, the selfless people in society (think Mother Teresa) are the ones we look up to. So I don’t see any need to adjust your behaviour to fit in. If you’re doing a job that is highly competitive and entails going against the Buddha’s teaching, you’d be better off getting another job.

I was impressed when I read the life of the Buddha as told by Thich Nhat Hanh. The Buddha could have just quietly enjoyed his nibbana for the rest of his life, but instead he decided to help others. And what a hassle that was! All kinds of factional disputes, kings to be kept happy, monks committing suicide, monks out of control, attempts on his life, and difficult decisions to be made, such as whether to allow women into the Sangha when society wouldn’t approve of it. The Buddha certainly didn’t detach himself from life.

There’s a good reason to embrace all of the teachings rather than just one aspect of them, such as meditation – you get an overall framework for living. In my experience, one can accept all the basic teachings and still be a pragmatic/rational Buddhist.

[chownah]

Autonomous_unit,\

You wrote:

I've also read a bit here and there on different goals and methods of meditation, and also some more scientific views on the physiology of meditation. To be honest, I get turned off with so many writings that start to delve into spiritual stuff. So I probably browse around too much without digging in. I want to read about it in the manner of modern, western philosophical writing... delineated in terms of mind, perception, logic, epistemology, etc."

The Buddha taught only for the purpose of reaching one goal i.e. the end of suffering. All the other goals may be good things from different points of view but I do believe that they are not the goal that the Buddha had in mind. Following the Buddha's teachings to attain these alternative goals is often considered to be "wrong view" by Theravada Buddhists.

The core teachings as expounded by the Buddha himself and as I understand them are fairly void of "spiritual stuff" and they tend to come from a very practical and reasonable viewpoint. The Four Noble Truths don't seem very spiritual to me but maybe they do to you. The Noble Eightfold Path has a lot of psychological sorts of stuff but in my view it is not so spiritual. The Buddhas explanations of why things are the way he describes are pretty straight forward....especially if you read the ones where he was talking to laypeople.

If you want a "mind, perception, logic, epistemology, etc" type study then look at the Abhidhama. It is part of the Tipitaka and can be found at the accesstoinsight web site.....which is by the way a really good resource for core Buddhist teachings. I don't care too much for the Abhidhama but people who like a scientific sort of explanation of how the Buddha's teachings work often like it.

You wrote:

"What I mean by mindfulness is a sort of heightened self-awareness, where you can clearly see the causal relationships of your own thoughts and the environment, and objectively watch the sea-changes of your own emotions. The "unself" part of this reflection is in seeing how easily one can adjust the boundaries of identity, deciding what is a core belief or experience and what is transient cause-and-effect with little import. The detachment I speak of is drawing in these boundaries until your self is miniscule observer of all other thoughts and emotions that, of course, are also part of your (larger) self; having been detached, the exact states don't really matter to you so much. You can easily guide, manipulate, and override your own responses without feeling any threatened or real loss of self."

It is my understanding that the concept of Annata (non-self) is not to play around with the idea of self but to eliminate the self as intermediary processor between our organism and the environment. This is a very very difficult concept to describe....and I think that I do not appreciate it fully but I will give my impressions. The Buddha said that the things which we usually think of as our selves are in fact not constituting a self.....but on the other hand to have the view that you have no self is just as wrong as thinking that you "self" is what sees the things you see....in other words, you can see everything just fine without having to create some non existent "self" to do the seeing....the Buddha might have said something like "seeing is but no seer". I won't go much further with this because I can see that I'm not explaining it very well...but I'll just say that it seems to me that the Buddha is trying to get us to suspend ALL views about our self including the view that we have no self....don't even consider whether you have a self or not. I'm stopping here...it would be better to go out and read about this....its probably the most controversial topic the Buddha taught and the most difficuilt to understand and I don't think that my explanation is working....there have been millions of lines of expanation written on this topic and I guess I'm being silly to think that I can sum it up in a paragraph!!!!!

You wrote:

"It is a very relaxing and almost blissful experience. My discomfort is on reflecting later from my western ethical viewpoint. It seems like escapism. I can just decide to be contented, and then be so. It sounds so lazy. "

When done properly there should be no lazyness about it. The descriptions that I have read about mindfulnes meditation indicate that your energy level should be high and you should be very very alert. The descriptions that I have read do not sound like something done by a lazy person. Also note that mindfullness is something that is not to be developed just when sitting meditating but is to be cultivated at every instant....if anything it will be more work to carry on with your daily activities and on top of that to be mindful at the same time.

You wrote:

"That's probably enough for one night, but what you said above that I kept quoted also rings true in my mind. One of my gut feelings about all of this is that to pursue a line of mental transformation is to make oneself alien in his community. Eventually your changes in mental response will emerge as behavioral changes, right? If you have to then focus more on controlling your behavior to blend in, what have you really gained? What a psychological catch-22..."

I guess that by trying out mindfullness that you are looking for some change....but on the other hand you seem to actually not want certain changes to happen....some would say that this is because your "self" wants to be in control. I'll make an extreme example to illustrate my point...I want everyone to know that I'm not trying to describe you or anyone else in particular with this example: Someone gets drunk three nights a week without fail and drinks to moderate intoxication the other 4 nights. They spend their life in bars...they smoke heavily. After many years their life is no longer satisfying and they go looking for something else. They find mindfullness meditation and think its great until their frineds (at the bars) all laugh at him and express negative opinions about meditation etc. The person wants their life to get better but they aren't willing to let go of what they have already. This is an extreme example but this dynamic is perhaps operational in all of us in relationship to some aspect of our lives. I know for me there are things I'm not willing to give up in following the Path....so I don't give them up and I interpret the scriptures in a way that enables me to not have to give up those things. This has been happening throughout my life and my self observation is that with time these things can slowly change. What I was not willing to give up when I was 20 I have no desire to even partake of now. I think the Buddha understood this and when I read his teachings I feel that I see allowances are made to account for this and to give people what they need to advance wherever they are at the moment. To a certain extent the Path is an iterative process of self evaluation and improvement....in my opinion....and the Buddha's teachings help out all along the path.

Chownah

[autonomous_unit]

Thanks for all the commentary...

Yes, I suppose the point is that I am not interested in giving up my life and the people around me. To live my role among family and friends, it seems I must maintain a level of attachment and self-interest to be the person they expect me to be.

Because I do not hold value in an afterlife or spiritual balance outside of this biological life, I do not much see the point in wandering away to some cognitive happy place that requires leaving others behind (whether physically or psychologically). That's my catch 22.

Chownah: as for my comment about "lazy", I mean it in the sense of the puritan work ethic... sort of "it cannot be good if it doesn't hurt". But also, have you heard the expression that talk is cheap compared to action? Well, I personally feel that thought is even cheaper compared to talk! So I do not see a thought-heavy process in opposition to laziness. Lazy doesn't mean opiated in my book.

I guess I'll look into the Abhidhama and see if it is in a form I can relate to. BTW, a book I was enjoying before I misplaced it was The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. (Having just remembered that, I guess I should go turn the house upside-down to find it and finish reading...) It is sort of a comparative survey of different moral and spiritual schools, and I would love to read something like that which focused more specifically on Buddhism.

At a sort of practical or operational level, I guess I am still perplexed as to how much the Buddhist "mindfulness" is supposed to really have these selfless parts. I still tend to think that active living requires ego in order to plan and motivate interactions with others.

[chownah]

I think that you are correct that to maintain your current social connections you can not transcend the self. I wouldn't worry about it....just go with what seems right. One of the things I like about the Buddha's teachings is that he doesn't try to lay a guilt trip on you if you don't do everything he suggests...he just says that things happen because the conditions are right for it to happen and you will be part of the dynamic that makes the conditions that effect your life....he says that the best thing to do is to try to be aware of why and how you do what you do (mindfulness) and then make the best decision that you can....this seems to be pretty much what you are doing anyway.

Chownah

[longway]

So, from my practical viewpoint, it seems like mindfulness is something that might be a useful tool but which must be practiced in moderation. Otherwise, it interferes with the realities of life as a human among other humans. We need to be emotionally attached to others, and to have desires and urges to motivate productive action, e.g. to feed and protect our familes. I cannot really see the difference between complete mindfulness (detachment, lack of self, observing our thoughts from the outside) and detachment through drug use or other socially unacceptable avenues.

One of the most attractive features of Buddhism is that its up to each individual to assess its value.

I think if you looked into what you refer to as the 'spiritual/mystical aspects' you will have a better understanding of the kind of direction this practice is supposed to take you. You may find it is not spritual or mystical in the way I think you mean it to be.

The Buddha was supposed to have experienced the ultimate truth. Buddism does not reject logic, the truth must be logical, however logic is not enough on its own. this is where as i understand it buddhist practices of meditation, mindfulness and so on are required.

I recommend a book called 'The Lotus and the Quantum' it is a discussion bewteen an astronomer and a buddhist monk, both well qualified scientists. What I liked about it was that it showed the logic behind buddhist philosophy and how at least some aspects of modern science observe phenomena in the way the buddha thought over 2500 years ago.

the buddha's represenation of the middle way of reality, how reality as we perceive cannot have any inherent existance , rejecting materialism and nihilism is explained beautifully. i can appreciate his message on an intelectual level at least.

Having said all that i still have my doubts, and am not always sure i understand alot of things, so far however its been very worthwhile. hope this rambling answers your post in some way!

mindfulness has been a positive experience so far, it may not always stop me from doing what i do, but its made me more aware of why i do things without getting to bogged down in analysing everything or trying to control myself. i am a 'long way' from becoming detached, so theres no worry about that yet!

Edited June 22, 2006 by longway

[Galong]

There are problems that arise from the concept of a "right view" or anything like that. To free yourself from the bindings that culture and society place upon us, you don't have to be totally detached. You need to have a different view whereby you fully realize that all of the socio-cultural influences are subjective. There is no such thing as right and wrong. No matter what any of us consider to be either good or bad, someone can come back and make another argument to counter that view... be it logical, emotional, or whatever.

The problem disappears when thoughts of right and wrong are vanquished. The branch of Buddhism that emerged in China directly addressed this issue once it melded somewhat with Taoism. Mahayana Buddhism tries to deal with problems that crop up when the desire not to desire becomes a very strong desire. Taoism breaks humans down to the basic uncarved block… if you will. It asks questions such as, who are YOU independent of all of the socio-cultural influences? Who would YOU be if you were born somewhere else and brought up in an entirely different environment? Scientifically speaking, there appears to be some inherited mannerism, peculiarity and/or traits. These are things that you could likely get from your parents and ancestors. But, the YOU that you are right now is a product of the inputs in your life.

Taoism in a nut shell is the precursor to Zen. Zen is very much a Chinese philosophy… well before Japan took it and ran with it. Taoism was well-seated into Chinese culture way before Buddhism arrive. Taoism is all about deconstruction. Zen simply takes Taoism to the next logical step, that being, stating that the foundation of suffering is initiated/created by language. Destroy language and you destroy the concepts behind the language.

Yes, there is a biomechanical reaction when, say, you hit your thumb with a hammer. BUT, your reaction to that is learned.

The last line in the inner chapters of the Chuang Tzu is, “show me a man who has forgotten language so that I may have a talk with him.”

The OP used an interesting word – “catatonic” to describe the way one could perceive a life as one who is on the outside looking in. I think that this is a very appropriate word for the situation. How does one still function as a human in society, yet stay somehow disconnected from it all?

[Sheryl]

Buddhist teachings do not encourage much less require that you detach yourself from other people and revel in some blissful state. If it did, then the Buddha would have gone off to a cave and enjoyed nirvanic bliss instead of diligently and compassionately working until the age of 80 -- a 45 year ministry -- to help others come out of suffering.

Compassion is a huge part of the Buddhist path and, from a Theravada perspective, a natural outcome of mental purification which is what a combination of mindfulness mediattion and practce of sila (basic morality) will yield.

What one detaches from is ego and the ego-centered aspects of ones involvement with friends and family. In its place comes true concern for their well being, a compassionate u nderstanding of one's own social needs and ability to address these in a way that does not con flict with or harm others, and a marked improvement in social relationships. At least that is what it has done for me and others I have observed.

And BTW, Buddhism does not teach the existence of a soul (quite the opposite) and Buddhist practice does not require any sort of mystical belief. In fact it does not require any special beief since there is, in Buddhism, no salvation through faith or blind belief. Instead, the emphasis is on first hand experiential knowledge. Of course, huma nature being what it is, various ritualistic elements have gotten added on to what is considered the Buddhist religion , often intermingled with elements from other religions like Brahamnism and animism. But this is not a part of the original teachings ad Buddha never set out to create a sectarian religion.

[autonomous_unit]

Thanks again for all the insights. I wanted to hear what others thought, and not explain more of my thinking than necessary to ask the question. But, let me narrow down my point a little based on these last few answers...

The reason I mentioned souls and "spiritual stuff". In my personal philosophy there are no spirits, no afterlife, no previous lives, no divine purpose, and no reckoning. We live our lives made of organic machinery and eventually we fail. Our impressions of self etc. are just the reflective "computations", if you will, of our basic life functions.

So, I believe that life is just what we make of it, and our experiences die with us except as we impress upon the experience of others before we go. My questions about detachment and meditation may all boil down to the inadequate ways that I have seen them portrayed. Too often it is described as having some higher purpose or end goal that I do not believe. For example, the whole "reincarnation" mentality and that you are improving yourself for the next life (or blaming your lot on a previous life). In my view, we cannot die improved or worsened. We can only vanish. The ends don't justify the means, as the ends are imaginary.

So are all of these conflicts and missteps related to the way the Buddhist philosophy was turned into an organized religion? Typical human nature stuff thrown in for comfort and popular acceptance?

I don't have any issue with the idea that these can be tools to help someone more rationally evaluate their actions, and to help someone live in society and do things they consider moral and worthy, etc.

It is the idea that people would leave society to "perfect" these tools that I find disturbing, as I have a hard time distinguishing it from people leaving society to perfect any other self-satisfying endeavor. I see no point in applying a moral value to the personal endeavor, as it is giving up on life as a social animal in either case. Maybe it is just a strawman drawn from my penchant for hyperbole. It is how I hear the ideal espoused sometimes.

[sabaijai]

'Mindfulness without religion' is one of the directions Theravada-inspired Buddhism is heading in America and elsewhere.

Also see this thread here in the Buddhism forum.

One thing to keep in mind is that one's 'personal philosopy' is conditioned. If one holds too fast to one's conditioned world view while practicing Buddhism/mindfulness, the conditioning is likely to stay in place and the goal--sati/awareness--won't arise (or won't be noticed, take your pick). The practice requires scepticism not only about the path but about one's personal ideas about how the world works. Such prevarications etc come under the category of 'proliferation of thought', a reaction which within the Buddhist context is basically seen as an avoidance tool. Of course the trained intellect delights in such proliferation (mea culpa).

In my experience only a good teacher can show you where the fine line between nonproducrtive scepticism and making the effort to blast past conditioned views should fall. I'd encourage you to find a good teacher, whether a monk or layperson.

OK on with the proliferations ...

[tc101]

I think you might enjoy "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor.

Also, remember that the Dali Lama has said that if there is a conflict between something proven by science to be true and something believed by Buddhism, then it is Buddhism that has to change.

[Sheryl]

In my personal philosophy there are no spirits, no afterlife, no previous lives, no divine purpose, and no reckoning. We live our lives made of organic machinery and eventually we fail. Our impressions of self etc. are just the reflective "computations", if you will, of our basic life functions.

So, I believe that life is just what we make of it, and our experiences die with us except as we impress upon the experience of others before we go. My questions about detachment and meditation may all boil down to the inadequate ways that I have seen them portrayed. Too often it is described as having some higher purpose or end goal that I do not believe. For example, the whole "reincarnation" mentality and that you are improving yourself for the next life (or blaming your lot on a previous life). In my view, we cannot die improved or worsened. We can only vanish. The ends don't justify the means, as the ends are imaginary....

Buddhism practice does not ask you to believe in anything other than what you directly experience to be true. It is, however, necessary to let go of attachments to beliefs in order to practice effectively. Actually beliefs -- as opposed to knowledge -- of any kind are unhelpful, even if what one happens to believe is true. An open, inquiring mind which avoids intellectual games and blind beliefs of all sorts is the best basis for practice.

There are people who either believe -- sometimes based on conditioning, in other causes based on some type of experience -- that there is some continuity to the gains one makes in purifying the mind in this life and subsequent developments beyond this life. I do not use the words "reincarnation"and "next life"because, even though they are widely used in Buddhist countries, they are more reflective of the Hindu view (which in Buddhist countries preceded and has become intertwined with Buddhism as an organized religion) than of Buddhist teaching. The Buddha was quite emphatic that there is no soul so reincarnation is obviously mpossible. There is a text called "The Questions of King Milinda"which deals very well with this difference between Buddhist and Hindu thought.

But make no mistake -- the Buddha never recommended that people accept his explanations as truth, either. The only life you need to believe in is this one. But it might be helpful if you could avaoid being too attached to your "personal philsophy" either. Our minds are very limited unless developed, and this can lead to perceiving issues as a set of either/orpossibilities when in fact there is a truth that is none of the possibilities we initially envisioned.

I don't have any issue with the idea that these can be tools to help someone more rationally evaluate their actions, and to help someone live in society and do things they consider moral and worthy, etc.

It is the idea that people would leave society to "perfect" these tools that I find disturbing, as I have a hard time distinguishing it from people leaving society to perfect any other self-satisfying endeavor. I see no point in applying a moral value to the personal endeavor, as it is giving up on life as a social animal in either case. Maybe it is just a strawman drawn from my penchant for hyperbole. It is how I hear the ideal espoused sometimes.

You may hear this espoused, but I think very few people practicing Buddhism espouse it as a permanent approach. There is a difference between temporarily removing onself in order to work deeply on mental purification/insight and doing it permanently. My meditation teacher compares meditation retreats to going into the hospital -- you don't go to a hospital to live forever, you go in to get better and then return to active life in the world -- as a social being. Even monastics (monks, nuns) are social beings. In fact they live in a very social enviornment filled with reciprocal roles and obligations both amongst themselves and between themselves and lay people.

People who succeed in purifying their minds to any degree become much better people, not only hapier themselves but contributing much more psotiviely to the rest of the world. Most of the suffering in the world is the result of deluded, ego-centered people distributing their misery to others and seeking satisfaction i note wrong ways.

The questions you ask are ones that are asked very frrequently by westerners newly starting Buddhist practice. You haven't asked for suggestions, but I do think you would find a vpassana meditation retreat in a non-sectarian, lay-person oriented meditation center to be very illuminating. Preferrably in the west with western lay teachers although that is not essential, but they'd be especially familiar with where your questons are coming from and be able to share relevant first hand experience.

[sabaijai]

The Buddha was quite emphatic that there is no soul so reincarnation is obviously mpossible.

Actually the Buddha, as quoted in the Tipitaka, appears to be deliberately vague on these two points. Asked if there was self he said no, asked if there is no self he also said no. Apparently whatever there is, is neither self/soul nor non-self/non-soul. When asked about reincarnation, his answer was 'This question tends not to edification'.

From the FAQs on Access to Insight:

If there's no self, then who gets enlightened?

If there's no self, then what gets reborn?

If there's no self, then why...?

Nowhere in the Pali canon does Buddha categorically declare, without qualification, "There is no self."1 Any question that begins along the lines of, "If there's no self..." is thus inherently misleading, dooming the questioner to a hopeless tangle of confusion — "a thicket of [wrong] views" [MN 2]. Such questions are best put aside altogether in favor of more fruitful lines of questioning

The not-self/no-soul perspective appears as a strategy, i.e., a teleological truth, not an ontological truth. See:

Not-Self Strategy

No-Self or Not-Self?

Asking the Buddha Questions

[Sheryl]

I'm away from home & so don't have any of my texts with me but my recollection is that the Q/A referred to was along the lines of Is the self/soul eternal vs is it non-eternal? Rather than is there a self per se. My personal understanding of why the Buddha answered as he did is that no meaningfukl answer was possible because the question was inherently flawed beacuse it contained an implicit assumption about the nature of self/soul that is wrong to begin with. Anatta -- meaning no "atta" -- is one of the key characterictics of existence as propounded by the Buddha so understanfing it I think boils down to understanding what ätta"meant to the people and in the times in which he lived. As I understand it, it meant an unchanging essence unique to each individual, so anatta means that there is no such thing which of course fits with another key characteristic of exist6ence, anicca (impermanence). It's not that there is no self but that the unenlightened mind misperceives the nature of the self as containing some kind of unique and unchanging essence -- an idea similar to the judeo-christian and hindu concepts of "soul" and lending itself to the idea of re-incarnation (as opposed to rebirth) because there is some eternal thing that could transmigrate to another body. To my understanding, this idea the Buddhist teachingfs do quite emphatically dispute. Of course there is a self, but it is a constantly changing phenomena just like everything else and does not have an unchanging essence that can be called "mine". Whether or not it may have some kind of unchanging eternal essence that does not belong to it is left unanswered. Whether or not all this equals a refutation of the exuistance of a "soul"depends on what one means by a soul. If one means a permanent essence that belongs to the individual (which I think is what most people take it to mean) then, to my understanding, Buddhist teachings most definitely deny that, reiterating that what we call the self or soul is in fact a constantly changing phenomena that does not belong to us and that the sense of attachment and identificaqtion we feel towards this "I" is a delusion.

[chownah]

With all due respect for Sheryl I would like to point out that while she may state that "of course there is a self"....and discusses very aptly her views on this issue....the Buddha says that to debate and consider issues about the "self" only leads to a thicket of views which are of the type which will not help you along the path...wrong views.

I think that the Buddha taught that it is best to avoid these conjectures. He taught that wherever you see signs of "self" in your life you will be mistaken. Also, you do not have to have a view about "self" to reach the goal...its better to drop all views concerning "self"....they can't help and they can hinder.

Chownah

[sleepyjohn]

With all due respect for Sheryl I would like to point out that while she may state that "of course there is a self"....and discusses very aptly her views on this issue....the Buddha says that to debate and consider issues about the "self" only leads to a thicket of views which are of the type which will not help you along the path...wrong views.

I think that the Buddha taught that it is best to avoid these conjectures. He taught that wherever you see signs of "self" in your life you will be mistaken. Also, you do not have to have a view about "self" to reach the goal...its better to drop all views concerning "self"....they can't help and they can hinder.

Chownah

Recommend the Diamond Sutra. It deals with this subject in question and answer format between Shakyamuni and Subhuti.

This sutra is to my mind one of the great essential sutras that literally can send shivers up your spine.