Believing in a Separate Self - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

26/8/2558 Believing in a separate self Page 2 Dhamma Wheel

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20 1/23

Dhamma WheelA Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the TheravadaSkip to contentSearch… Search Advanced search

Believing in a separate selfForum rulesPost ReplySubscribe topicBookmark topicEmail topicPrint viewPostprofile right

Search this topic… Search Advanced searchFirst unread post • 71 postsPrevious1234Next

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318829)Report this post (./report.php?f=22&p=318829)Quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=318829) (javascript:void(0);)

Unread postby Bundokji » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:44 pm

SarathW wrote:

Buddha advise us strongly for us to have a wholesome desire (wanting) which iscalled Chanda.Without desire we will be useless and inactive people.Do not burn the raft before you cross the sea. Your idea of finding the answer yourself is a good one.But why do you have to reinvent the wheel.Buddha has done all the hard work for us. We just have to enjoy it.

Bundokji wrote:

All worldlings want to be happy, but don't you think that this is a part ofthe problem?

By "wanting", we plant the seeds for further "wantings" and we end up inthe vicious cycle we live in.

SarathW wrote:Don't you want to be happy?Journey towards Nibbana is with full of joy.

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=318829#p318829

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&view=unread#unread

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=40


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?uid=9592&f=22&t=22305&watch=topic&start=20&hash=43237143

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=email&t=22305

http://dhammawheel.com/search.php

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9940


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305

http://dhammawheel.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=318829

http://dhammawheel.com/report.php?f=22&p=318829

http://dhammawheel.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=22&t=22305

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2

http://dhammawheel.com/search.php

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20&bookmark=1&hash=43237143

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&pss=0

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20&view=print





Thanks SarathW. The Dhamma if I understand it correctly, is an invitation to investigate. Inorder to investigate the truth of any matter, I should be free from biases, authority anddesires. This the scientific method, its not a mental position, not a belief, but its the bestway to gain knowledge.

The Buddha himself in the Kalama sutta encouraged free inquiry. As far as I know, the Buddhanever presented himself as an authority.

I saw how the Buddhist path enhanced my life, my relationship with my family, with people ingeneral and with myself. However, I still have doubts in relation to the third noble truth. Mymind does not understand it and I have never met anyone who is completely free fromsuffering.

So, what is the best way to deal with doubt? to deny it? to say that the Buddha have done allthe hard work for me and I should simply follow? or to continue to investigate?

Cheers

Top


Unread postby SarathW » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:14 pm

As I said before, only way to do this is by practice.You will enjoy the benefit immediately (You do not have to be a Sotapanna)‐ Observe five precepts (at least one ‐ never to break it)‐ Practice Brahama Vihara (it does not cost you any thing. )

Top


Unread postby Bundokji » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:19 pm

We don't have to re‐discover electricity. Just incorporate it for our living.

You're pretty smart to see how that influence affects how you approachreligious teachings in general. I used to be very into Krishnamurti before I gotinto Buddhism. IMO, they are incompatible. This is well‐expressed by that quoteyou just gave and others in which he suggests rejection of all authority. Thething with Buddhism is that one is supposed to have faith in the Buddha'steachings or at least accept them as working hypotheses. This is what takingrefuge in the Triple Gem is all about.











Hello Mkoll,

I am not against having faith in the Buddha's teachings, I am only against having them as abelief/authority.

The difference between faith and belief was clearly explained in one of Alan Watts's bookswhen he said: "A belief clings, while faith lets go".

The Buddha himself followed many teachers, but only got enlightened when he discarded allof that and investigated by himself. This part of the Buddha's story is very significant in myopinion.

Now, to answer your question "why I am here?" Well, for few different reasons: first I live inthe middle east where there is no Buddhist community to interact with, so this forum enablesme to communicate with experienced Buddhists. Getting into a philosophical debate is oneway of learning for myself and can benefit both sides of the debate. It enables both sides totest their views against each other. I don't see contradiction between both. However, Ishould admit that I have arrogance which blinded me in many occasions, I am still far frombeing wise.

Best Regards

Top


Unread postby culaavuso » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:52 pm

One approach would be to devise and implement experiments based on working hypotheses.Investigation without a working hypothesis is not the scientific method, and the explanationsof someone trustworthy, skilled, and successful in a particular domain are likely to offer highquality working hypotheses that can allow confirmation through appropriate investigationsthat lead to dispelling of doubt. Such an approach can help in overcoming the easy mistake ofconfusing blind acceptance of predispositions with being uncommitted.

I'm curious...Are you here to learn about Buddhism? Are you here to offer forthand defend your views in philosophical debate? If the former, you're in the right

place. If the latter, you're going to experience a lot of friction. If it's a bitof both, taking more of the "student" position will be more beneficial.

Bundokji wrote:So, what is the best way to deal with doubt? to deny it? to say that the Buddhahave done all the hard work for me and I should simply follow? or to continue toinvestigate?







Reflections From a Student on the Path(http://www.cs.usask.ca/~osgood/Personal/ReflectionsOnThePath.html) by NathanielOsgood wrote:Particularly as a scientist, it is tempting to take a skeptical stance with respectto many beliefs tied up in the tradition ‐‐ beliefs about the possibility ofqualitatively distinctive states of Awakening and the existence of the Deathless,kamma, rebirth, and others. For those early on the practice, this could alsoinclude beliefs such as regarding the need for self‐restraint, and feasibility ofreaching the Jhanic states.

It is tempting for those from philosophically and scientifically sophisticatedbackground to aspire to a state of neither committing to such beliefs noravowing non‐belief, but instead to just aim at an open‐minded, uncommittedperspective. Unfortunately, it may be possible to adopt this stance with respectto many sorts of facts and hypotheses, it is not feasible to be trulyuncommitted for the many practice‐related beliefs which have implications forwhat we do in our practice. After all, we can insist on our open‐mindedness andnon‐committal stance all we want, but at the end of the day, we need to act,to something throughout the course of every day. Typically our actions ‐‐choosing to behave one way or another ‐‐ reflect a tacit wager on whether thebelief (about which we aspire to be "open minded") is true or false. From myexperience, such putatively "non‐committal" stances regarding matters of themind often end up getting int the way of real progress in our understanding ‐‐we are too loosy‐goosy in our views to really commit to the level needed toreally empirically ‐‐ and experientially ‐‐ test the plausibility of the beliefs.Here, all too often, one can't really claim to have given the practice a decenttry!

I found an analogy helpful here. Given the urgency of the practice and its giantimpact on our life, it's a poor analogy, but does capture some of the irony ofthe situation. Specifically, avowing "non‐committal" believes regardingpotentially observable areas of the mind reminds me of someone living far fromthe mountains who takes an "uncommitted" attitude towards whether mountainsexist ‐‐ and claims that this is rational because they have never seen themountains. Claiming to lack any particular belief on the matter, they neverhave the or motivation to impetus get off their duff and go try to verify theexistence of the mountains.

In line with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's suggestions, rather than aspiring to aninfeasible "uncommitted" stance to things claimed in the suttas that we havenot yet experienced, I find it much more effective to commit wholeheartedly tosuch beliefs as working hypotheses ‐‐ and to commit to exploring first‐hand theeffectiveness of putting such beliefs into practice in what we do. To continueon the imperfect analogy, knowing that other knowledgeable individuals(analogous to other highly experienced practitioners ‐‐ whether contemporaryor in the Suttas) have commented in detail on the existence of the mountainsand described how one reaches them and the desirability of reaching them, onecommits to belief in such mountains as a working hypothesis, and strives in acareful fashion to reach them. In this case, one has a good chance that you'll beable to assess the reliability of the claims of mountains ‐‐ and benefit from theresults one way or another.

In short, given that I aspire to really give the practice a serious try, I've foundthat I need to be very cautious about the idea that I can simply put totally aside

http://www.cs.usask.ca/~osgood/Personal/ReflectionsOnThePath.html



Top


Unread postby Mkoll » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:55 pm

I used to be very into Alan Watts' work as well.

In MN 26, the Buddha tells of how his teachers taught him how to reach some of the highestformless meditative attainments. These are also part of the Buddha's teaching. He alsopraises his teachers as wise, competent and intelligent in the same sutta.

Top


Unread postby Bundokji » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:16 am

Thanks culaavuso,

This is a very interesting read, it reminds of Ajahn when he said something like "they claimthere is no water under the ground without putting the necessary effort to dig deep"

What do you think about satipattana (which is often described as the direct path torealization)? it seems to me like a free inquiry without being committed to a certain belief!

issues of central claims. Even in the typical case you haven't seen the evidencefirst‐hand yet, the sensible thing seems often to commit to them as workinghypotheses ‐‐ indeed, this seems to often be the only way I would have thechance to really see the evidence first hand. However seductive from theperspective of sounding advance and savvy, from my experience, taking an"uncommitted" stance seems to often doom us to a situation where we block ourown path by cutting off the chance of witnessing first‐hand the very evidencethat would allow us to deepen and make progress in our practice.

Bundokji wrote:I am not against having faith in the Buddha's teachings, I am only against havingthem as a belief/authority.

The difference between faith and belief was clearly explained in one of AlanWatts's books when he said: "A belief clings, while faith lets go".

Bundokji wrote:The Buddha himself followed many teachers, but only got enlightened when hediscarded all of that and investigated by himself. This part of the Buddha's storyis very significant in my opinion.











Regards,

Top



Hello James,

I thought the Buddha's teachers almost killed him through the ascetic practices they havegiven him!

I would not be surprised if the Buddha praised his teachers and showed appreciation for whatthey taught him, but that does not mean that his enlightenment was a result of theirteachings.

Is this the Sutta that you referred to?

http://the‐wanderling.com/mn_26.html (http://the‐wanderling.com/mn_26.html)

Because the above just confirms my argument!! here are some quotes from the above link:

"I am one who has overcome all, who knows all, I am detached from all things; havingabandonded everything, obtained emancipation, by the destruction of desire. Having bymyself gained knowledge, whom should I call master?"

"I have no teacher, One like me is not, in the world of men and gods, none is my counterpart"

Best Regards,

Top


Unread postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:50 am

Later in that Sutta the Buddha opines: http://suttacentral.net/en/mn26 (http://suttacentral.net/en/mn26)

I considered thus: ‘To whom should I first teach the Dhamma? Who willunderstand this Dhamma quickly?’ It then occurred to me: ‘Uddaka Rāmaputta iswise, intelligent, and discerning; he has long had little dust in his eyes.Suppose I taught the Dhamma first to Uddaka Rāmaputta. He will understand itquickly.’ Then deities approached me and said: ‘Venerable sir, UddakaRāmaputta died last night.’ And the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘UddakaRāmaputta died last night.’ I thought: ‘Uddaka Rāmaputta’s loss is a great one.If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.’



http://suttacentral.net/en/mn26





http://the-wanderling.com/mn_26.html





Mike

Top


Unread postby culaavuso » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:53 am

The practice of sati paṭṭhā na seems to involve a number of working hypotheses, including thesimple notion that the practice is worthwhile or that it provides a direct path to realization.Generally this practice implies an intention to cultivate Right Mindfulness (sammāsati) whichentails cultivating other aspects of the Eightfold Path. This, in turn, implies a workinghypothesis that the eightfold path leads to a useful result. This does not require beingcommitted to a certain belief in the sense that an irrevocable and blind decision has beenmade to cling to a belief, but it does mean that Right Effort (sammāvāyāma) is undertakeninformed by Right View (sammādiṭṭhi) and Right Resolve (sammāsaṅkappa). Without agrounding in a context of Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Livelihood the distractionsand temptations that arise may present difficulties in the practice. This also implies viewingthe experience in terms of appropriate attention (yoniso mansikāra). Interpreting theexperience in terms of appropriate attention means experimenting with the consequences ofthe belief that those are the appropriate terms in which to view experience.

Part of the practice is understanding the role that beliefs have in shaping experience andlearning to skillfully apply those beliefs. In order to experiment with the consequences ofbeliefs there must be a willingness to adopt them as working hypotheses in order to observethe results. This does not require being committed to a belief in the sense that it is clung toand can not be changed again, which would make the experiment necessarily the last of itskind. It does require the willingness to sincerely try them out and see what consequencesresult. One valuable outcome of such experimentation is that it can bring awareness to thebeliefs which presently shape experience and to which there is already unwarrantedcommitment.

Bundokji wrote:What do you think about satipattana (which is often described as the directpath to realization)? it seems to me like a free inquiry without being committedto a certain belief!

Ven. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/truth_of_rebirth.html)

wrote:So we're faced with a choice. If we're sincere about wanting to end sufferingand to give the Buddha's teachings a fair test, then — instead of assuming thathe was a prisoner of his own time and place, unable to question his culturalassumptions — we have to examine the extent to which, in adhering to our owncultural assumptions, we're imprisoning ourselves. If we don't want to drop our




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




Top



Hello culaavuso,

Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation is notthrough thinking, but through having an insight.

When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree, did he have any beliefs? Did he know the truth?was the Buddha a Buddhist? How did he find the truth without reading his own teachings? andif he was capable of doing it, why we cant?

To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observable objects, that wouldinclude Buddhist beliefs. Consequently, Buddhist beliefs become like any other belief (anicca,dukkha, anatta)

Now, I have enough conditioning in my mind, why should I add more conditioning in order todiscard it all later on! Why this is not akin to a dog trying to catch his own tail?

Best Regards,

Top


Unread postby Ben » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:07 am

No he did not.

Oh, yes he did.

Top

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318855)

self‐imposed restrictions, we can still benefit from any of the Buddha'steachings that fit within those limitations, but we'll have to accept theconsequences: that the results we'll get will be limited as well.

Bundokji wrote:The Buddha himself in the Kalama sutta encouraged free inquiry.

As far as I know, the Buddha never presented himself as an authority.











Report this post (./report.php?f=22&p=318855)Quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=318855) (javascript:void(0);)

Unread postby Mkoll » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:12 am

Nowhere does it say the Buddha was taught to practice those ascetic practices that almostkilled him by Alara or Uddaka.

I never said it was.

Yes.

And what is your argument exactly? That there's a separate self? That you can attainarahantship without the Buddha's teachings as your guide? If it's the former, I see little pointin you debating this on a Buddhist forum because, as I said, you're going to meet a lot offriction; you're not going to convince anyone. If it's the latter...Well, I'll use the simile of itbeing like trying to invent the calculus when Newton and Leibniz have already done so andhave taught how to do it. Good luck with that.

Bundokji wrote:Hello James,

I thought the Buddha's teachers almost killed him through the ascetic practicesthey have given him!

Bundokji wrote:I would not be surprised if the Buddha praised his teachers and showedappreciation for what they taught him, but that does not mean that hisenlightenment was a result of their teachings.

Bundokji wrote:Is this the Sutta that you referred to?

http://the‐wanderling.com/mn_26.html (http://the‐wanderling.com/mn_26.html)

Bundokji wrote:Because the above just confirms my argument!! here are some quotes from theabove link:

"I am one who has overcome all, who knows all, I am detached from all things;having abandonded everything, obtained emancipation, by the destruction ofdesire. Having by myself gained knowledge, whom should I call master?"

"I have no teacher, One like me is not, in the world of men and gods, none ismy counterpart"





http://the-wanderling.com/mn_26.html



~~~

There is no such thing as "free inquiry without belief" in any Buddhist school that I know of.

And one little paradox I'd like to point out about Krishnamurti's teachings: in that one followsthem, one submits to his authority right there even though he teaches one not to submit toauthority. If you really want to freely inquire, you also have to drop the teaching of someonetelling you that you should freely inquire.

Top



Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with special relativity. Why cantwe?

Isn't it obvious?

Check out the simile of the raft here in MN 22(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html) . If you don't get the point I'mmaking in quoting it in response to what you said there, I can explain it.

Top

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318859)Report this post (./report.php?f=22&p=318859)

Bundokji wrote:Hello culaavuso,

Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberationis not through thinking, but through having an insight.

When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree, did he have any beliefs? Did heknow the truth? was the Buddha a Buddhist? How did he find the truth withoutreading his own teachings? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?

Bundokji wrote:To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observableobjects, that would include Buddhist beliefs. Consequently, Buddhist beliefsbecome like any other belief (anicca, dukkha, anatta)

Now, I have enough conditioning in my mind, why should I add moreconditioning in order to discard it all later on! Why this is not akin to a dogtrying to catch his own tail?


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html







Quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=318859) (javascript:void(0);)

Unread postby culaavuso » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:03 am

Yet "the way to liberation is not through thinking, but through having an insight" is a thought.Believing this thought may lead to having an insight into why it is true. A belief regarding thenature and limitations of beliefs has results. Regarding this idea of beliefs regarding thenature of beliefs leading to understanding the escape from the limitations of beliefs, it maybe informative to consider the following passage:

This question could be parsed a few different ways, but particular thoughts serving to shapea course of action is described as an important precursor to the Buddha's awakening. Forexample, in MN 19, thoughts regarding two different types of thinking related to WrongResolve and Right Resolve are discussed:

Bundokji wrote:Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation is not through thinking,but through having an insight.

AN 10.93: Kiṃdiṭṭhika Sutta(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html) wrote:"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependentlyoriginated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever isstress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view Ihave."

"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed,dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Youthus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress."

"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed,dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress.Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen thiswell with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higherescape from it as it actually is present."

Bundokji wrote:When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree, did he have any beliefs?

MN 19: Dvedhāvitakka Sutta(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html) wrote:The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self‐awakening, when I was still justan unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keepdividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html




http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html



thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, andthinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non‐ill will, & thinkingimbued with harmlessness another sort...."And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued withharmfulness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmfulness hasarisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of othersor to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, &does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that itleads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructsdiscernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided.Whenever thinking imbued with harmfulness had arisen, I simply abandoned it,dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomesthe inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued withsensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent bythat thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbuedwith ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non‐ill will, his mind is bent bythat thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbuedwith harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind isbent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness...."And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued withharmlessness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmlessnesshas arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to theaffliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment,promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder inline with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I donot envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking &pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind isdisturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied mymind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that mymind would not be disturbed.

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomesthe inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued withrenunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with sensuality, his mind is bent bythat thinking imbued with renunciation. If a monk keeps pursuing thinkingimbued with non‐ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with ill will, his mind isbent by that thinking imbued with non‐ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinkingimbued with harmlessness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmfulness, hismind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmlessness.

Bundokji wrote:Did he know the truth?



This could again be parsed in a few different ways, but he is described as knowing the fourNoble Truths in SN 56.11:

The word "Buddhist" is a relatively recent invention, so the question could again beunderstood in different ways. The Buddha taught the Dhamma‐Vinaya with a thoroughunderstanding and comprehension. He found the truth through a long period of persistentpractice, but taught the path he had discovered for the welfare and benefit of others. TheBuddha discovered the path the hard way but taught it in a way that provided an advantageto those who could benefit from the teachings. This is similar to the way that theelectromagnetic discoveries of James Maxwell are now taught in schools rather thaneveryone interested in working with electricity rediscovering his equations from scratch. It'snot impossible to rediscover things the hard way, but what reason is there for choosing thatover the alternative?

Even Buddhist beliefs are not taught for the purpose of clinging to them, but are taught forthe purpose of attaining a goal.

SN 56.11: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (http://suttacentral.net/en/sn56.11)

wrote:‘This is the noble truth of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to thingsunheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge,and light....‘This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard tothings unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, trueknowledge, and light....‘This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regardto things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, trueknowledge, and light....‘This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering’: thus,bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision,knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.

Bundokji wrote:was the Buddha a Buddhist? How did he find the truth without reading his ownteachings? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?

Bundokji wrote:To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observableobjects, that would include Buddhist beliefs. Consequently, Buddhist beliefsbecome like any other belief (anicca, dukkha, anatta)

Bundokji wrote:

http://suttacentral.net/en/sn56.11



If the goal is to discard conditioning, then it seems useful to be wary of reenforcing theexisting conditioning. It's also worth considering that possibly there is conditioning that makesit easier to reach the goal. As an example from the start of this post, consider the belief thatbeliefs are worth clinging to for their own sake as opposed to the belief that beliefs are toolsto be used as appropriate and set aside when they are not useful. The former belief makes itharder to make skillful use of beliefs, while the latter belief opens a possibility for settingbeliefs aside at an appropriate time.

This question is addressed in greater detail in an essay titled Samsara Divided by Zero byVen. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, which begins by summarizing the issue as follows:

Top


Unread postby pegembara » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:18 am


Samsara Divided by Zero(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html) by Ven.Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu wrote:The goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana, is said to be totally uncaused, and rightthere is a paradox. If the goal is uncaused, how can a path of practice — whichis causal by nature — bring it about? This is an ancient question. The Milinda‐pañha, a set of dialogues composed near the start of the common era, reportsan exchange where King Milinda challenges a monk, Nagasena, with preciselythis question. Nagasena replies with an analogy. The path of practice doesn'tcause nibbana, he says. It simply takes you there, just as a road to a mountaindoesn't cause the mountain to come into being, but simply leads you to where itis.

Bundokji wrote:Hello culaavuso,

Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberationis not through thinking, but through having an insight.

When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree, did he have any beliefs? Did heknow the truth? was the Buddha a Buddhist? How did he find the truth withoutreading his own teachings? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?

To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observableobjects, that would include Buddhist beliefs. Consequently, Buddhist beliefsbecome like any other belief (anicca, dukkha, anatta)



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





Hi Bundokji,

Beliefs are all we have to work with. I have a self or no self are both beliefs. We all have tostart somewhere. It is only after crossing over and coming into contact with reality that allbeliefs are discarded. The Noble Truths are all conceptual but these are concepts that leadto freedom from them. We are all already conditioned and the only way to decondition themind is through reconditioning which is a paradox. There is no other way.


Best Regards,

"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying onfood that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to whatwas it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully,takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor forbeautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, forending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will Idestroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating].I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventuallyabandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into beingthrough food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

"'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on cravingthat craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what wasit said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such‐and‐such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered &remains in the fermentation‐free awareness‐release & discernment‐release,having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thoughtoccurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of thefermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation‐free awareness‐release &discernment‐release, having known & realized them for myself in the here &now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This bodycomes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that cravingis to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceitthat conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what wasit said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such‐and‐such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered &remains in the fermentation‐free awareness‐release & discernment‐release,having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thoughtoccurs to him, 'The monk named such‐and‐such, they say, through the ending ofthe fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation‐free awareness‐release & discernment‐release, having known & realized them for himself in thehere & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, havingrelied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is byrelying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in



Metta

Top



Hello James,

Where did I say that there is a separate self? I was merely trying to share my personalexperience! Unfortunately, I am not enlightened and I still have self view, so when I lookedinto why I feel that I have a separate self, I came up with the points I raised in my originalpoint.

I tried the traditional way which is seeing why self view is wrong. I investigated realityinwardly and outwardly against the Budda's teachings and I found that the Buddha was rightin everything he said. I looked into the five aggregates and I saw how they always change, andI could not find anything that I can call a "self", but did that liberate me from self view: Theanswer is no!

Hence I tried to come up with something different, maybe if we look at suffering withoutcondemnation, and try to understand it, maybe in this we can find the end of suffering. Ihope I made my self clear in relation to this.

How about Zen Buddhism? they often say: "if you see the Buddha on the road kill him" this tome sound like not to be influenced by anything including the Buddha's teachings. In addition,zenners use Koans, and the purpose of koans is "get the mind out of its ways" and "To let you

reference to this was it said.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html)

And what is your argument exactly? That there's a separate self? That you canattain arahantship without the Buddha's teachings as your guide? If it's theformer, I see little point in you debating this on a Buddhist forum because, as Isaid, you're going to meet a lot of friction; you're not going to convince anyone.If it's the latter...Well, I'll use the simile of it being like trying to invent thecalculus when Newton and Leibniz have already done so and have taught how todo it. Good luck with that.

There is no such thing as "free inquiry without belief" in any Buddhist schoolthat I know of.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html






know that you don't know" So you become more able to see "what is"

I remember listening to Shunryu Suzuki, he could not even remember the eight fold path andstarted laughing. Maybe he was joking, but the message he was trying to convey is theBuddha's teachings can be better understood in silence than in words.

One more Zen proverb that I particularly like: "A donkey carrying a pile of holy books is still adonkey"

I hope that this will not appear as if I am arguing that one Buddhist tradition is better thanthe other. I was simply answering your point.

I agree with you, actually this point was raised to Krishnamurti when he had discussions withDr.Walpola Rahula and he did not give a direct answer. However, unlike you, I find hismessage very compatible with the Buddha's teachings and I know many Buddhists who believethe same. There is a great article on Buddhanet about Krishnamurti and how is message is nodifferent from the Buddha's message. I am unable to open it on my laptop but here is the linkanyway:

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm)

Top



You are not comparing apples with apples, I would give a better analogy:

The Buddha tasted a piece of chocolate and he tried to describe to us how it tastes. We havenever tasted chocolates before and regardless how much we rely on his description, the onlyway to understand is to taste it ourselves.

And one little paradox I'd like to point out about Krishnamurti's teachings: inthat one follows them, one submits to his authority right there even though heteaches one not to submit to authority. If you really want to freely inquire, youalso have to drop the teaching of someone telling you that you should freelyinquire.

Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with specialrelativity. Why cant we?

Isn't it obvious?

Check out the simile of the raft here in MN 22. If you don't get the point I'mmaking in quoting it in response to what you said there, I can explain it.





http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm



I know the Simile of the raft in theory, but in practice, i don't see the raft and the one who isusing it as two separate things. in my mind, both are "thoughts". In my mind its similar to mydesire to steal money, and my fear that i will get caught, merely two conflicting desires.Please note that i don't say that the Buddha is wrong, i am only sharing how i see it from mypersonal experience.

Many thanks

Top


Unread postby SarathW » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:13 am

I heard this story when I was young.In short this how it goes.===========This farmer had a apple tree which produced mouth watering delicious fruits.There was such a demand for this apple, famer thought he could propagate it and make anapple orchard.Then he thought that he can sell this apple and make lots of money.He always wanted a very expensive Rolls Royce and he thought that he could by his dreamcar.He started to wonder where to park his new car when he bought it.Then he saw that apple tree is obstructing the path where he want to park his car.So he took an axe and cut the apple tree.

Motto of the story is perplex thinking (Papanca) without action could be very damaging.

Top



Hello culaavuso,

Well, it appears as a belief because we are using language, communicating ideas, but

Yet "the way to liberation is not through thinking, but through having an insight"is a thought. Believing this thought may lead to having an insight into why it istrue. A belief regarding the nature and limitations of beliefs has results.Regarding this idea of beliefs regarding the nature of beliefs leading tounderstanding the escape from the limitations of beliefs, it may be informativeto consider the following passage:











ultimately Its for us to see the true nature of a belief. For example, Ajahn chah used toadvise his disciple to make conclusions about any thoughts, and let go of them by saying: "notcertain". Now this would make Ajahn chah appear to be contradicting himself (because whathe was telling his disciple is some sort of belief) but me and you know that he was not!

I hate to sound like a broken record, but i think the true Dhamma can only be understood insilence, not by language. As ludwig Wittgenstein once said: " Silence tells no lies, silence doesnot deceive"

Usually masters discuss their experiences and the difficulties they faced with their disciple,and the Buddha is no exception. Using your logic, every wholesome thought can be seen as aprecursor to awakening.

Also me and you know the four noble truths, but not in a clear way that causes awakening!

I have read once that the Buddha was reluctant to teach after his enlightenment because heknew that we will not understand (which is quite evident by the way) and that a Brahmaconvinced him to do so, so he did it out of compassion.

Maybe he did not do it the hard way but the right way!

I would like to thank you for using your time to share your wisdom with me. My replies to youand others might look disagreeing, but i only do it to offer a different perspective. I learned a

This question could be parsed a few different ways, but particular thoughtsserving to shape a course of action is described as an important precursor tothe Buddha's awakening. For example, in MN 19, thoughts regarding twodifferent types of thinking related to Wrong Resolve and Right Resolve arediscussed:

This could again be parsed in a few different ways, but he is described asknowing the four Noble Truths in SN 56.11:

The word "Buddhist" is a relatively recent invention, so the question could againbe understood in different ways. The Buddha taught the Dhamma‐Vinaya with athorough understanding and comprehension. He found the truth through a longperiod of persistent practice, but taught the path he had discovered for thewelfare and benefit of others. The Buddha discovered the path the hard waybut taught it in a way that provided an advantage to those who could benefitfrom the teachings. This is similar to the way that the electromagneticdiscoveries of James Maxwell are now taught in schools rather than everyoneinterested in working with electricity rediscovering his equations from scratch.It's not impossible to rediscover things the hard way, but what reason is therefor choosing that over the alternative?



lot from you

Top



I went by what you said in the first post: "For a change, and as a beginner, I wanted to discusswhy its not stupid or laughable to believe in the existence of a separate self, and I am goingto argue why we have good reasons to believe in it." My mistake if I misrepresented you; itwas unintentional.

I'm not liberated from self view either because I haven't developed the path, calm and insightnecessary to do so. But I have developed enough to recognize that as the limiting factor and Iknow what I need to do to develop it. You seem to believe that by intellectual cogitation, youhave been able to develop deep insight into the teachings. You're still hypothesizing and thatshows that you haven't.

As Buddhists we take refuge in the Triple Gem, not our own conceptions. I know for myselfthat latter way only leads to going in circles. I also think we all have to figure that out at ourown pace...

Bundokji wrote:Where did I say that there is a separate self? I was merely trying to share mypersonal experience! Unfortunately, I am not enlightened and I still have selfview, so when I looked into why I feel that I have a separate self, I came upwith the points I raised in my original point.

Bundokji wrote:I tried the traditional way which is seeing why self view is wrong. I investigatedreality inwardly and outwardly against the Budda's teachings and I found thatthe Buddha was right in everything he said. I looked into the five aggregatesand I saw how they always change, and I could not find anything that I can calla "self", but did that liberate me from self view: The answer is no!

Bundokji wrote:Hence I tried to come up with something different, maybe if we look atsuffering without condemnation, and try to understand it, maybe in this we canfind the end of suffering. I hope I made my self clear in relation to this.

Bundokji wrote:How about Zen Buddhism? they often say: "if you see the Buddha on the roadkill him" this to me sound like not to be influenced by anything including the







I don't know enough about Zen to say for sure, but I don't know. You could ask on the Zen sub‐forum at Dharma Wheel, the sister forum to this one that focuses on Mahayana/Vajrayana.This forum is focused on Theravada although we have a few Zennies here that may be able toanswer you.

I disagree. His overall message is completely incompatible. The whole is more than the sumof its parts. That's not to say that bits and pieces of his teachings could be inspirational oreven compatible to Buddhist teachings when applied in the right context. However, this isn'tnecessary.

Buddha's teachings. In addition, zenners use Koans, and the purpose of koans is"get the mind out of its ways" and "To let you know that you don't know" So youbecome more able to see "what is"

I remember listening to Shunryu Suzuki, he could not even remember the eightfold path and started laughing. Maybe he was joking, but the message he wastrying to convey is the Buddha's teachings can be better understood in silencethan in words.

One more Zen proverb that I particularly like: "A donkey carrying a pile of holybooks is still a donkey"

I hope that this will not appear as if I am arguing that one Buddhist tradition isbetter than the other. I was simply answering your point.

Bundokji wrote:I agree with you, actually this point was raised to Krishnamurti when he haddiscussions with Dr.Walpola Rahula and he did not give a direct answer.However, unlike you, I find his message very compatible with the Buddha'steachings and I know many Buddhists who believe the same. There is a greatarticle on Buddhanet about Krishnamurti and how is message is no differentfrom the Buddha's message. I am unable to open it on my laptop but here is thelink anyway:

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm)

Bundokji wrote:

You are not comparing apples with apples, I would give a better analogy:

The Buddha tasted a piece of chocolate and he tried to describe to us how ittastes. We have never tasted chocolates before and regardless how much werely on his description, the only way to understand is to taste it ourselves.

Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with specialrelativity. Why cant we?

Isn't it obvious?

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm



And you're comparing chocolate to apples.

I'm not sure how you understood the analogy so I'll explain what I meant. The point of thatanalogy was to say that when someone is an expert in something, we shouldn't pretend weknow more than them. We shouldn't pretend we can come up with they came up with. Weshouldn't pretend we're their equal in their area of expertise. And if we want to learn thatarea of expertise for ourselves, do we try to figure it out ourselves? Or do we find a teacherwho is an expert? Of course we look for a teacher, a teacher we can trust and who we canput our faith in that he will tell the truth.

If you're looking for "enlightenment" (whatever that may mean to you) without a teacher, Ithink that's a bad idea that won't work. If you're looking to put an end to suffering asdescribed by the Buddha without following the Buddha's teaching, again I think that's a badidea that won't work. However, if you're looking to put an end to suffering as described by theBuddha by following the Buddha's teaching, I think that is a good idea that will work.

TopDisplay posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending GoPost ReplySubscribe topicBookmark topicEmail topicPrint viewPostprofile right

71 postsPrevious1234Next

Return to “Personal Experience”Jump toWelcome TERMS OF SERVICE (including reporting procedures) Announcements Introductions Suggestion boxModern Theravāda Discovering Theravāda General Theravāda discussion Theravāda for the modern world Dhammaduta (Dhamma propagation) Phenomenological Dhamma Ordination and Monastic Life Study GroupClassical Mahavihara Theravāda Classical Theravāda Abhidhamma PaliTheravāda Meditation Theravada Meditation Ethical Conduct

http://dhammawheel.com/viewforum.php?f=36

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?uid=9592&f=22&t=22305&watch=topic&start=20&hash=43237143























http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20&view=print

http://dhammawheel.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=22&t=22305

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=email&t=22305



http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&pss=0


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20&bookmark=1&hash=43237143



Samatha Meditation and Jhana Insight MeditationGeneral Dhamma Open Dhamma Open Dhamma Hot Topics Early Buddhism Dhammic Stories Shrine Room Personal Experience Wellness, Diet & Fitness Lounge NonEnglish Resources

Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: mal4mac, websat11 and 0 guestsGoogle Saffron, Theravada Search EnginePowered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited GZIP: OffDhammaWheel.com is associated with DharmaWheel.net, DhammaWiki.com, and TheDhamma.com


http://dhammawheel.com/




http://dhammawiki.com/





http://dhammawheel.com/viewonline.php

http://dharmawheel.net/




https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=005450833152705498271:hcbjbznmwso

https://www.phpbb.com/


http://thedhamma.com/



Documents

Believing in a Separate Self - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel