There is no self

[RongzomFan]

Is that a trick question? If one takes the historic person of Buddha as the founder of Buddhism then the question answers itself, if not then we enter into vast specualtion...

 

Om is extremely old, far older than the universes of form, and it also very young, much less than a nanosecond in age.

 

Om

 

 

Definitly. I am talking about the historic Buddha, Gautama or Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder.

 

Even taking that.....Buddhism is far older than Hinduism. Even Christianity is older than Hinduism.

Edited April 11, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

[Sunya]

Definitly. I am talking about the historic Buddha, Gautama or Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder.

 

Even taking that.....Buddhism is far older than Hinduism. Even Christianity is older than Hinduism.

 

Not necessarily. There are Vedas that predate Buddhism but these Vedas are polytheistic and nowhere resemble Vedanta. Vedanta literally means 'end of the Vedas'; it refers to the Upanishads, (the first Hindu nondual teachings) the earliest of which might have been around during the Buddhas time, but there is no evidence of this though because the Buddha never argued against these teachings. When the Buddha argued against current religious beliefs he always viewed Brahma as the creator God and never even mentioned a belief in monism (the Brahman), but he did argue against the existence of a soul.

 

There is far more evidence of Buddhism influencing Vedanta than vice versa. If you study Nagarjuna and then check out Sankara, you'll see much parallel. It's known that Sankara's Guru (Gaudapada) studed Mahayana.

 

Anyway, none of this really matters. Buddhists view Hindus as eternalists and Hindus view Buddhists as nihilists. Completely different paradigm.

 

From the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

 

“You should not practice ideas of impermanence, suffering, impurity, and selflessness as though they are real objects like stones or rocks but look instead for the meaning. You should use expedient means in every place and cultivate the ideas of permanence, happiness, and purity for the sake of all beings. If you do this, you will be like one who sees a gem in the muddied water among stones and rocks and waits for the water to settle before he skillfully plucks it out. It is the same with cultivating the idea of the self as with permanence, happiness, and purity.”

 

The monks were taken aback. They said, “Honored One, according to all you have taught and spoken, we have been asked to cultivate selflessness, leading to the dropping of the idea of a self. But now you tell us we should cultivate the idea of a self — what is the meaning of this?”

 

“Good”, replied the Buddha. “You are now asking about meaning. You should know that, like a doctor, you should find the right medicine for an illness. It is as a doctor that I observed the aliments of the world. I saw that ordinary people believe they have a self and that whoever they meet has a self. They think of the self as within the body. But it is not like that. Because it is not like that, I have shown the fallacy of all ideas of self and shown that the self is not there in the way it is thought to be. In everything I have said I have shown that the self is not as people think of it, for this is expedient means, the right medicine.

 

But that does mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.”

 

 

Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.3, Thanissaro 1994:

There is monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, emancipation from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned.

 

This is commonly the teaching that is memorized by people who want to see Buddhism in a Hindu light. It's the only teaching that does so. If you want to study Buddhism, how can you take just teaching and rip it apart from the rest? That's like taking a piano and taking out one key and trying to play it. You're missing the rest and you're not going to understand what Buddha means just through that passage since you have no understanding of the context. He's talking about the true existence of things as a nature, not a self-existing underlying substratum.

 

Anyway wasn't there a thread about this very topic?

Edited April 11, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

Not necessarily. There are Vedas that predate Buddhism but these Vedas are polytheistic and nowhere resemble Vedanta. Vedanta literally means 'end of the Vedas'; it refers to the Upanishads, (the first Hindu nondual teachings) the earliest of which might have been around during the Buddhas time, but there is no evidence of this though because the Buddha never argued against these teachings. When the Buddha argued against current religious beliefs he always viewed Brahma as the creator God and never even mentioned a belief in monism (the Brahman), but he did argue against the existence of a soul.

 

There is far more evidence of Buddhism influencing Vedanta than vice versa. If you study Nagarjuna and then check out Sankara, you'll see much parallel. It's known that Sankara's Guru (Gaudapada) studed Mahayana.

 

Anyway, none of this really matters. Buddhists view Hindus as eternalists and Hindus view Buddhists as nihilists. Completely different paradigm.

 

 

I agree with this. Although, it is not just Nagarjuna influencing Advaita. Adi Shankara QUOTES Nagarjuna and many other authors!

[3bob]

Definitly. I am talking about the historic Buddha, Gautama or Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder.

 

Even taking that.....Buddhism is far older than Hinduism. Even Christianity is older than Hinduism.

 

There are many forms of "Hinduism", of which form you are speaking of I'm not sure?

anyway in Buddhist scripture forms of Hinduism are mentioned in the historical account of the life of the founder of Buddhism, as him being a member of same in his younger years - so that should answer your question from the perspective of widely accepted Buddhist doctrine and history.

 

As for Sanatana Dharma (or the eternal dharma) as handed down from the subtle heavenly realms to mankind as "Hinduism", I don't believe it's age has ever been nailed down exactly although there is doctrine related to such which bring up periods that obviously predate the birth of the once "Hindu" prince who became the historic Buddha.

 

Om

[RongzomFan]

 

anyway in Buddhist scripture forms of Hinduism are mentioned in the historical account of the life of the founder of Buddhism, as him being a member of same in his younger years

Om

 

There was mysticism and aestheticism, sure.

 

Where did it ever say what Buddha's parents religion was?

[3bob]

Not necessarily. There are Vedas that predate Buddhism but these Vedas are polytheistic and nowhere resemble Vedanta. Vedanta literally means 'end of the Vedas'; it refers to the Upanishads, (the first Hindu nondual teachings) the earliest of which might have been around during the Buddhas time, but there is no evidence of this though because the Buddha never argued against these teachings. When the Buddha argued against current religious beliefs he always viewed Brahma as the creator God and never even mentioned a belief in monism (the Brahman), but he did argue against the existence of a soul.

 

There is far more evidence of Buddhism influencing Vedanta than vice versa. If you study Nagarjuna and then check out Sankara, you'll see much parallel. It's known that Sankara's Guru (Gaudapada) studed Mahayana.

 

Anyway, none of this really matters. Buddhists view Hindus as eternalists and Hindus view Buddhists as nihilists. Completely different paradigm.

 

 

 

This is commonly the teaching that is memorized by people who want to see Buddhism in a Hindu light. It's the only teaching that does so. If you want to study Buddhism, how can you take just teaching and rip it apart from the rest? That's like taking a piano and taking out one key and trying to play it. You're missing the rest and you're not going to understand what Buddha means just through that passage since you have no understanding of the context. He's talking about the true existence of things as a nature, not a self-existing underlying substratum.

 

Anyway wasn't there a thread about this very topic?

 

Yes, there are several self-perpetuating type threads on this topic... lol

 

And that's funny, you say that Hinduism and Vedanta are somehow contradictory... and that I'm also taking key Buddhist texts out of context when such are actually of the key context and meaning, imo and experience anyway.

 

You are welcome to your opinions but they are not the only ones out there.

 

Om

[ralis]

I think your comments are worthless because they rarely have anything to do with the conversation itself.

 

It's like in the middle of a debate about the chemical make up of an apple, you go "NO, APPLE HAS TWO P's IN IT!" and continue arguing about using two P's and how the other person is wrong because two P's are unnecessary in spelling apple.

 

Then you say "YOU ARE SO NARROW MINDED!"

 

You don't even understand what people here mean when they mention "no self" but you keep arguing from your misunderstanding. Now, if you are new to these ideas, I wouldn't mind at all, but you've been doing this for quite a while. And I don't think you are stupid, so I'm not sure what the hell is wrong with you. But all in all, you have had absolutely no positive influence what so ever, especially to yourself (which is really what matters most), because your mind seems to be frozen into bits and pieces (it's just a guess).

 

So if you don't understand, kindly question. If you are going toss in random comments for your ego's sake...shhhhhhh....( we know you studied philosophy and like to play poker, but so what?).

 

 

I know exactly what you mean by "no self". The problem I have with your arguments is that you always posit from a philosophical point of view as opposed to an experiential one. You reduce suffering to some choice less or karmic process rather than have feelings for the tremendous pain that beings go through. That allows you to keep your distance. You view life through your philosophical constructs rather than face it directly. Your philosophical view is just another mask.

 

When you seem to be trying to possibly state an experience, it is always framed in the same way as how you originally read it. In other words through the same semantic constructs as a Taoist or Buddhist book that you have obviously read. In my opinion, you have not integrated the teaching, but merely parrot what you have read.

 

I posted some links and comments to determine if you are able to see past yourself. Do you feel with your heart the pain of another or are you just viewing the plight of another through your head.

 

Before you use terms such as ego that you obviously don't understand. Do a little research. You are using that term in a patronizing way. Freud would disagree with the implication and your use of the term.

 

ralis

Edited April 11, 2010 by ralis

[C T]

Article: Buddha, The Refiner of Hinduism.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/gurussaintsofthepast/a/buddha.htm

 

The last paragraph is worthy to note.

[3bob]

There was mysticism and aestheticism, sure.

 

Where did it ever say what Buddha's parents religion was?

 

You can find brief information related to the following from Wikipedia, many other sources including Buddhist doctrine also mention material along these lines.

 

"Kshatriya (Hindi: क्षत्रिय, kṣatriya from Sanskrit: क्षत्र, kṣatra) or Kashtriya meaning warrior is one of the four varnas (social orders) in Hinduism. शर्म ब्राहमणस्य वर्म क्षत्रियस्य गुप्तेती वैश्यस्य Prasar grhaysutras). It traditionally constituted the military and ruling order of the Vedic-Hindu social system outlined by the Vedas and the Laws of Manu. Kshatriyas used to hold the top rank in the ancient Indian society: Rama, Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama, all of the Tirthankaras of Jainism from Parsvanatha to Mahavira were kshatriyas."

 

Om

Edited April 11, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

From an experiential viewpoint, the whole point of this thread is to focus on the tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the present moment and distinguish it from the monkey mind.

 

It is not simply stilling the mind.

Edited April 11, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Article: Buddha, The Refiner of Hinduism.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/gurussaintsofthepast/a/buddha.htm

 

The last paragraph is worthy to note.

 

 

A bunch of misinformation not present in actual academic works.

 

Many Hindu temples are actually ancient buddhist sites

 

Some isolated tribals in India maintained an ancient religion, being separate from mainstream india. That religion is buddhism.

Edited April 11, 2010 by alwayson

[ralis]

From an experiential viewpoint, the whole point of this thread is to focus on the tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the present moment and distinguish it from the monkey mind.

 

It is not simply stilling the mind.

 

Namkhai Norbu's explanation is appropriate ie., Dzogchen. That is, to let the content liberate into it's own nature (energy). That produces clarity.

 

 

ralis

[RongzomFan]

I just wanted to add to my previous comment.

 

You CAN still the mind, if you are already aware of the CLARITY and VIVIDNESS aspect.

[C T]

Namkhai Norbu's explanation is appropriate ie., Dzogchen. That is, to let the content liberate into it's own nature (energy). That produces clarity.

 

 

ralis

This 'letting' suggests a premeditated action of sorts - in ultimate Dzogchen there is simply spontaneous, non-fabricated self-liberation - no doing at all... wu wei perhaps? In some circles, it is said that there isnt actually an individual entity to 'let' anything happen. Good point though.

[C T]

Hey Alwayson... perhaps you would care to back up some of your observations with scholastic material eh?

[3bob]

A bunch of misinformation not present in actual academic works.

 

Many Hindu temples are actually ancient buddhist sites

 

Some isolated tribals in India maintained an ancient religion, being separate from mainstream india. That religion is buddhism.

 

What are you talking about...? Some of the slightly recorded, or slightly recorded document wise speak of ancient tribals who worshiped Kundalini in the form of a snake carved on stones that have been found at very ancient and also documented sites in India. Another example are the Indian tribals who worship tree spirits - and they are still in India to this day. I've never heard of Buddhist like "tribals" existing before the founder of Buddhism existed, after which his teachings started to permutate into various sects, some of which then had (or still have) mixtures of certain ancient and or shamanistic ways blended into those forms of Buddhism.

 

Om

Edited April 11, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

From an experiential viewpoint, the whole point of this thread is to focus on the tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the present moment and distinguish it from the monkey mind.

 

It is not simply stilling the mind.

 

hmm, the thread title includes, "and I have proof",

...which to me is soundly refuted by the insight of the Buddhist teaching of the "four-fold negation".

 

Om

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

alwayson, on 11 April 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

 

From an experiential viewpoint, the whole point of this thread is to focus on the tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS of the present moment and distinguish it from the monkey mind.

 

It is not simply stilling the mind.

Hi alwayson: Actually, stilling the mind is HOW you achieve "tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS".. IF the mind is active, you are not in 'the present moment'..

 

Be well..

[Lucky7Strikes]

I know exactly what you mean by "no self".

Then do explain.

 

The problem I have with your arguments is that you always posit from a philosophical point of view as opposed to an experiential one. You reduce suffering to some choice less or karmic process rather than have feelings for the tremendous pain that beings go through. That allows you to keep your distance. You view life through your philosophical constructs rather than face it directly. Your philosophical view is just another mask.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever say these things?

 

I have no way of relating to you my experiences. I can only show the symbolic representations of that experience which is language itself. I never speak straight from scriptures. Everything I write I have investigated and inquired by direct experience of existence.

 

You sound like a teabagger who dislikes liberal intellecutals because they are...elitist.

 

Suffering as a choiceless karmic process? What the FUCK? I spent more than 20 pages with Xabir arguing against determinism!! Why don't you pay more attention? OH wait but you don't know what that means.

 

You moron, the philosophical constructs ARE how you experience reality! The mask is your goddamn reality.

 

When you seem to be trying to possibly state an experience, it is always framed in the same way as how you originally read it. In other words through the same semantic constructs as a Taoist or Buddhist book that you have obviously read. In my opinion, you have not integrated the teaching, but merely parrot what you have read.

 

I posted some links and comments to determine if you are able to see past yourself. Do you feel with your heart the pain of another or are you just viewing the plight of another through your head.

 

Before you use terms such as ego that you obviously don't understand. Do a little research. You are using that term in a patronizing way. Freud would disagree with the implication and your use of the term.

 

ralis

There are only so many words I can use to describe the mystical. Beyond that it is indescribable and the very act of describing hinders progress.

 

You linked about a girl who died because she was married too young. WHAT THE HELL DID THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE???

 

NOTHING!!

 

There is no teaching that I need to integrate. My insight is my teaching. I don't read stuff and try to follow it, I look directly into my being. Right here. Right now.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[ralis]

Then do explain.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever say these things?

 

I have no way of relating to you my experiences. I can only show the symbolic representations of that experience which is language itself. I never speak straight from scriptures. Everything I write I have investigated and inquired by direct experience of existence.

 

You sound like a teabagger who dislikes liberal intellecutals because they are...elitist.

 

Suffering as a choiceless karmic process? What the FUCK? I spent more than 20 pages with Xabir arguing against determinism!! Why don't you pay more attention? OH wait but you don't know what that means.

 

You moron, the philosophical constructs ARE how you experience reality! The mask is your goddamn reality.

 

 

There are only so many words I can use to describe the mystical. Beyond that it is indescribable and the very act of describing hinders progress.

 

You linked about a girl who died because she was married too young. WHAT THE HELL DID THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE???

 

NOTHING!!

 

There is no teaching that I need to integrate. My insight is my teaching. I don't read stuff and try to follow it, I look directly into my being. Right here. Right now.

 

 

The link was provided to show that someone else does not have the same access to other points of view or choices as you. Why the difference? Is she less than you are because of her circumstances. Did she have a chance to study the same dharma as you and realize "no self"? You are fortunate that you live in a culture in which you can still freely express your views and realize what you call "no self".

 

I actually prefer the term "no separation". That has been my experience. I had that experience when I was very young.

 

I guess you looked into your being and judged me as a moron with rigid views. I am neither. Comparing me to a "teabagger". You are way off the track. I have alienated my entire family of Republicans because of my open mindedness, questioning everything, and having dreaded progressive ideas. Furthermore, my exploration of eastern religion and philosophy.

 

 

Of course I know what determinism is. Of which there are many types. From genetic, environmental to philosophical etc. Tough subject to arrive at any absolute answer. The reason being is something called "dynamic systems" in which the main characteristic is change. Order and chaos. Multiple variables that interact with each other in ways that are sometimes extremely difficult to predict. I have a very difficult time with anything deterministic especially when I see how all things change and what causes change. That is why I challenge the ideology of an absolute deterministic karma.

 

 

ralis

Edited April 11, 2010 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

I've never heard of Buddhist like "tribals" existing before the founder of Buddhism existed,

Om

 

 

I am saying in the PRESENT TIME or close to it, there are tribals that still adhere to the first major religion of India, buddhism, as they were in isolation. They never converted to hinduism.

 

BTW, hinduism is a hybrid of buddhism and a bunch of other elements.

Edited April 11, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi alwayson: Actually, stilling the mind is HOW you achieve "tension-free CLARITY and VIVIDNESS".. IF the mind is active, you are not in 'the present moment'..

 

Be well..

 

 

Or you can effortlessly focus on the clarity and vividness of the present moment using your five senses. Through this "mindfulness" the rest happens automatically.

Edited April 11, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

I am saying in the PRESENT TIME or close to it, there are tribals that still adhere to the first major religion of India, buddhism, as they were in isolation. They never converted to hinduism.

 

BTW, hinduism is a hybrid of buddhism and a bunch of other elements.

 

I suggest you consult with some devout Buddhists who have studied a great deal more than I have. I have shared with you some of the the very basic information and accounts handed down through the Buddhist lineages/sects, doctrines and also histories but you keep coming up with who knows what??

 

Indian "Tribals" I've heard of are normally related groups who worship and or have beliefs in spirit Beings such as tree spirits, animal spirits, elemental spirits, ancestor spirits, etc.. (along with various herbal, magic and shamanistic type practices)

Edited April 11, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

That is true about Madhyamika. Madhyamika simply is a nonimplicative negation of a claim.

 

P.S. Are you one of those who mistakenly think Hindusim is older than Buddhism?

 

You obviously have learnt history different than I (and billions of other people in the world) did...and I have those silly theories before. Here's what I think of them: BLFFFFFT!

 

Buddhism is also considered a Darshana in the Hindu tradition, albeit a non-orthodox one, in that it doesn't consider the Vedas infalliable. I will only suggest that the Vedic darshanas are rooted in the Rig, Sama and Yajur Vedas, where the Rg is as old as 7000 BCE (per the astronomical code in the texts). And the Vedas are definitely older than 3102BCE (the time of the Bharata War, per Indian tradition). That certainly predates Purva Mimamsa before anything the Buddha did or said by a few thousand years. Sankhya is almost as old as Purva Mimamsa, while Uttara Mimamsa (aka Vedanta) is relatively newer, but not younger than Shakyamuni. Advaita Vedanta's Sankara is definitely younger than The Buddha, so if one were to consider Advaita Vedanta as taught by Sankara as Hinduism, they might be mistaken into believing that Hinduism is younger than Buddhism.

 

Listen friend, I have discussed this in great detail right here on TTB about a year to 8 months ago with threads running into hundreds of comments...there is nothing much else to discuss on the chronology of things. As far as Shankara "ripping" off Nagarjuna is concerned...in the circle of Indian philosophers, it was very normal first learn the "other" before refuting it and then providing an alternative. In technical terms they are called Purva Paksha, Uttara Paksha and Siddhanta/conclusion respectively. So yes...since Shankara debated and defeated several Buddhist scholars, he was obviously very well versed with Madhyamika and Nagarjuna.

 

And just because there are certain differences in position between Advaita and Buddhism, it is not entirely illogical to accept that they are both referring to the same experience (Nirvana or Advaita). The descriptives, etc that follow the experience differ from person to person based on personal history, motive, biases, etc.

 

I have said so before and I say it again -- Shankara or the Trika Tantrics present Buddhism far better than most Buddhists do, because the Buddhists are so attached to a concept (anatta) that the Buddha introduced to help the seekers identify that which they are. It is this misunderstanding on part of the Buddhists that makes their philosophy incorrect/incomplete.