Buddhist meditations for extinguishing the self

[wandelaar]

@ Maddie

 

The people who originally transmitted the teachings were no doubt highly motivated to get it right and would have added checks to weed out errors, so that's incomparable to children playing a telephone game. One should use information about the actual process used in oral transmission to test its worth or lack thereof.

 

Furthermore the likelihood that the later Mahayana texts contain the Buddha's words in my opinion is much less than for the earlier Theravada texts.

[stirling]

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

Granted I'm much more familiar with the Pali texts than the Mahayana texts, but that being the case I believe that the diamond sutra and the heart sutra are speaking about the teaching of non-self as opposed to non-duality.

 

The difference being that non-self would teach that what you think of as yourself or your ego is not really yourself, and to my understanding non-duality teaches that there's no distinction between yourself and other things.

 

I'd read those a little more carefully if you are curious.

 

No-self is really just the first deepening into complete understanding. The implications of no-self cascade and deepen, and never stop deepening. Self is recognized in all appearances and dropped. 

 

Not sure if you are a committed Buddhist, but finding a realized lineage teacher to ask questions of could clear this up for you.

[Maddie]

13 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Maddie

 

The people who originally transmitted the teachings were no doubt highly motivated to get it right and would have added checks to weed out errors, so that's incomparable to children playing a telephone game. One should use information about the actual process used in oral transmission to test its worth or lack thereof.

 

Furthermore the likelihood that the later Mahayana texts contain the Buddha's words in my opinion is much less than for the earlier Theravada texts.

 

Oh I agree. I don't think it's a valid argument but I was trying to answer the question as to what the argument was.

 

I also agree that the Pali Cannon can be confidently said to contain the words of the Buddha whereas Mahayana texts are later additions. Not to say that they're not useful but clearly not from the Buddha.

[Maddie]

6 minutes ago, stirling said:

Not sure if you are a committed Buddhist, but finding a realized lineage teacher to ask questions of could clear this up for you.

 

I think flexing credentials tends to distract from the actual analysis of the text and how it stands or falls on its own merits.

[stirling]

26 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I think flexing credentials tends to distract from the actual analysis of the text and how it stands or falls on its own merits.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. What I mean is that there are a handful of what you might think of as "enlightened beings" in most decent sized cities that have complete understanding of the teachings, or what you might call "Right View" or understanding of the "nature of mind'. These are most often teachers that are authorized to teach by their lineage holders. 

 

It isn't about credentials or implied authority, it is about having the perspective explained by one that embodies it. There are a number of aspects of Buddhist study that NEED pointing out. It isn't an intellectual pursuit. Ones beliefs or imagined understanding on the topic of aspects like "no-self" are always wrong, because they are only beliefs or ideas. The understanding isn't a conceptual knowledge.

 

An example:

 

Part of the text I shared above in the Heart Sutra says:

 

Quote

...all dharmas are marked by emptiness... (Heart Sutra)

 

The  plural term "dharmas" is used to describe the interrelated elements that make up the empirical world... so, everything, including the illusory "self" and all appearances in the world are included here. They are empty of any existence of their own, and thus non-dual. You may have read the text, but missed out on the subtleties of the meaning. If you are truly curious, a teacher who can see that all dharmas are empty and point out how that is would be invaluable. 

[steve]

@Maddie

@wandelaar

 

I appreciate the information and discussion. I’m somewhat familiar with the history of transmission of Sakyamuni Buddha’s teachings. Unfortunately, I am also somewhat familiar with human nature, misinformation, compounding errors, the effects of translation on meaning, the desire for credibility, the influence of politics, culture, and competition on religion, and so forth.

 

I respect the attempt at focusing on teachings that are as pure and authentic as possible. I value that deeply in my own chosen tradition. On the other hand, due to the factors alluded to above, I have learned the value of a personal connection to a living lineage and of confidence and certainty born of personal experience. 

[Taoist Texts]

12 hours ago, Maddie said:

Anyway eventually about 400 years after the Buddha ... they decided to put the cannon into written form so that it wouldn't become lost.

thats the official story yes. but given that the craft of writing is mentioned multiple times in the canon it is highly unlikely that nothing of living Buddha's preaching was written down 

[C T]

11 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

....Not to say that they're not useful but clearly not from the Buddha.

 

Depends. If you were to ask a Vajrayana practitioner, you'd be informed the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel on 3 occasions, giving teachings to the 3 types of 'hearers' - the solitary ones that prioritise self emancipation by practicing the Middle Way, then the bodhisattvas who vow to calm sufferings of beings by the embodiment of Bodhicitta, and finally, aspirants that follow the path of Mahamudra and/or Dzogchen. This group will propose that there isn't a single teaching in all 3 turnings that did not come from Gautama. 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by C T

[Tom Beckett]

Wait, I don’t understand. If most of you don’t believe in a dualistic universe then what do you believe in? Materialism? Idealism?

[wandelaar]

14 minutes ago, Tom Beckett said:

Wait, I don’t understand. If most of you don’t believe in a dualistic universe then what do you believe in? Materialism? Idealism?

 

You can chose what you believe the ultimate stuff to be made of, but actually you don't need to. If you believe that the world including yourself consists of one interconnected whole without autonomous parts (and there is every reason to do so) than that's also non-dualism.

[Tom Beckett]

Yeah but there is a difference. Materialism entails the oblivion of consciousness and existence after death while idealism entails consciousness, existence, and awareness as indestructible and essential.

[ChiDragon]

1 hour ago, Tom Beckett said:

Yeah but there is a difference. Materialism entails the oblivion of consciousness and existence after death while idealism entails consciousness, existence, and awareness as indestructible and essential.

 

@Cobiefor you

是的，但这是有区别的。 唯物主义意味着死后意识和存在的遗忘，而唯心主义则意味着意识、存在和意识是坚不可摧和必不可少的。

[wandelaar]

3 hours ago, Tom Beckett said:

Yeah but there is a difference. Materialism entails the oblivion of consciousness and existence after death while idealism entails consciousness, existence, and awareness as indestructible and essential.

 

Not necessarily. There is also the option of hylic pluralism that can accommodate the existence of ghosts and the like. Furthermore idealism when taken to mean that only the world of ideas is real doesn't imply that our life somehow goes on after death. The  only conclusion that can sensibly be drawn from idealism of the latter sort is that nothing real would survive if somehow all minds would disappear. Or maybe not even that if one supposes the world of ideas as something that could conceivably exist without any mind perceiving them.

[Tom Beckett]

9 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Not necessarily. There is also the option of hylic pluralism that can accommodate the existence of ghosts and the like. Furthermore idealism when taken to mean that only the world of ideas is real doesn't imply that our life somehow goes on after death. The  only conclusion that can sensibly be drawn from idealism of the latter sort is that nothing real would survive if somehow all minds would disappear. Or maybe not even that if one supposes the world of ideas as something that could conceivably exist without any mind perceiving them.

Could you tell me what hylic pluralism is?

[wandelaar]

2 minutes ago, Tom Beckett said:

Could you tell me what hylic pluralism is?

 

Best to read Poortman himself, but this will get you started: http://www.sofiatopia.org/bodhi/hylic_pluralism.htm

[stirling]

6 hours ago, Tom Beckett said:

Wait, I don’t understand. If most of you don’t believe in a dualistic universe then what do you believe in? Materialism? Idealism?

 

A belief is a story we construct in our thinking minds. It is merely a placeholder before we gnow (through gnosis) experientially how things are. 

 

Buddhism is somewhat unique amongst philosophies and religions. The intention is to find out for yourself how things are, not believe something or adopt a belief system. You are encouraged to take on propositions and explore them until they are understood experientially, NOT just accepted as beliefs. 

 

What ends up being found (insight into the nature of mind and reality) doesn't really fit into any of the "mologies" or "isms". The non-dual nature of reality has no time, space, self, or subject/object relationships. It is seen that the world of separate things is a illusion, yet the world of separate things is still visible, just demonstrably, moment-to-moment unreal in the way we had always imagined and accepted it.

 

Ideas like unity, monism, and non duality all point at it, but really only represent ideas about its conceptual aspects, not the wholeness of understanding it. 

 

Quote

“All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.” -  Nagarjuna

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by stirling

[Maddie]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:44 PM, Tom Beckett said:

From what I have heard from many , Buddhist meditations are primarily directed at separating or extinguishing the self. What are these meditations and how do they work? 

 

Going back to the original topic. I think a common misconception in Buddhism is that the self is something that is meant to be ended. This is not the case. What the Buddha taught is that what is to be realized is that the five aggregates or what we think of as being the self is not the self. The idea is to realize what the self is not. 

[wandelaar]

How can one realize what the self is not if one doesn't know what the self is supposed to be?

[Maddie]

52 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

How can one realize what the self is not if one doesn't know what the self is supposed to be?

 

Who said its supposed to be anything?

If it even exists.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Maddie

[wandelaar]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

Who said its supposed to be anything?

 

That my point! You cannot rule out that the possibility that something is or belongs to the self, when you haven't at least in some measure determined beforehand what the self is supposed to be.

 

Example: somebody claims that his character traits are a fundamental part of his self, and consequently that he wouldn't recognize himself as the same person when those traits would radically change. Then how do you disprove this position of his on the self without referring to some claim or other about what the self is supposed to be?

Edited March 1, 2023 by wandelaar

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

That my point! You cannot rule out that the possibility that something is or belongs to the self, when you haven't at least in some measure determined beforehand what the self is supposed to be.

 

That's still assuming that it is something. If I say my house is not a unicorn, and my car is not unicorn, and my wardrobe is not a unicorn, and my dinner is not a unicorn, that just states what is not a unicorn but says nothing about what a unicorn is or if a unicorn exists at all.

[wandelaar]

Problem with this way of reasoning is that for someone who (partly) identifies with his character traits (see my example) the existence of his self isn't problematic. If you want to prove to that person that his self might not exist than you've got a problem.

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Problem with this way of reasoning is that for someone who (partly) identifies with his character traits (see my example) the existence of his self isn't problematic. If you want to prove to that person that his self might not exist than you've got a problem.

 

When asked if there is or is not a self the Buddha never answered either question.

[liminal_luke]

On 2/25/2023 at 8:50 AM, steve said:

 

Being raised in Judaism, I always had trouble connecting with it for a variety of reasons. 

I was once driving with an ultra-orthodox rabbi, who coincidentally drove like a maniac...

I asked him about his understanding of God and his way of describing it led me to a rudimentary (conceptual) understanding of non-duality. Many years later I was attending a Bar-Mitzvah, a ritualistic Jewish coming of age ceremony, and the brother of a friend gave some brief comments. Somehow his comments opened me up to a different and much deeper understanding of the most important and fundamental prayer in the liturgy, the Shema - Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. What opened up for me was that in describing the Lord as One (or, taking a liberty with the translation - One-ness) we are stating a doctrine of non-duality. Whether that is correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate, it was immediately true for me, and will always remain so based on my own spiritual path and experiences, and has helped me connect more deeply with the prayers and liturgy and my own heritage in a sense. 

 

I love this understanding of the Shema.  Interestingly, you're not the only one to see it this way...

 

Here's a quote from 2123 The Deeper Meaning of the Shema Yisroel Daily Chant (Print) — Rabbi David Cooper:

 

All of Judaism, and in many ways, all of Western tradition can be summed up in one sentence: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One. The emphasis of this statement is: Oneness. Kabbalah teaches that this sentence summarizes the entire Torah and all of Western mysticism. This is the essential culmination of non-duality. It is not referring to the number one, for that would suggest that there are other numbers, or that there are no numbers (the idea of zero). This oneness is inclusive—transcending numbers—embracing all ideas, it holds within it nothingness as well as infinity. It is without limit. Kabbalah refers to this oneness as Ein Sof, which means “without end.” I usually refer to this as Boundlessness.

[steve]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

How can one realize what the self is not if one doesn't know what the self is supposed to be?

 

One can realize what the self is not by observing one’s own experience carefully. All of the different things that we tend to identify with as self can be seen to be only passing experiences and partial descriptions. If this is done consistently over a period of time a realization can arise regarding the nature of self. Telling someone what that realization is supposed to be tends not to be at all helpful, often quite the opposite. Allowing someone to do the work for themselves is generally the most effective method of discovery.