Believing in A Separate Self

26/8/2558
BelievinginaseparateselfPage2DhammaWheel
Dhamma Wheel
ABuddhistdiscussionforumontheDhammaoftheTheravada
Skiptocontent
Search Advancedsearch
Search
Believing in a separate self

Forumrules
PostReply
Subscribetopic
Bookmarktopic
Emailtopic
Printview
Postprofileright
Searchthistopic
Search Advancedsearch
Firstunreadpost71posts
Previous
1
2
3
4
Next
Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318829)

Reportthispost(./report.php?f=22&p=318829)
Quote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=22&p=318829)
(javascript:void(0))
UnreadpostbyBundokjiTueNov25,201410:44pm
SarathW wrote:
Bundokji wrote:
SarathW wrote:
Don't you want to be happy?
Journey towards Nibbana is with full of joy.
All worldlings want to be happy, but don't you think that this is a part of
the problem?
By "wanting", we plant the seeds for further "wantings" and we end up in
the vicious cycle we live in.
Buddha advise us strongly for us to have a wholesome desire (wanting) which is

called 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.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=22305&start=20
1/23
26/8/2558
We don't have to rediscover electricity. Just incorporate it for our living.
Thanks SarathW. The Dhamma if I understand it correctly, is an invitation to investigate. In

order to investigate the truth of any matter, I should be free from biases, authority and
desires. This the scientific method, its not a mental position, not a belief, but its the best
way to gain knowledge.
The Buddha himself in the Kalama sutta encouraged free inquiry. As far as I know, the Buddha
never presented himself as an authority.
I saw how the Buddhist path enhanced my life, my relationship with my family, with people in
general and with myself. However, I still have doubts in relation to the third noble truth. My
mind does not understand it and I have never met anyone who is completely free from
suffering.
So, what is the best way to deal with doubt? to deny it? to say that the Buddha have done all
the hard work for me and I should simply follow? or to continue to investigate?
Cheers
Top

UnreadpostbySarathWTueNov25,201411:14pm
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

UnreadpostbyBundokjiTueNov25,201411:19pm
You're pretty smart to see how that influence affects how you approach
religious teachings in general. I used to be very into Krishnamurti before I got
into Buddhism. IMO, they are incompatible. This is wellexpressed by that quote
you just gave and others in which he suggests rejection of all authority. The
thing with Buddhism is that one is supposed to have faith in the Buddha's
teachings or at least accept them as working hypotheses. This is what taking
refuge in the Triple Gem is all about.
2/23
26/8/2558
I'm curious...Are you here to learn about Buddhism? Are you here to offer forth
and 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 bit
of both, taking more of the "student" position will be more beneficial.
Hello Mkoll,
I am not against having faith in the Buddha's teachings, I am only against having them as a
belief/authority.
The difference between faith and belief was clearly explained in one of Alan Watts's books
when he said: "A belief clings, while faith lets go".
The Buddha himself followed many teachers, but only got enlightened when he discarded all
of that and investigated by himself. This part of the Buddha's story is very significant in my
opinion.
Now, to answer your question "why I am here?" Well, for few different reasons: first I live in
the middle east where there is no Buddhist community to interact with, so this forum enables
me to communicate with experienced Buddhists. Getting into a philosophical debate is one
way of learning for myself and can benefit both sides of the debate. It enables both sides to
test their views against each other. I don't see contradiction between both. However, I
should admit that I have arrogance which blinded me in many occasions, I am still far from
being wise.
Best Regards
Top

UnreadpostbyculaavusoTueNov25,201411:52pm
Bundokji wrote:
So, what is the best way to deal with doubt? to deny it? to say that the Buddha
have done all the hard work for me and I should simply follow? or to continue to
investigate?
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 explanations
of someone trustworthy, skilled, and successful in a particular domain are likely to offer high
quality working hypotheses that can allow confirmation through appropriate investigations
that lead to dispelling of doubt. Such an approach can help in overcoming the easy mistake of
confusing blind acceptance of predispositions with being uncommitted.
3/23
26/8/2558
Reflections From a Student on the Path

(http://www.cs.usask.ca/~osgood/Personal/ReflectionsOnThePath.html) by Nathaniel
Osgood wrote:
Particularly as a scientist, it is tempting to take a skeptical stance with respect
to many beliefs tied up in the tradition beliefs about the possibility of
qualitatively distinctive states of Awakening and the existence of the Deathless,
kamma, rebirth, and others. For those early on the practice, this could also
include beliefs such as regarding the need for selfrestraint, and feasibility of
reaching the Jhanic states.
It is tempting for those from philosophically and scientifically sophisticated
background to aspire to a state of neither committing to such beliefs nor
avowing nonbelief, but instead to just aim at an openminded, uncommitted
perspective. Unfortunately, it may be possible to adopt this stance with respect
to many sorts of facts and hypotheses, it is not feasible to be truly
uncommitted for the many practicerelated beliefs which have implications for
what we do in our practice. After all, we can insist on our openmindedness and
noncommittal 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 the
belief (about which we aspire to be "open minded") is true or false. From my
experience, such putatively "noncommittal" stances regarding matters of the
mind often end up getting int the way of real progress in our understanding
we are too loosygoosy in our views to really commit to the level needed to
really empirically and experientially test the plausibility of the beliefs.
Here, all too often, one can't really claim to have given the practice a decent
try!
I found an analogy helpful here. Given the urgency of the practice and its giant
impact on our life, it's a poor analogy, but does capture some of the irony of
the situation. Specifically, avowing "noncommittal" believes regarding
potentially observable areas of the mind reminds me of someone living far from
the mountains who takes an "uncommitted" attitude towards whether mountains
exist and claims that this is rational because they have never seen the
mountains. Claiming to lack any particular belief on the matter, they never
have the or motivation to impetus get off their duff and go try to verify the
existence of the mountains.
In line with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's suggestions, rather than aspiring to an
infeasible "uncommitted" stance to things claimed in the suttas that we have
not yet experienced, I find it much more effective to commit wholeheartedly to
such beliefs as working hypotheses and to commit to exploring firsthand the
effectiveness of putting such beliefs into practice in what we do. To continue
on the imperfect analogy, knowing that other knowledgeable individuals
(analogous to other highly experienced practitioners whether contemporary
or in the Suttas) have commented in detail on the existence of the mountains
and described how one reaches them and the desirability of reaching them, one
commits to belief in such mountains as a working hypothesis, and strives in a
careful fashion to reach them. In this case, one has a good chance that you'll be
able to assess the reliability of the claims of mountains and benefit from the
results one way or another.
In short, given that I aspire to really give the practice a serious try, I've found
that I need to be very cautious about the idea that I can simply put totally aside
4/23
26/8/2558
issues of central claims. Even in the typical case you haven't seen the evidence
firsthand yet, the sensible thing seems often to commit to them as working
hypotheses indeed, this seems to often be the only way I would have the
chance to really see the evidence first hand. However seductive from the
perspective of sounding advance and savvy, from my experience, taking an
"uncommitted" stance seems to often doom us to a situation where we block our
own path by cutting off the chance of witnessing firsthand the very evidence
that would allow us to deepen and make progress in our practice.
Top

UnreadpostbyMkollTueNov25,201411:55pm
Bundokji wrote:
I am not against having faith in the Buddha's teachings, I am only against having
them as a belief/authority.
The difference between faith and belief was clearly explained in one of Alan
Watts's books when he said: "A belief clings, while faith lets go".
I used to be very into Alan Watts' work as well.
Bundokji wrote:
The Buddha himself followed many teachers, but only got enlightened when he
discarded all of that and investigated by himself. This part of the Buddha's story
is very significant in my opinion.
In MN 26, the Buddha tells of how his teachers taught him how to reach some of the highest
formless meditative attainments. These are also part of the Buddha's teaching. He also
praises his teachers as wise, competent and intelligent in the same sutta.
Top

UnreadpostbyBundokjiWedNov26,20141:16am
Thanks culaavuso,
This is a very interesting read, it reminds of Ajahn when he said something like "they claim
there 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 to
realization)? it seems to me like a free inquiry without being committed to a certain belief!
5/23
26/8/2558
Regards,
Top

Hello James,
I thought the Buddha's teachers almost killed him through the ascetic practices they have
given him!
I would not be surprised if the Buddha praised his teachers and showed appreciation for what
they taught him, but that does not mean that his enlightenment was a result of their
teachings.
Is this the Sutta that you referred to?
http://thewanderling.com/mn_26.html (http://thewanderling.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; having
abandonded everything, obtained emancipation, by the destruction of desire. 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 is my counterpart"
Best Regards,
Top

Unreadpostbymikenz66WedNov26,20141:50am
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 will
understand this Dhamma quickly? It then occurred to me: Uddaka Rmaputta is
wise, intelligent, and discerning; he has long had little dust in his eyes.
Suppose I taught the Dhamma first to Uddaka Rmaputta. He will understand it
quickly. Then deities approached me and said: Venerable sir, Uddaka
Rmaputta died last night. And the knowledge and vision arose in me: Uddaka
Rmaputta died last night. I thought: Uddaka Rmaputtas loss is a great one.
If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.
6/23
26/8/2558
Mike
Top

UnreadpostbyculaavusoWedNov26,20141:53am
Bundokji wrote:
What do you think about satipattana (which is often described as the direct
path to realization)? it seems to me like a free inquiry without being committed
to a certain belief!
The practice of satipahna seems to involve a number of working hypotheses, including the
simple 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 (sammsati) which
entails cultivating other aspects of the Eightfold Path. This, in turn, implies a working
hypothesis that the eightfold path leads to a useful result. This does not require being
committed to a certain belief in the sense that an irrevocable and blind decision has been
made to cling to a belief, but it does mean that Right Effort (sammvyma) is undertaken
informed by Right View (sammdihi) and Right Resolve (sammsakappa). Without a
grounding in a context of Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Livelihood the distractions
and temptations that arise may present difficulties in the practice. This also implies viewing
the experience in terms of appropriate attention (yoniso mansikra). Interpreting the
experience in terms of appropriate attention means experimenting with the consequences of
the 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 and
learning to skillfully apply those beliefs. In order to experiment with the consequences of
beliefs there must be a willingness to adopt them as working hypotheses in order to observe
the results. This does not require being committed to a belief in the sense that it is clung to
and can not be changed again, which would make the experiment necessarily the last of its
kind. It does require the willingness to sincerely try them out and see what consequences
result. One valuable outcome of such experimentation is that it can bring awareness to the
beliefs which presently shape experience and to which there is already unwarranted
commitment.
Ven. hnissaro 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 suffering
and to give the Buddha's teachings a fair test, then instead of assuming that
he was a prisoner of his own time and place, unable to question his cultural
assumptions we have to examine the extent to which, in adhering to our own
cultural assumptions, we're imprisoning ourselves. If we don't want to drop our
7/23
26/8/2558
selfimposed restrictions, we can still benefit from any of the Buddha's

teachings that fit within those limitations, but we'll have to accept the
consequences: that the results we'll get will be limited as well.
Top

Hello culaavuso,
Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation is not
through 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? and
if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?
To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observable objects, that would
include 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 to
discard it all later on! Why this is not akin to a dog trying to catch his own tail?
Best Regards,
Top

UnreadpostbyBenWedNov26,20143:07am
Bundokji wrote:
The Buddha himself in the Kalama sutta encouraged free inquiry.
No he did not.
As far as I know, the Buddha never presented himself as an authority.
Oh, yes he did.

Top

8/23
26/8/2558
UnreadpostbyMkollWedNov26,20143:12am
Bundokji wrote:
Hello James,
I thought the Buddha's teachers almost killed him through the ascetic practices
they have given him!
Nowhere does it say the Buddha was taught to practice those ascetic practices that almost
killed him by Alara or Uddaka.
Bundokji wrote:
I would not be surprised if the Buddha praised his teachers and showed
appreciation for what they taught him, but that does not mean that his
enlightenment was a result of their teachings.
I never said it was.
Bundokji wrote:
Is this the Sutta that you referred to?
http://thewanderling.com/mn_26.html (http://thewanderling.com/mn_26.html)
Yes.
Bundokji wrote:
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;
having abandonded everything, obtained emancipation, by the destruction of
desire. 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 is
my counterpart"
And what is your argument exactly? That there's a separate self? That you can attain
arahantship without the Buddha's teachings as your guide? If it's the former, I see little point
in you debating this on a Buddhist forum because, as I said, 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 the calculus when Newton and Leibniz have already done so and
have taught how to do it. Good luck with that.
9/23
26/8/2558
~~~
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 follows
them, one submits to his authority right there even though he teaches one not to submit to
authority. If you really want to freely inquire, you also have to drop the teaching of someone
telling you that you should freely inquire.
Top

Bundokji wrote:
Hello culaavuso,
Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation
is not through 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? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?
Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with special relativity. Why cant
we?
Isn't it obvious?
Bundokji wrote:
To have an insight implies that all of the mind objects become observable
objects, that would include 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 to discard it all later on! Why this is not akin to a dog
trying to catch his own tail?
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'm
making in quoting it in response to what you said there, I can explain it.
Top

10/23
26/8/2558
UnreadpostbyculaavusoWedNov26,20144:03am
Bundokji wrote:
Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation is not through thinking,
but through having an insight.
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 the
nature and limitations of beliefs has results. Regarding this idea of beliefs regarding the
nature of beliefs leading to understanding the escape from the limitations of beliefs, it may
be informative to consider the following passage:
AN 10.93: Kidihika Sutta

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html) wrote:
"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. This is the sort of view I
have."
"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed,
dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You
thus 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 this
well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher
escape from it as it actually is present."
Bundokji wrote:
When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree, did he have any beliefs?
This question could be parsed a few different ways, but particular thoughts serving to shape
a course of action is described as an important precursor to the Buddha's awakening. For
example, in MN 19, thoughts regarding two different types of thinking related to Wrong
Resolve and Right Resolve are discussed:
MN 19: Dvedhvitakka Sutta

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html) wrote:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my selfawakening, when I was still just
an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep
dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality,
11/23
26/8/2558
thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and
thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with nonill will, & thinking
imbued with harmlessness another sort.
...
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with
harmfulness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmfulness has
arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others
or 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 it
leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs
discernment, 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 becomes
the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with
sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by
that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued
with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with nonill will, his mind is bent by
that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued
with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is
bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.
...
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with
harmlessness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with harmlessness
has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the
affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment,
promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in
line with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do
not 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 is
disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my
mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my
mind would not be disturbed.
"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes
the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with
renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with sensuality, his mind is bent by
that thinking imbued with renunciation. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
imbued with nonill will, abandoning thinking imbued with ill will, his mind is
bent by that thinking imbued with nonill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
imbued with harmlessness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmfulness, his
mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmlessness.
Bundokji wrote:
Did he know the truth?
12/23
26/8/2558
This could again be parsed in a few different ways, but he is described as knowing the four
Noble Truths in SN 56.11:
SN 56.11: Dhamma
cakka
ppavattana Sutta (http://suttacentral.net/en/sn56.11)
wrote:
This is the noble truth of suffering: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things
unheard 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 to
things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true
knowledge, and light.
...
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: thus, bhikkhus, in regard
to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true
knowledge, 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 own
teachings? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?
The word "Buddhist" is a relatively recent invention, so the question could again be
understood in different ways. The Buddha taught the DhammaVinaya with a thorough
understanding and comprehension. He found the truth through a long period of persistent
practice, but taught the path he had discovered for the welfare and benefit of others. The
Buddha discovered the path the hard way but taught it in a way that provided an advantage
to those who could benefit from the teachings. This is similar to the way that the
electromagnetic discoveries of James Maxwell are now taught in schools rather than
everyone interested in working with electricity rediscovering his equations from scratch. It's
not impossible to rediscover things the hard way, but what reason is there for choosing that
over the alternative?
Bundokji wrote:
Even Buddhist beliefs are not taught for the purpose of clinging to them, but are taught for
the purpose of attaining a goal.
Bundokji wrote:
13/23
26/8/2558

If the goal is to discard conditioning, then it seems useful to be wary of reenforcing the
existing conditioning. It's also worth considering that possibly there is conditioning that makes
it easier to reach the goal. As an example from the start of this post, consider the belief that
beliefs are worth clinging to for their own sake as opposed to the belief that beliefs are tools
to be used as appropriate and set aside when they are not useful. The former belief makes it
harder to make skillful use of beliefs, while the latter belief opens a possibility for setting
beliefs aside at an appropriate time.
This question is addressed in greater detail in an essay titled Samsara Divided by Zero by
Ven. hnissaro Bhikkhu, which begins by summarizing the issue as follows:
Samsara Divided by Zero

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html) by Ven.
hnissaro Bhikkhu wrote:

The goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana, is said to be totally uncaused, and right
there is a paradox. If the goal is uncaused, how can a path of practice which
is causal by nature bring it about? This is an ancient question. The Milinda
paha, a set of dialogues composed near the start of the common era, reports
an exchange where King Milinda challenges a monk, Nagasena, with precisely
this question. Nagasena replies with an analogy. The path of practice doesn't
cause nibbana, he says. It simply takes you there, just as a road to a mountain
doesn't cause the mountain to come into being, but simply leads you to where it
is.
Top

UnreadpostbypegembaraWedNov26,20145:18am
Bundokji wrote:
Hello culaavuso,
Please be patient with me. Beliefs are thought, aint they? The way to liberation
is not through 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? and if he was capable of doing it, why we cant?
14/23
26/8/2558

Best Regards,
Hi Bundokji,
Beliefs are all we have to work with. I have a self or no self are both beliefs. We all have to
start somewhere. It is only after crossing over and coming into contact with reality that all
beliefs are discarded. The Noble Truths are all conceptual but these are concepts that lead
to freedom from them. We are all already conditioned and the only way to decondition the
mind is through reconditioning which is a paradox. There is no other way.
"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on
food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what
was 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 for
beautification but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for
ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I
destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating].
I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually
abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being
through 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 craving
that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was
it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such
andsuch, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered &
remains in the fermentationfree awarenessrelease & discernmentrelease,
having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought
occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will through the ending of the
fermentations enter & remain in the fermentationfree awarenessrelease &
discernmentrelease, having known & realized them for myself in the here &
now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body
comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving
is 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 conceit
that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was
it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such
andsuch, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered &
remains in the fermentationfree awarenessrelease & discernmentrelease,
having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought
occurs to him, 'The monk named suchandsuch, they say, through the ending of
the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentationfree awareness
release & discernmentrelease, having known & realized them for himself in the
here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having
relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by
relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in
15/23
26/8/2558
reference to this was it said.

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

Hello James,
And what is your argument exactly? That there's a separate self? That you can
attain arahantship without the Buddha's teachings as your guide? If it's the
former, I see little point in you debating this on a Buddhist forum because, as I
said, 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 the
calculus when Newton and Leibniz have already done so and have taught how to
do it. Good luck with that.
Where did I say that there is a separate self? I was merely trying to share my personal
experience! Unfortunately, I am not enlightened and I still have self view, so when I looked
into why I feel that I have a separate self, I came up with the points I raised in my original
point.
I tried the traditional way which is seeing why self view is wrong. I investigated reality
inwardly and outwardly against the Budda's teachings and I found that the Buddha was right
in everything he said. I looked into the five aggregates and I saw how they always change, and
I could not find anything that I can call a "self", but did that liberate me from self view: The
answer is no!
Hence I tried to come up with something different, maybe if we look at suffering without
condemnation, and try to understand it, maybe in this we can find the end of suffering. I
hope I made my self clear in relation to this.
There is no such thing as "free inquiry without belief" in any Buddhist school
that I know of.
How about Zen Buddhism? they often say: "if you see the Buddha on the road kill him" this to
me 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
16/23
26/8/2558
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 and
started laughing. Maybe he was joking, but the message he was trying to convey is the
Buddha'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 a
donkey"
I hope that this will not appear as if I am arguing that one Buddhist tradition is better than
the other. I was simply answering your point.
And one little paradox I'd like to point out about Krishnamurti's teachings: in
that one follows them, one submits to his authority right there even though he
teaches one not to submit to authority. If you really want to freely inquire, you
also have to drop the teaching of someone telling you that you should freely
inquire.
I agree with you, actually this point was raised to Krishnamurti when he had discussions with
Dr.Walpola Rahula and he did not give a direct answer. However, unlike you, I find his
message very compatible with the Buddha's teachings and I know many Buddhists who believe
the same. There is a great article on Buddhanet about Krishnamurti and how is message is no
different from the Buddha's message. I am unable to open it on my laptop but here is the link
anyway:
http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm)
Top

Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with special
relativity. Why cant we?
Isn't it obvious?
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 have
never tasted chocolates before and regardless how much we rely on his description, the only
way to understand is to taste it ourselves.
Check out the simile of the raft here in MN 22. If you don't get the point I'm
making in quoting it in response to what you said there, I can explain it.
17/23
26/8/2558
I know the Simile of the raft in theory, but in practice, i don't see the raft and the one who is
using it as two separate things. in my mind, both are "thoughts". In my mind its similar to my
desire 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 my
personal experience.
Many thanks
Top

UnreadpostbySarathWWedNov26,20147:13am
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 an
apple 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 dream
car.
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,
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 the nature and limitations of beliefs has results.
Regarding this idea of beliefs regarding the nature of beliefs leading to
understanding the escape from the limitations of beliefs, it may be informative
to consider the following passage:
Well, it appears as a belief because we are using language, communicating ideas, but
18/23
26/8/2558
ultimately Its for us to see the true nature of a belief. For example, Ajahn chah used to
advise his disciple to make conclusions about any thoughts, and let go of them by saying: "not
certain". Now this would make Ajahn chah appear to be contradicting himself (because what
he 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 in
silence, not by language. As ludwig Wittgenstein once said: " Silence tells no lies, silence does
not deceive"
This question could be parsed a few different ways, but particular thoughts
serving to shape a course of action is described as an important precursor to
the Buddha's awakening. For example, in MN 19, thoughts regarding two
different types of thinking related to Wrong Resolve and Right Resolve are
discussed:
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 a
precursor to awakening.
This could again be parsed in a few different ways, but he is described as

knowing the four Noble Truths in SN 56.11:
Also me and you know the four noble truths, but not in a clear way that causes awakening!
The word "Buddhist" is a relatively recent invention, so the question could again
be understood in different ways. The Buddha taught the DhammaVinaya with a
thorough understanding and comprehension. He found the truth through a long
period of persistent practice, but taught the path he had discovered for the
welfare and benefit of others. The Buddha discovered the path the hard way
but taught it in a way that provided an advantage to those who could benefit
from the teachings. This is similar to the way that the electromagnetic
discoveries of James Maxwell are now taught in schools rather than everyone
interested in working with electricity rediscovering his equations from scratch.
It's not impossible to rediscover things the hard way, but what reason is there
for choosing that over the alternative?
I have read once that the Buddha was reluctant to teach after his enlightenment because he
knew that we will not understand (which is quite evident by the way) and that a Brahma
convinced 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 you
and others might look disagreeing, but i only do it to offer a different perspective. I learned a
19/23
26/8/2558
lot from you

Top

Bundokji wrote:
Where did I say that there is a separate self? I was merely trying to share my
personal experience! Unfortunately, I am not enlightened and I still have self
view, so when I looked into why I feel that I have a separate self, I came up
with the points I raised in my original point.
I went by what you said in the first post: "For a change, and as a beginner, I wanted to discuss
why its not stupid or laughable to believe in the existence of a separate self, and I am going
to argue why we have good reasons to believe in it." My mistake if I misrepresented you; it
was unintentional.
Bundokji wrote:
I tried the traditional way which is seeing why self view is wrong. I investigated
reality inwardly and outwardly against the Budda's teachings and I found that
the Buddha was right in everything he said. I looked into the five aggregates
and I saw how they always change, and I could not find anything that I can call
a "self", but did that liberate me from self view: The answer is no!
I'm not liberated from self view either because I haven't developed the path, calm and insight
necessary to do so. But I have developed enough to recognize that as the limiting factor and I
know what I need to do to develop it. You seem to believe that by intellectual cogitation, you
have been able to develop deep insight into the teachings. You're still hypothesizing and that
shows that you haven't.
Bundokji wrote:
Hence I tried to come up with something different, maybe if we look at
suffering without condemnation, and try to understand it, maybe in this we can
find the end of suffering. I hope I made my self clear in relation to this.
As Buddhists we take refuge in the Triple Gem, not our own conceptions. I know for myself
that latter way only leads to going in circles. I also think we all have to figure that out at our
own pace...
Bundokji wrote:
How about Zen Buddhism? they often say: "if you see the Buddha on the road
kill him" this to me sound like not to be influenced by anything including the
20/23
26/8/2558
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 you
become more able to see "what is"
I remember listening to Shunryu Suzuki, he could not even remember the eight
fold path and started laughing. Maybe he was joking, but the message he was
trying to convey is the Buddha'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 a donkey"
I hope that this will not appear as if I am arguing that one Buddhist tradition is
better than the other. I was simply answering your point.
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 to
answer you.
Bundokji wrote:
I agree with you, actually this point was raised to Krishnamurti when he had
discussions with Dr.Walpola Rahula and he did not give a direct answer.
However, unlike you, I find his message very compatible with the Buddha's
teachings and I know many Buddhists who believe the same. There is a great
article on Buddhanet about Krishnamurti and how is message is no different
from the Buddha's message. I am unable to open it on my laptop but here is the
link anyway:
http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm)
I disagree. His overall message is completely incompatible. The whole is more than the sum
of its parts. That's not to say that bits and pieces of his teachings could be inspirational or
even compatible to Buddhist teachings when applied in the right context. However, this isn't
necessary.
Bundokji wrote:
Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus. Einstein came up with special
relativity. Why cant we?
Isn't it obvious?
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 have never tasted chocolates before and regardless how much we
rely on his description, the only way to understand is to taste it ourselves.
21/23
26/8/2558
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 that
analogy was to say that when someone is an expert in something, we shouldn't pretend we
know more than them. We shouldn't pretend we can come up with they came up with. We
shouldn't pretend we're their equal in their area of expertise. And if we want to learn that
area of expertise for ourselves, do we try to figure it out ourselves? Or do we find a teacher
who is an expert? Of course we look for a teacher, a teacher we can trust and who we can
put our faith in that he will tell the truth.
If you're looking for "enlightenment" (whatever that may mean to you) without a teacher, I
think that's a bad idea that won't work. If you're looking to put an end to suffering as
described by the Buddha without following the Buddha's teaching, again I think that's a bad
idea that won't work. However, if you're looking to put an end to suffering as described by the
Buddha by following the Buddha's teaching, I think that is a good idea that will work.
Top
Displaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
PostReply
Subscribetopic
Bookmarktopic
Emailtopic
Printview
Postprofileright
71posts
Previous
1
2
3
4
Next
ReturntoPersonalExperience
Jumpto
Welcome
TERMSOFSERVICE(includingreportingprocedures)
Announcements
Introductions
Suggestionbox
ModernTheravda
DiscoveringTheravda
GeneralTheravdadiscussion
Theravdaforthemodernworld
Dhammaduta(Dhammapropagation)
PhenomenologicalDhamma
OrdinationandMonasticLife
StudyGroup
ClassicalMahaviharaTheravda
ClassicalTheravda
Abhidhamma
Pali
TheravdaMeditation
TheravadaMeditation
EthicalConduct
22/23
26/8/2558
SamathaMeditationandJhana
InsightMeditation
GeneralDhamma
OpenDhamma
OpenDhammaHotTopics
EarlyBuddhism
DhammicStories
ShrineRoom
PersonalExperience
Wellness,Diet&Fitness
Lounge
NonEnglishResources
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:mal4mac,websat11and0guests
GoogleSaffron,TheravadaSearchEngine
PoweredbyphpBBForumSoftwarephpBBLimited
GZIP:Off
DhammaWheel.comisassociatedwithDharmaWheel.net,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com
23/23

Believing in A Separate Self - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Believing in A Separate Self - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

26/8/2558

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318829)

Buddha advise us strongly for us to have a wholesome desire (wanting) which is

We don't have to rediscover electricity. Just incorporate it for our living.

Thanks SarathW. The Dhamma if I understand it correctly, is an invitation to investigate. In

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318831)

As I said before, only way to do this is by practice.

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318832)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318834)

Reflections From a Student on the Path

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318835)

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

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318839)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318842)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318843)

Later in that Sutta the Buddha opines:

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318845)

Ven. hnissaro Bhikkhu

selfimposed restrictions, we can still benefit from any of the Buddha's

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318853)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318854)

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

Oh, yes he did.

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318855)

I never said it was.

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318856)

Check out the simile of the raft here in MN 22

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318859)

AN 10.93: Kidihika Sutta

"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently

MN 19: Dvedhvitakka Sutta

Now, I have enough conditioning in my mind, why should I add more

Samsara Divided by Zero

hnissaro Bhikkhu wrote:

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318864)

Now, I have enough conditioning in my mind, why should I add more

reference to this was it said.

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318866)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318867)

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318871)

I heard this story when I was young.

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318872)

This could again be parsed in a few different ways, but he is described as

lot from you

Re: Believing in a separate self (#p318875)

And you're comparing chocolate to apples.

S-ar putea să vă placă și