Why Buddhism is True

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 hours ago, Robert_Tulip said:

The messages of both Jesus and Buddha preached the replacement of selfish morality by universal love, although for both their underlying rational intent was corrupted by ignorant institutional religion. 

 

I didn't get into Buddha that much, but saw that as the Jesus approach.  But it got hijacked and distorted.  The wisdom of "WE" (love neighbor as self) is still being ignored and even seen as a dangerous weakness.  "ME" and my tribe mentality still still rules the roost.

[freshstart]

So. . . moving on to the subject of " the alleged non-existence of self" . . . this is a tough one and where Buddhist thought starts to venture into , what shall we call it? The weird? The inexplicable? For several years, I've been listening off and on to old recordings from Alan Watts in the 60s and he talks about the non-self a lot. I'm fascinated with the concept and on some levels it makes sense. If, for example, we are just the product of, say the cells that constitute "self" and those cells die and are replaced by other cells over time, how is it that we retain a sense of self?

According to the book, if your goal  is to see true reality with clarity, Buddhism requires that you grasp the concept of "not self." I get the sense this is supposed to be some sort of earth-shattering, yet at the same time, gentle revelation. I think this can also be very offputting for some who see this "non-self" discussion as mumbo-jumbo. In either case, I would love to have a better glimpse of what non-self is, what it means. It seems one of the only ways to understand it is through continued meditation. Not sure I have the fortitude to get there.

[Robert_Tulip]

On 12/8/2020 at 2:56 PM, freshstart said:

" the alleged non-existence of self" . . . this is a tough one and where Buddhist thought starts to venture into , what shall we call it? The weird? The inexplicable?

I am enjoying reading this book.  Just saw a nice New Yorker review of it at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/07/what-meditation-can-do-for-us-and-what-it-cant

 

The problem of self in Buddhism, in my rather limited understanding, is that the popular assumption of the distinction between the ego and the world causes us to mistakenly fail to recognise the intrinsic unity of all things.

 

I think it should be possible to provide a simple logical explanation of this problem without making any weird or inexplicable claims.  The fundamental claim of Buddhist enlightenment is that all is one.  In essence this just means there is only one universe, one reality, and any ideas that contradict the principle of unity are delusional and fallacious.

 

Enlightenment is about rising above our ordinary false consciousness that focuses on our apparent separation as an entity from everything else.  Of course calling this false is provocative, since it suggests our practical ideas about property, identity and security involve some level of deception.  So Buddhism is imagining an ideal society in which everyone lives at a spiritual level that sees the identity of all things as a core moral principle.  I suspect it would take thousands of years for humans to evolve to such a state, and it would require a very high technology delivering universal abundance.

 

Freud and Jung provided a useful distinction between the self and the ego.  The Self is who we really are, our soul, while the ego is who we think we are, our apparent conscious personality.  The link to Buddhism is in the goal of dissolving the delusions of appearance so that the realities of our true nature can govern our life.  So I suspect that Buddhist teachings are more about 'not-ego' than 'not-Self' in this psychoanalytic sense.

[midniterider]

On 12/7/2020 at 7:56 PM, freshstart said:

So. . . moving on to the subject of " the alleged non-existence of self" . . . this is a tough one and where Buddhist thought starts to venture into , what shall we call it? The weird? The inexplicable? For several years, I've been listening off and on to old recordings from Alan Watts in the 60s and he talks about the non-self a lot. I'm fascinated with the concept and on some levels it makes sense. If, for example, we are just the product of, say the cells that constitute "self" and those cells die and are replaced by other cells over time, how is it that we retain a sense of self?

According to the book, if your goal  is to see true reality with clarity, Buddhism requires that you grasp the concept of "not self." I get the sense this is supposed to be some sort of earth-shattering, yet at the same time, gentle revelation. I think this can also be very offputting for some who see this "non-self" discussion as mumbo-jumbo. In either case, I would love to have a better glimpse of what non-self is, what it means. It seems one of the only ways to understand it is through continued meditation. Not sure I have the fortitude to get there.

 

I agree, it's a fascinating topic. What makes me me? Am I simply a brain? Nope, the brain cant live without the rest of the organs and body parts. So am I a human body? Well, I can't live without warmth, oxygen, food, drink, shelter...so it appears "I"  am all those things as well; up to and including the universe. Everything needs all its part to exist. 

 

Is self-realization just some woo? Or is it something completely natural? If I were to live in a permanent experience of non-duality would I be delusional? Or would most of the world's population be delusional? 

 

 

[florduh]

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

Is self-realization just some woo? Or is it something completely natural?

I think there is nothing more self evident than the reality that everything is connected to and depends on everything else. You can't even describe anything without including its environment. To realize that the bee can't exist without the flower and the flower can't exist without the bee implies a much larger picture that is, if thought through to the end, is all inclusive. That is not woo but just the way things work. The implication of that means we are something that includes components reaching far beyond our skin with no limit. To be "all that is" is an obvious and simple definition of "god" but the Western concept of god makes it all sound so woo-woo. A person's narrowly focused point of view, the ego, wants to be the permanent observer and not the temporary unique focus of the all that is.

 

End of sermon.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

I think there is nothing more self evident than the reality that everything is connected to and depends on everything else. You can't even describe anything without including its environment. To realize that the bee can't exist without the flower and the flower can't exist without the bee implies a much larger picture that is, if thought through to the end, is all inclusive. That is not woo but just the way things work. The implication of that means we are something that includes components reaching far beyond our skin with no limit. To be "all that is" is an obvious and simple definition of "god" but the Western concept of god makes it all sound so woo-woo. A person's narrowly focused point of view, the ego, wants to be the permanent observer and not the temporary unique focus of the all that is.

 

End of sermon.

 

That was eloquent, sir.  And helpful. 

 

I dont believe the Buddha or contemporary sages claim to have supernatural ability, just a non-egocentric viewpoint. 

[freshstart]

I think the idea that everything is interconnected and interdependent is pretty straightforward (as in Florduh's example of bee and flower).  Taking it a step further its difficult to define anything without also defining its opposite (light in relation to dark, cold in relation to warm, life in relation to death, etc.), which means in some sense opposites need each other in order to exist.  The concept (opposites needing each other) I first heard from Alan Watts and found it a little bit trippy, but now seems like a basic truth.  In order for life to happen, death has to happen too.   

As far as a having a sense of "self" (versus non-self), it seems there are 2 common feelings that perhaps dupe us into believing there is a self:  (1) a sense of "permanence" - when there really is none and (2) a sense of "control" when, again, there really is none. The feeling of permanence gives the sense that we are (generally) the same self as we age, even though nearly all of our cells die and new ones are produced over time, essentially creating a new self, over and over again.  Thoughts and feelings are fleeting as well.

If a sense of self comes from feeling in  control,  or being the "CEO" of our being (as Wright puts it), this is perhaps especially deceiving.  What exactly do we control?  Our thoughts?  Our feelings?  Our bodies?  One could make an argument that we control our "voluntary" actions.  But how so?  I can control whether I open or close my eyes.  But I can't explain how I do it.  I couldn't teach someone how to open or close their eyes.  Its something I just do.  Nor can I explain how the thought ("close my eyes") generates in my brain in the first place.  So if I cannot explain exactly how it is I put one foot in front of the other when walking, if I cannot control the way my body regenerates or defends itself against disease, if I cannot choose when a thought pops in or out of my head, if I cannot create my emotional responses to life's ups and downs, then how am I in control?  More to the point, how does the perception of self arise at all?  On some level I get that the sense of self is an illusion.  What I am trying to understand (and perhaps the book will elucidate) is why grasping the idea of "non-self" is such a critical concept (in Buddhism) and how mediation is the tool in helping to dispel the illusion.   

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, freshstart said:

On some level I get that the sense of self is an illusion.  What I am trying to understand (and perhaps the book will elucidate) is why grasping the idea of "non-self" is such a critical concept (in Buddhism) and how mediation is the tool in helping to dispel the illusion.   

 

What bothers me about some authors on non-duality is when they say, "Nothing you can do (like self inquiry) can bring about self realization, enlightenment, non-dual awareness. It just has to be caught." But they will also suggest a practice like meditation or asking, "Who am I?" 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, freshstart said:

What I am trying to understand (and perhaps the book will elucidate) is why grasping the idea of "non-self" is such a critical concept (in Buddhism)

I think it has something to do with one of the more fundamental principles of Buddhism: "Everything Is Impermanent" (to include, ostensibly, the "self").

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 hours ago, florduh said:

To realize that the bee can't exist without the flower and the flower can't exist without the bee implies a much larger picture that is, if thought through to the end, is all inclusive.

And this touches on the concept of karma, or, as scientists call it, the law of causality.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If there are too few flowers, the bees will suffer as a result.  Karma does not mean that if you're rude to the waitress, you stand a chance of getting hit by a Mack truck; but it does imply you stand a chance of having your food spit in.  Karma is nothing more than living within the existing harmony, and recognizing it for what it is.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

When it comes to physics, I am really ignorant, but it seems I heard somewhere that all matter is built from the same basic "stuff."  If that is true, could that figure into everything being "one", or being related, and being part of one big "whole"? Or am I out in left field?  Or completely out of the ball park?   

 

I'm in the middle of a remodeling project now, but think I will join the Buddha study in a couple of weeks.

[freshstart]

20 hours ago, Weezer said:

When it comes to physics, I am really ignorant, but it seems I heard somewhere that all matter is built from the same basic "stuff."  If that is true, could that figure into everything being "one", or being related, and being part of one big "whole"? Or am I out in left field?  Or completely out of the ball park?   

This makes sense to me, however, one could take it a step further. Not only are we interdependent with everything in our environment (or outside our selves), we appear to be designed in such a way that we interpret the world and everything in it,  in a way that creates our reality. For example, soundwaves are essentially vibrations. Without ear drums to interpret these vibrations into sound, there would be no sound. Light is essentially electromagnetic radiation. But because we have photoreceptors and an optic nerve, we are able to perceive that electromagnetic radiation as light. And so on with our other senses. So we use our 5 senses to interpret matter and energy into something that, without those 5 senses, would not exist. Perhaps the same path is true with our sense of self. Maybe we create a sense of self as a matter of perception, rather than reality.

I suppose the bigger question is, what does it matter?

 

[TABA]

On 12/4/2020 at 4:53 PM, freshstart said:

My mother, a devout fundamental literalist Christian believes that meditation is satanic. Not sure she's the only Christian who believes that. I'm assuming this is because any "spiritual" practice that is not part of typical Christian worship is seen as threatening, though I cannot imagine why.

 

I understand why it’s seen as threatening: if peace can be found outside of Christ Jesus, with no relationship to a deity, that is a huge threat to Christianity and theism.  Christians should likewise feel threatened by the rise of Modern Stoicism and other philosophies that provide guidelines for living and a moral compass without god-belief.  They’d better get used to it though. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Freshstart, how is the study going?

[freshstart]

On 1/22/2021 at 10:43 PM, Weezer said:

Freshstart, how is the study going?

 

I actually finally got halfway through the book just this week.  It seems one theme so far is that feelings cannot be relied upon even though feelings essentially guide all our decision-making - and there is an evolutionary basis for such "guidance." Therefore one should attempt to separate themselves from being caught up in their emotions by using meditation.  We also attach "essence" to things that are of our own creation (such as when we label certain beautiful plants as "weeds"). The other theory - which is harder to conceptualize - is how we have many selves that surface at different moments - created by networks in the brain rather than one "self."  I'm getting to the part of the book where he talks about a lot of brain experiments to support that.  And I am obviously over-condensing.  This sort of stuff fascinates me.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

And I am obviously over-condensing.  This sort of stuff fascinates me.

 

From the little I know about it, I think you are doing a good job of summarizing.  Carry on!