Common Misunderstandings.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

Really!?
Have I been reading the ‘wrong’ teachings then?

In the very first Buddhist books I ever read – it was stated that:

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-WB1F...ism_djvu.t xt

Not a bad article, but the way he was framing ego is as something which acts, whereas Buddhist philosophy references the same activity sans such an actor. That is, there is santana (individual) which expresses characteristic, appears with observable qualities, yet there is no entity which possesses those qualities. For example, there is ambition, craving etc, but no entity that craves, just the activity of craving which is generating misery. But it's a very nuanced discourse, and the teachings on ignorance, delusion, etc, explain how 'false view' underpin such cravings... though this is usually referencing false views of permanence rather than a subject, self. Hence in the meditation, should clinging occur, one knows 'this is clinging' without me my mine and I (though the thought me, my, mine does form in conjunction with such reactivity - which can be articulated as a false sense of self aka 'ego'), and also sees how such clinging is mental grasping that disables greater liberation.

This I understood to mean that ‘Spiritual’ people fall into the trap of striving towards some mentally created ideal sense of self or ‘perfection’.
https://upliftconnect.com/the-trap-o...l-materialism/

*

Yes. Rain also raises that point sometimes. In my own meditation training it was taught that striving for ideals, which are basically special sorts of experience is not 'the way', and the way is to be at peace with the experience just as it is in the way you experience it - This sort of striving really only indicates craving, which is the antithesis of the meditation.


To me this seemed to suggest that being is prior to experience, and the meditation fundamentally amounted to 'just be' and let everything be as it is. 'As it is' was probably the phrase most often said by the meditation teachers. This doesn't imply laxity of attention or apathy, though, it jusy means pay total attention to 'what is' and don't try to make it 'the way you want it to be. You just observe (in this specific 'way') and 'dhamma does the rest'. This was said to be the essence of 'right meditation', and not because it's right according to me, but because of it's universal application, all beings can practice this 'way'.

[Gem]

Then there are other critical references Buddha made to a 'personage' he called 'the house builder', as Buddha told of how had seen the 'house builder', and having seen this, it could build no more - and this is one reference, I think, which can be equated with what we imagine as 'ego'.

[sky]

Dhammapada v. 153-154 "Udana Vatthu"




"How many lives, how many rounds of rebirth
have I experienced
without finding the builder of this house?
Now I see you, O builder,
all of your rafters are broken, your ridgepole is
shattered.
Never again need you build a house for me,
my mind has gone beyond the transitory, the
conditioned,
and has achieved the extinction of craving."

Builder = Craving
House = Body (five aggregates)
Rafters = Defilements
Ridgepole = Ignorance

"How many lives, how many rounds of rebirth
have I experienced
without finding the craving of this body?
Now I see you, O craving,
all of your defilements are broken, your ignorance is
shattered.
Never again need you build a body for me,
my mind has gone beyond the transitory, the
conditioned,
and has achieved the extinction of craving."

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

' Have I been reading the ‘wrong’ teachings then '


No you haven't, Gem is ' nitpicking ' over the actual word ' Ego ' which obviously wasn't around in Buddha's time.

That's inaccurate. In reality, I'm discussing how 'ego' might be articulated in the Buddhist philosophical context - as is clearly evidenced by my recent posts.

[Gem]

I think taking a thing the DL says as what the DL thinks is a mistake, because he might sometimes say a simple thing, but actually, what he thinks is much deeper, far more nuanced and multifaceted. He may say a few words on rebirth, or he may speak on rebirth for two hours. I have seen a video of him explaining consciousness, kamma and rebirth to a group of scientists which was quite elaborate, but not overly lengthy so if you are interested in a more detailed explanation, have a listen to this when you have some free time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ0CoQyIe7Y&t=923s

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

' If you define reincarnation as the transmigration of a SOUL into a new body after the old body dies, then no, the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no SOUL to transmigrate. '

Well there is a "soul" in Buddhism, they just have named it "mindstream." Same exact thing though. We say "apple" the French say "pomme." It refers to the same thing. The "West" says "soul" the Buddhists say "mindstream." Though the Dalia Lama has said soul. I posted the DL saying we have a soul that reincarnates somewhere already on these forums lol. The same topics seem to repeat sometimes.

There's a lot of things Buddha did not teach. That doesn't mean he did not believe in them or hold them to be true. A cooking teacher does not teach his class how to change the oil in a car but he still believes in it and knows what it is and how it is done. The subject just never comes up. He is concerned with teaching something else, a particular thing. Buddha was concerned with teaching his monks and nuns how to act in daily life, thus the thousands of rules about everything really. He seemed to be really busy running these groups and teaching them how to behave. His other main topic was living non-conceptually, thus, without belief being a big part of your life or day.

Buddha would never teach we have a soul" that reincarnates because we reincarnate, not some "soul" whatever that is supposed to be. Buddha was against delusional concepts. He was against abstract thinking about what we are.

That is a common misunderstanding.

People say, we have a soul. That of course is non-sense.

We ARE the soul. But then nobody would call themselves a "soul." They would just say, "I reincarnate."

We are consciousness. We reincarnate. We are reborn life after life as the Dalia Lama said. Buddha knew the same thing to be true. The Dalia Lama said it is obvious we reincarnate.

The truth is "I am" not "I have" if you are referring to yourself. Nobody would say, my arm reincarnates, or my shirt reincarnates, or my shoes reincarnate. Yet they say "my soul" reincarnates which is the same misunderstanding. You are referring to something you have and not something you are.

I have no doubt Buddha believed in reincarnation and even in a "soul" which he would have referred to as himself. Buddha was, however, trying to distance his teachings from those of the early Veda's. And like I said, his emphasis was on living non-conceptually.

It's the strangest thing how people will say, " I have a soul" or "my soul reincarnates." Wouldn't you rather say you reincarnate? If it's not me that reincarnates, why would I care about the topic?

There sure is a big difference between walking around thinking I have a soul vs I am the soul. But it's like we live in a fog. No one thinks about what they are actually saying.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

Not a bad article, but the way he was framing ego is as something which acts,

Yes true. That is another common misunderstanding. Thought is not a conscious being. It is not a "person." It is not conscious. It does not make decisions or have choices. It is a product of a machine. The "super computer" brain makes thought. Once the brain makes thought, which can be influenced by consciousness, awareness, and all of that, it is us who "acts." We can submissively accept thought, act according to "it" and it's conclusions, or we can transcend thought entirely and experience life and ourselves differently.

We are making the "choice" by either being "unconscious" and identifying with thought as self, being submissive and controlled in a sense by thought, letting thought dictate our reactions, emotions, and actions. Keeping our attention glued to thought and thinking. Letting it be the filter that interprets each moment we find ourselves in. Or we can be self aware, self understanding, drop identification with thought, then action and choice comes out of this new awareness and seeing. Thought is no longer a factor in it. Discernment and self awareness are the factors.

[sky]

Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman". Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts.




All conditioned things are impermanent,
All conditioned things are Dukka -- Suffering,
All conditioned or unconditioned things
are soulless or selfless. (Dhammapada 277, 278, 279)

[Rain95]

The Dalia Lama has said he knows who he was for the past 5 lives or so. So obviously he believes he continues life after life.

The Dalia Lama likes to use the word "person" to describe what reincarnates life after life as the concept or word "soul" was discarded in the complex part of the Buddhist formal philosophy.

Bodhisattvas, ...are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. .... the effects of certain karmas created in a past life are experienced by a person in his or her present life.

The main purpose of the appearance of a reincarnation is to continue the person's unfinished work to serve Dharma and beings.

Reincarnation is a phenomenon which should take place either through the voluntary choice of the person or at least on the strength of his or her karma, merit and prayers. Therefore, the person who reincarnates has sole legitimate authority over where and how he or she takes rebirth and how that reincarnation is to be recognized.

Dalia Lama

https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-.../reincarnation

So according to the Dalia Lama, a leader of Buddhism, you reincarnate.

I don't have a "soul" or "self" that reincarnates, I reincarnate!

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

The Dalia Lama has said he knows who he was for the past 5 lives or so. So obviously he believes he continues life after life.

The Dalia Lama likes to use the word "person" to describe what reincarnates life after life as the concept or word "soul" was discarded in the complex part of the Buddhist formal philosophy.



So according to the Dalia Lama, a leader of Buddhism, you reincarnate.

I don't have a "soul" or "self" that reincarnates, I reincarnate!

Of course Buddhism teach that we have a whole series of lives; that we have lived before, we live now, and we will live again after death. As I said in a previous post, they do not believe it is a SOUL that is carried from one life to another.



Originally Posted by sky123
' If you define reincarnation as the transmigration of a SOUL into a new body after the old body dies, then no, the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no SOUL to transmigrate. '