Common Misunderstandings.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

You wont find the word ' Ego ' in Pali or Sanskrit but the exact concept does exist in
Buddism referred to as Anatta.the idea refers to the illusion of the "self".

A false self is inappropriate as in Buddhism

This is what you posted, though: "What Buddhism does deny is a false conception of the self.

' Anatta ' means ' Not Self '
You could say a false notion of self, not a false self....

Yes that would be more accurate, but 'false self' implies something unreal, but constructed or conceptualised with belief, wrong view and so forth.


The philosophy of anatta is nuanced and in different contexts 'anatta' is used to signify not self - not me, mine, my or I - but in other instances it refers to there being no self or fundamental substance... in that all appearances are 'selfless'. In others it refers to there being no I, no individual (santana) that endures, but 'anatta' hasn't been used in a context of 'you don't exist', because of course you exist - nothing is more obvious. It's just that the direct perception of this existence doesn't raise any ideation.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

People who take Vows would obviously have had them explained and they themselves should understand what they entail before they CHOOSE to take them. Nobody in Power or Authority forces them...

In Burma, children as young as seven are forced to take their vows by their parents and by monks.

http://www.barcroft.tv/myanmar-buddh...mandalay-burma

Financial hardship in the country has seen a rise in families sending their children to Buddhist monasteries, due to the fact that they are given a free education and regular meals.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't recall any references to 'ego' in any Buddhist teachings I'm familiar with, but the doctrine of not me, my, I, mine is repeated in several places.

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

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

In fact, the understanding of ego is the foundation of Buddhism.

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

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/

*

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

of course you exist - nothing is more obvious. It's just that the direct perception of this existence doesn't raise any ideation.

Yes true, it is not a matter of not existing, it's a matter of what you exist AS,

Thus the "Buddhist" metaphors of silence, emptiness, nirvana and on and on...all of these are conceptual, symbols, which also are let go of... they are just pointing in words, the best they can, to what is left.... what one is here "as"

What I am in this moment. In this moment, I can be completely free of ideas, beliefs, opinions, and thought. Free in the sense of "they produce no effect." No mental filters or concepts are looked through, seen through. They are no longer "me" or "I."

I am empty.... I just am. Free, expansive, unconditioned. Which takes an enormous discipline and focused awareness in the here and now.

Because this unconditioned state is not the go to, the norm, the starting point. Though it is always present and perfect. It is always here, just not always experienced.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

In Burma, children as young as seven are forced to take their vows by their parents and by monks.

http://www.barcroft.tv/myanmar-buddh...mandalay-burma

Children as young as seven wouldn't understand the vows so they are just repeating words and not taking vows.

[sky]

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

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/

*

' 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.

[sky]

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.

However, there is a Buddhist doctrine of rebirth. According to this doctrine, it is the energy or conditioning created by one life that is reborn into another, not a soul. "The person who dies here and is reborn elsewhere is neither the same person, nor another," Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula wrote.

However, you don't have to "believe in" rebirth to be a Buddhist. Many Buddhists are agnostic on the matter of rebirth.

[sky]

Some schools of Buddhism do insist on vegetarianism, and I believe all schools encourage it. But in most schools of Buddhism vegetarianism is a personal choice, not a commandment.

The earliest Buddhists scriptures suggest the historical Buddha himself was not a vegetarian. The first order of monks begged for their food, and the rule was that if a monk was given meat, he was required to eat it unless he knew that the animal was slaughtered specifically to feed monks.

[Rain95]

The Dalai Lama explains reincarnation is a Buddhist doctrine.

In the course of upholding the Buddhist tradition in Tibet, we evolved a unique Tibetan tradition of recognizing the reincarnations of scholar-adepts that has been of immense help to both the Dharma and sentient beings, particularly to the monastic community.

Since the omniscient Gedun Gyatso was recognized and confirmed as the reincarnation of Gedun Drub in the fifteenth century and the Gaden Phodrang Labrang (the Dalai Lama’s institution) was established, successive reincarnations have been recognized.

We need to accept the existence of past and future lives. Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death.

Most Buddhist philosophical schools do not accept that the mind-stream comes to an end. To reject past and future rebirth would contradict the Buddhist concept of the ground, path and result. Therefore, as long as you are a Buddhist, it is necessary to accept past and future rebirth.

For those who remember their past lives, rebirth is a clear experience. There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives.

There are people who can remember their immediate past life or even many past lives, as well as being able to recognize places and relatives from those lives. This is not just something that happened in the past. Even today there are many people in the East and West, who can recall incidents and experiences from their past lives. Denying this is not an honest and impartial way of doing research, because it runs counter to this evidence. The Tibetan system of recognizing reincarnations is an authentic mode of investigation based on people’s recollection of their past lives.

The Dalai Lama

Dharamsala
September 24, 2011

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

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

The Dalai Lama explains reincarnation is a Buddhist doctrine.

In the course of upholding the Buddhist tradition in Tibet, we evolved a unique Tibetan tradition of recognizing the reincarnations of scholar-adepts that has been of immense help to both the Dharma and sentient beings, particularly to the monastic community.

Since the omniscient Gedun Gyatso was recognized and confirmed as the reincarnation of Gedun Drub in the fifteenth century and the Gaden Phodrang Labrang (the Dalai Lama’s institution) was established, successive reincarnations have been recognized.

We need to accept the existence of past and future lives. Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death.

Most Buddhist philosophical schools do not accept that the mind-stream comes to an end. To reject past and future rebirth would contradict the Buddhist concept of the ground, path and result. Therefore, as long as you are a Buddhist, it is necessary to accept past and future rebirth.

For those who remember their past lives, rebirth is a clear experience. There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives.

There are people who can remember their immediate past life or even many past lives, as well as being able to recognize places and relatives from those lives. This is not just something that happened in the past. Even today there are many people in the East and West, who can recall incidents and experiences from their past lives. Denying this is not an honest and impartial way of doing research, because it runs counter to this evidence. The Tibetan system of recognizing reincarnations is an authentic mode of investigation based on people’s recollection of their past lives.

The Dalai Lama

Dharamsala
September 24, 2011

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

' 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. '