Common Misunderstandings.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by sky123

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.

In the absolute sense – there is no 'Buddhism' either.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

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.

I think in the Buddhist philosophy the universe is the experience, which is entirely subjective and/or a product of mind, so to speak, or they say mind is fundamental to all else, so I wonder is the thoughts are products of the brain as such, because in the DLs narrative he spoke of a transfer of information, memory, characteristic, properties from a brain that dies to a new brain in the new born body. This relationship with mind and matter seems to be a unitary transformation rather than our Western Cartesian imagining of separate mind substances and matter substances.



Nhat Hahn usually describes things in a flowery way, transformation, such the cloud or the snow are the same but for categories, so in context of rebirth, a person never ends, but is part of the unitary universal transformation - which is how the santana is described - and hence 'you' are 'never-ending' yet only momentarily existent, as all these views of now/then, now/forever, here/there, being/not being, self/not self are transcended entirely - or entirely reduced to 'this'/'as it is'.


So... when they say there is no soul, what the Buddha was implying is not that there is no soul or that there is a soul per-se, but rather, that all self theories are 'wrong' (give rise to suffering).



Nhat Hahn on rebirth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS73WxpBd5k

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.

Yes, the human condition is distracted by thought, and thought creates a whle world of problems, and the fundamental solution is self awareness. Not thought control, just let the thought be 'as it is', but awareness, being conscious of what's going on with oneself - that's the meditation. Truth.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

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.

My own way of going about these things is how I see all my thought as 'imaginary' as different to my experience as actual. Not objective, but subjective, yet still 'really happening'. So instead of concerning myself too much with what I think, I pay attention to actual feelings, which are physical sensations, and I recognise how a tense feeling in the body is associated with a particular mindset and emotional movement. Hence the imaginary of the thought produces actuality in the sensation; and emotion, although considered psychological, is actually felt in the body. Even though the imagined and the actual are different in their natures, they are not separate; however, with attention on the actuality, the imaginary is not such a consern, as interest has turned to the real-lived and away from the secondary ideas I have, even though these coalesce, yet are distinct.

[sky]

Some people consider the Dalai Lama to be Buddhism’s version of the Pope, this is a misconception. The Dalai Lama is the head only of one small part of Tibetan Buddhism called Gelugpa. All of the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as all different forms of Buddhism, do not consider him to be an official leader. In his particular sect, he is seen as the highest ranking Lama.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sentient

In the absolute sense – there is no 'Buddhism' either.

Good point and it's also true in a lot of other ways.

I'd say that is also a common misunderstanding people may have. They don't understand or realize what the goal of Buddhist philosophy leads to.

Buddhism leads to no Buddhism.

If a person drops all content, all concepts, all conditioning, all belief, all opinion, all identification with thought and the thinker, and by all I mean all....every single fragment no matter how small or insignificant, if all of that is seen, known, observed and dropped, so that one becomes what they were before they acquired and clinged to this and that, then something like Buddhism ceases to be projected as truth or to have any phenomenal effect.

The view one acquires is a planet covered with humans, all exactly the same, following and believing their conditioning, their story, acting out according to their history and past, their animal drives and assertion of their ego and self importance. Competing with others for this and that they have determined they want or need or deserve. We all act differently, behave differently, are conditioned to think differently, and in this we are all the same. We all believe ourselves to be our story, this happened to me, we follow our beliefs, thoughts, and opinions and consider them to be ours and true.

The path of Buddhism, properly understood and applied, gives one freedom from all of this, from these roles, from all of this conditioning, freedom from our own thoughts. There is no longer something I have to do or become. All of that was from the noise in my head and the noise from others. That noise is no longer listened too. People carry around certain things they assert, I am this or that, this is true or that is, because I believe this or that, because I dress this way or that way, because I have joined this organization or that one, because I have been given this title or that one, because I am from this group or that one, because I read and believe these books are true or those, or I am from this country or this culture or that one.

None of that is what I am or what others are. All of that is temporary. In one incarnation, I am this, in the next I am that. All temporary identification. Different self stories. All seen through. All no longer believed or carried around. Buddhism, properly applied and understood, leads to complete freedom from everything and everybody. Now one can still be within a prison or a cultural structure, one can live within rules and expected cultural norms, within laws, within families and groups, one needs a place in this world to get food and shelter, one needs companionship and love, one acquires a role, but within, one has total freedom. Freedom from everything.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Now one can still be within a prison or a cultural structure, one can live within rules and expected cultural norms, within laws, within families and groups, one needs a place in this world to get food and shelter, one needs companionship and love, one acquires a role, but within, one has total freedom. Freedom from everything.

cool idea but here is one too:

following the path to (lack of) buddhism gives freedom from everything maybe, except maybe it doesn't free one from the chain of having to avoid suffering? It seems written in the bylaws, the *need* to avoid suffering... The latter seems good to a person maybe, but when it comes under the heading of being something to attain (or maybe to not attain take your pick), a chain it becomes nonetheless.

[sentient]

To my mind – Rain95 – you dance around ‘Shunyata’, trying to explain it.
From
https://wwzc.org/dharma-text/transparent

The leaves of oak trees outside the Hatto window rustle in the wind. A crow caws, a car passes. Rain falls. As each of these sounds arise within the space of hearing they interact with the space in which they arise and point to the space around them. The Sakyamuni Buddha rupa on the Butsudan points to the space around it. And each of you, sitting on your zafu, point to the space around you. Everything that you see or hear, every sensation you experience points to the space around it.

The knowingness of knowing, the capacity to know, is traditionally called "komyo" or "luminosity", the Luminosity of Knowing. This quality of luminosity is also spoken of as "sunyata" - emptiness, openness, transparency. Whatever is known is not actually a thing, no matter how you might think of it. In the fact of present experiencing, it is a known, an experience, and is utterly transparent. In reality, everything is already exposed, we are already exposed, but we like to think that we can hide.

The indigenous communities I know, egoless ‘emptiness – openness – transparency’ is the-name-of-the-game, without the ‘game’ ever having been spelled out as a concept or an idea such as ‘Shunyata’.
It is just the way people are.

So, often when a non-indigenous person integrates or ‘assimilates’ into an indigenous community, the ways in which we/they thought we/they were hidden - drop off - like veils.
Hence the assimilated non-indigenous sometimes lovingly refer to indigenous communities as a ‘mental hospital’, because it was there they/we got cured of their/our veils, their/our ‘white-wall-syndromes’ and discovered transparency, and now exposed, lived to laugh at their/our – ‘selves’.

The misconception can arise here, if we think egoless ‘emptiness-openness-transparency’ is a ‘Buddhist’ (or alternatively ‘Indigenous’) discovery.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

cool idea but here is one too:

following the path to (lack of) buddhism gives freedom from everything maybe, except maybe it doesn't free one from the chain of having to avoid suffering? It seems written in the bylaws, the *need* to avoid suffering... The latter seems good to a person maybe, but when it comes under the heading of being something to attain (or maybe to not attain take your pick), a chain it becomes nonetheless.

The ultimate goal would free one from self caused suffering or conflict. The mental kind. But it would do nothing about physical suffering. But then Buddhism never claims to be able to stop physical suffering. If I am physically suffering, I can just accept it and do what I can to lesson it or I can mentally fight it and make it worse.

I guess Buddhism makes the philosophical claim it will end all suffering, but really all it ends is the mental resisting, the mentally caused part of suffering. I've visited hospices in hospitals before and seen some patients calmly smiling on their beds, at peace, and seen other patients screaming and yelling at the nurses about every little thing. So being mentally free from the "ego" is no small thing. It can dramatically alter how things are experienced.

Any "spiritual" goal can and does become a chain. Krishnamurti's attempt to get around that was to state one can't "get there" through any path, or technique, or practice. Really what he was getting at there was to drop the self. How does one on a spiritual path, one who is trying to reach some spiritual goal, drop all paths, methods, techniques, and practices like Krishnamurti said one should do? The whole point is to try to change what I am isn't it? So how can I change with no path or goal or practice?

Well there is a "practice," to keep being here now not worrying about this imagined "self" and what it has or doesn't have. Worrying about what it has achieved or hasn't. Not listening to that self centered and self obsessed voice anymore. See this is not really a "practice" or preconceived thing to do. It is just realizing what the path is about right now. Understanding this self talking in one's mind can be ignored or dropped or no longer listened to or a part of my experience. But then on a subtle level there is still a "voice" there, the voice of my true self. The voice of myself.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sentient

The misconception can arise here, if we think egoless ‘emptiness-openness-transparency’ is a ‘Buddhist’ (or alternatively ‘Indigenous’) discovery.

I agree with your whole post. It is the "birth right" of every consciousness. Religion is usually based on one person who had a profound experience, and usually this person did not belong to any particular religion. But then over time. this whole religion is formed based this one "non-religious" person who had this transforming experience.

But it really has nothing much to do with religion but then it is kinda tied into it because "religion" or philosophy is where we talk about these metaphysical topics or special individuals.

But anybody can have it, religious or not religious. Educated or not educated. I always like to ask who is more "spiritual," an atheist nurse who cheerfully and lovingly has devoted her life to caring for the sick and dying, or some monk who has devoted their life to "silence" and lives in a cave by themselves sustained by donations from the locals? Being self centered, even in a religious way, is not really a good way to be in my opinion.

But one thing I've learned from my reading is we really can't know who is "spiritual" and who is not based on the externals of this life. A happy homeless person could be more advanced than the CEO of a multinational company. And the reverse could be true as well. You can't really know by externals because we are come here for different reasons. It's possible for a very highly advanced consciousness to choose a body with a damaged brain in a poor family for the experience and challenge of that. Then a new and not very evolved consciousness could choose a healthy beautiful body and billionaire parents. So you can't even look at if one is "happy" or struggling to know who is advanced and who is not.

Look at someone like Stephen Hawking. The challenges he was given for this incarnation were huge. Yet he stayed positive and worked for humankind. It's funny but when we think of someone "spiritual" we often will automatically think of someone like a monk or nun, but some mother or father, working 3 jobs to care for their 10 children, always being kind and patient and loving, without complaint, could be at a much higher level. There could be a group of the highest advanced consciousness on earth living in a jungle somewhere in loin cloths. Or they could be all working together in an emergency room in a war zone. Sometimes I have seen pictures taken of rare animals deep in nature and sometimes they have these odd eyes that look so old and wise and intelligent. They look somehow human. I always wonder if this is some old soul that wanted a life as an animal deep in nature. That is a curious thing, but like humans, animals can be more or less aware. So they seem to be evolving as well.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

The ultimate goal would free one from self caused suffering or conflict. The mental kind. But it would do nothing about physical suffering. But then Buddhism never claims to be able to stop physical suffering. If I am physically suffering, I can just accept it and do what I can to lesson it or I can mentally fight it and make it worse.

I guess Buddhism makes the philosophical claim it will end all suffering, but really all it ends is the mental resisting, the mentally caused part of suffering. I've visited hospices in hospitals before and seen some patients calmly smiling on their beds, at peace, and seen other patients screaming and yelling at the nurses about every little thing. So being mentally free from the "ego" is no small thing. It can dramatically alter how things are experienced.

Any "spiritual" goal can and does become a chain. Krishnamurti's attempt to get around that was to state one can't "get there" through any path, or technique, or practice. Really what he was getting at there was to drop the self. How does one on a spiritual path, one who is trying to reach some spiritual goal, drop all paths, methods, techniques, and practices like Krishnamurti said one should do? The whole point is to try to change what I am isn't it? So how can I change with no path or goal or practice?

I think what JK was saying is very much aligned the essence of the satipatthana sutta - to observe it 'as it is'. He often queried if we could just observe things, experiences, emotion, our entire personal make up as a simple fact. He gave elaborate talks about meditation in this regard which are available on you tube. His main critique was method, to obey instructions, to conform to a system, to do this meditation activity to get that experience. People might take that in a way that relieves them from 'right effort', but JK was pretty clear that it takes full, complete attention one needs to be serious. The word he used 'arduous'. For those interested, I suggest searching 'Krishnamurti meditation' on you tube (there are hours of talks on the subject there). I also think listening to him can help clarify what is meant by 'philosophy and practice go together'.

Well there is a "practice," to keep being here now not worrying about this imagined "self" and what it has or doesn't have. Worrying about what it has achieved or hasn't. Not listening to that self centered and self obsessed voice anymore. See this is not really a "practice" or preconceived thing to do. It is just realizing what the path is about right now. Understanding this self talking in one's mind can be ignored or dropped or no longer listened to or a part of my experience. But then on a subtle level there is still a "voice" there, the voice of my true self. The voice of myself.

There a process of sorts that entail not stopping worry of all sorts, but rather, 'knowing' directly 'this is stress' and realising 'this is how I cause my own suffering' (in Buddhist vernacular, that is). Such insight grows the wisdom, and through this there cessation. This also aligns with JK's famous statement, "it is the truth that liberates, not your efforts to be free".