The Eightfold Path - The Fourth Noble Truth

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

These contradictions exist because Buddhism doesn't answer questions like there is a self or there isn't a self.

Buddhism most definitely answers these questions and you can find them in The Buddha's Teachings yourself or by attending a Buddhist Sangha and having a chat with the Teachers..... One that comes to mind,

Kasyapa said to the Buddha,
O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not ?
The Buddha answered,
O good man! Self means Tathagatagarbha [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements.

In Buddhism, the term Anattā or Anātman refers to the doctrine of 'not-self' not 'No self' which He does explain as there is no unchanging, permanent self or essence that can be found in any phenomenon. He also teaches what is ' Not self' therefore there is a Self which is unchanging and permanent.
There are Sutras/Suttas to help.....

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 651 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by sky

In Buddhism, the term Anattā or Anātman refers to the doctrine of 'not-self' not 'No self' which He does explain as there is no unchanging, permanent self or essence that can be found in any phenomenon.

I wrote a paper on the "not-self" for an online class at Princeton University on Buddhism. The course included lectures by several prominent Buddhist monks.

Well said.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 651 EXCERPT: I wrote a paper on the "not-self" for an online class at Princeton University on Buddhism. The course included lectures by several prominent Buddhist monks.
Well said.

I throughly enjoyed that Online Course I must check if they are running any more later.....
As I said previously, if you dig a little deeper into The Buddha's Teaching it's obvious 'No self' is incorrect.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

"not-self"

I explained how no self applies in Buddhist philosophy as well as not self, and how notions of self change meaning according to context, and gave examples, but it might get lost in translation because my narrative isn't the thesis/antithesis structure that it might be being read with.

[Maisy]

I don't think we carry our current re-birth's identity once we leave this body. The question, many spiritual teachers have talked about, is how to have our real identity while in this re-birth. Seems to me the reward or prize to achieving this, living in reality and not delusion, ...so many ways this is said, "discovering our true or Buddha nature" for example that phrase "true self" or "real self" etc. the reward is no longer reincarnating into a lower nature body, escaping the wheel of re-birth is how Buddhism puts it.

I believe that even without any Buddhism beliefs or teachings or phrases included. On the road of spiritual development at some point we "graduate" or develop to a point where we don't need re-birth on incarnations to advance anymore. Our learning then takes place in higher vibrational realms.

This is related to the "no self" or "not self" comments to me as this is what those concepts are about to me. Discovering and "being," perceiving from the perspective of our true or Buddha nature to go back to Buddhism words. Discarding association with non or not self parts of our content in the present moment. Knowing or seeing clearly what is me and not me. Seeing I am awareness itself and not any content presented to awareness. In that seeing one stops identifying with non-self content as self and that ends the influence of such things on experience and perception.

I think the teachers who use the term "no-self" are basically using the word "self" there to refer to the delusional re-birth identity of this current re-birth. We see ourselves as this one lifes role and body, "I am a mother to this or that person etc....I am a nurse....I like this food or that food, I am this thing politically or nationally or religiously etc." All temporary false identity. I think this was expressed in that movie, "My dinner With Andre" here at this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1g059xG1rY

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Maisy

Knowing or seeing clearly what is me and not me. Seeing I am awareness itself and not any content presented to awareness. In that seeing one stops identifying with non-self content as self and that ends the influence of such things on experience and perception.

Reflecting the experience I described earlier this ^ is it. I just named it 'the one aware' rather than 'awareness itself'.

On another thread someone is recounting their 'no-self' experiences and talks about being present yet selfless. This gets a discussion where 'no self' is only a phrase carried on the current of subtext.

The contrast for me is a clear distinction between delusional identity and me, the one aware. I talk about the reactivity because the illusory self needs it to maintain its position in the driver's seat, and awareness with equanimity is antithetical to that.

Oh Man! I loved that movie, "My dinner With Andre". I could watch that again.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Gem

I just named it 'the one aware'

Every living thing has some element of awareness I think. But awareness is limited by the physical form it is linked to. Perception is fed to awareness by the physical form.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Gem

Oh Man! I loved that movie, "My dinner With Andre". I could watch that again.

Because of this post ..I just finished it, again ...2nd time in 40 years.
I feel the same about it as I did then...(don't ask me what that is.)
Ha, many people here aren't even 40 yrs old!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Maisy

Every living thing has some element of awareness I think. But awareness is limited by the physical form it is linked to. Perception is fed to awareness by the physical form.

My sense is, the one aware is just here like a living space which isn't anywhere in particular. And there's actually another space behind that which I've been calling 'the great outpouring', but to me that heavy spiritual stuff sounds incoherent even as I say it, and inane when other people do teehee.

I believe the trick is like they said in the satipatthana 'with ardent awareness, understand the impermanence of experience without aversion or desire'. I just call aversion and desire 'reactivity' to be more direct. Observe without reacting or awareness with equanimity - its so many words for just the same thing.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

On another thread, we started to talk about the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha ...specifically the Fourth Noble Truth (The Eightfold Path). It was suggested that some one start a separate thread on this topic.

I am approaching this from the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.

Thank you for sharing Still_Waters (wonderful screen name if not stagnant), I offer this of mutual interest, "the Reality of the situation is that one starts with whatever understanding one considers to be right (in the moment)."

The standard of "right," if I may please consider Buddha lived two and half or more millenniums ago, and he no longer remained to assure an other that they reached Buddhahood. However, the nature of truth was undying, perhaps dying was the process of birth for the unborn nature of truth?
I offer this "reality/truth" that may bring reassurance to an other if they are not self-critical.
Enjoy,
IT