October 5, 2009
- More from Suzuki Roshi -
“The basic teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of transiency, or change. That everything changes is the basic truth for each existence. No one can deny this truth, and all the teaching of Buddhism is condensed within it. This is the teaching for all of us. Wherever we go, this teaching is true. This teaching is also understood as the teaching of selflessness. Because each existence is in constant change, there is no abiding self. In fact, the self nature of each existence is nothing but change itself, the self nature of all existence. There is no special, self-nature for each existence. This is also called the teaching of Nirvana. When we realize the everlasting truth of “everything changes”, and we find our composure in it, we find ourselves in Nirvana.”
Do you completely agree with that?
Comment by Ted — October 5, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I liked this article: http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html
I found it helpful in understanding this doctrine of “no self”
Here is what the point of contention (or difficulty) is with me: I think I understand, or access this, “transrationally” as Ken Wilber would say. It’s like I am in a state of meditation and I access the presence of God, and realize that this is the presence I abide in. This is the presence that will continue after death. Not my body or any other parts of me that will pass away in the sands of time or whatever. This is also a part of me somehow, though, “the atman” so this is the part over time I come to identify with more and more. I feel like identify with this is what eternal life is.
So anyway, from having this level of learning that I have had over time, I am more at peace basically.
but then, here are a couple things: First the idea of creation being sacred and second the idea of having a mission in life, you know, being a “bodhisattva”
These two things bring me back to some semblence of having a unique self(maybe not a snowflake, but each person is differnt with a different missiotionn) and also the beauty and sacredness of creation, leads me to value things that are temporal. I mean I can’t just discount these things.
Comment by Ted — October 5, 2009 @ 11:39 am
That’s an awesome article Ted, thanks for the link. Says a lot of things clearly that I’ve been trying to pin down for myself.
I guess this is what “no-self” really means to me. I already have my “self” 100%, no matter what I do. So then why do I identify things which cause stress/suffering/anxiety/dukkha as part of this “self”? Such suffering can only be caused by some kind of internal contradiction in my sense of self. Resolving those contradictions is what I take Suzuki Roshi to mean by “find our composure within it”. What it means to actually DO that, I have no idea…
And I don’t think that they should be discounted. Clearly, these things aren’t causing you any dukkha, in and of themselves, so why get rid of them? Maybe trying to act on these principles leads to suffering, but that just means some clarification is needed. I don’t think that the idea of “no-self” means in anyway that we are not unique and the world not sacred. Read a quote in Tricycle magazine this morning that said:
“Now is the time to free ourselves from samsara. Unless we do it in this lifetime, it is not going to happen all by itself. We have to take care of ourselves. Right now we have the ability to receive teachings and practice the Dharma. Isn’t this the right time? Wouldn’t that be better than continuing to act like an animal, concentrating only on eating and sleeping and letting the time run out? Why not take your future into your own hands?”
The idea that being born into a body and life where you can practice “the dharama” (in whatever tradition) is an extremely rare, lucky, and blessed event sort of puts to rest any sense of meaningless existentialism.
If “no-self” makes you suffer, just don’t cling to “no-self”! :)
Comment by Ian — October 5, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I think you just hit it out of the park!
Comment by Ted — October 5, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Me confuse.
Does the fact that everything changes change, or does everything change except the fact of change? Or does this just apply to material/perceptible/thinkable/etc. things?
And do things come round again?
Comment by speedbird — October 5, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
@ Ted: Thanks!
@ speedbird: you’ve made yourself a little koan there! :) I like.
I believe it applies to everything that is actually experienced by you as a perceiving being.
Depends on how you define them, I think, but basically, yes they do. But you cannot rest on the fact that they do. Recurrence-of-things is not a place to “find your composure”.
Comment by Ian — October 5, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
I just want to add though, that I believe some semblance of the personality survives death. But you have to build it. This is what I get from Gurdjieff and other sources. This has the ring of truth to it. For me anyway. You spiritualize elements of your personality and it endures forever. There are other elements that are like “wood, hay and stubble” as the Apostle Paul said that do not persist.
I look at this in light of the research of Rupert Sheldrake with his morphic fields and other experiences I have had such as past life memories, out of body experiences and communications with my ancestors.
But there is much in life that is not meant to persist. And its not wise to cling to these things.
Comment by Ted — October 5, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
I get a sense of that too, Ted, but it’s something I’m waiting to be pleasantly surprised by when I die. Meanwhile, I’m trying to release as much of the “wood, hay and stubble” as I can, while I can.
Very well said. :)
Comment by Ian — October 6, 2009 @ 9:10 am