The bad idea of no-soul
This blog is about the idea there is no-self or in Sanskrit anâtman. What goes into forming such an idea? Why should anyone uphold such an idea and fight for it? What in my character or disposition requires that I invest in such an idea? These, and other questions arise when we begin to look at the idea there is no-self.
It is remarkable that many Western Buddhists, before they decide to become Buddhists, are very much open to the idea that there is no-self or soul—so much so that they are willing to champion this idea; further believing the self or the ego, as they prefer to call it, is the main cause of suffering. And then they find Buddhism!
When Westerners become Buddhists, whatever the Buddha said in his discourses, that he asked his followers to abandon what is not the soul instead of the soul (P., attâ), has no impact when it should. It's dismissed. The idea is deeply stuck in their minds that there can be no such thing as a soul and even if there is, of what value is it for me?
For such people, the soul has no third-person relevancy. The value of the first-person and their experiences matters not, even though the first-person is, arguably, where we look to find the soul which, however, is unable to discern itself. When a person asks, "Who am I?" it is the soul that asks this question but cannot recognize itself no matter how many times it asks although it has the ability to do so. But who wants to go here? The soul has no value in a world in which third-person evidence is required that could not care less about qualia (first-person raw experiences).
The idea that there is no-self or soul seems to depend, heavily, on third-person evidence which is outside of the first-person. The value of the first-person is under siege in the twenty-first century. Those who come to Buddhism under the influence of the idea that there is no soul have no place in Buddhism. The Buddha never denied the soul—only what is not the soul or anâtman. Read More @ Source
Buddhaghosa decribes the "far enemies" of equanimous love like this: "Greed and resentment … are its far enemies … for it is not possible to look on with equanimity and be inflamed with greed or be resentful simultaneously."
He also says, "[Equanimity's] function is to see equality in beings. It is manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval."
Equanimity destroys greed (or approval) and resentment, and greed (or approval) and resentment destroy equanimity, and so they're direct opposites or, as the tradition calls them, "far enemies."
Equanimity is a state of neither approval nor disapproval, aversion nor craving. It's a state of balance, calm, and peace. When it's applied in relation to our own experience, it means being with our painful experiences without resisting them in any way, and being with our pleasant experiences without clinging to them or longing for their continuation. We just act as skillfully as we can and let our experiences come and go.
Applied to our relationship with others, equanimity means more than one thing. It means that we don't play favorites. We recognize that each person's suffering and joy and welfare are as real to them as to anyone else. That's why we "see equality in beings."
Equanimity also means that as we wish beings well and wish for their suffering to end, we don't have any aversion to their suffering nor any craving for their happiness. This can be harder for us to get our heads around; this is most certainly not a state of uncaring, but is simply an acceptance of the limits of our power. To use language from the late "Seven Habits" author Stephen R. Covey, others' suffering and happiness are within our circle of concern, but are often outside our circle of influence.
And to avoid misunderstanding, it's perfectly possible to want to relieve someone's suffering and yet not have aversion to their suffering. Aversion here is an inability to deal with discomfort, where we can't accept the reality of others' suffering. And it's perfectly possible to desire the well-being of others without craving it. Craving is where we're attached to particular outcomes, and when those outcomes don't appear we suffer.
So the state of equanimity is where we have the courage to change the things we can, and the serenity to accept the things we can't.
In fact Buddhaghosa makes it explicit that equanimity, as a brahmavihara, is a stance where we recognize the limits of our influence:
Now obviously not all suffering arises because of beings' own choices and actions, but much of it does. When something unpleasant happens to someone, like they lose their job through no fault of their own, or they are subject to a bereavement, there is initial suffering, which is the "first arrow." But the bulk of the suffering that comes from circumstances such as these is usually self-induced secondary suffering, and comes from the mourning and judgements and inability to let go that we commonly experience. This is the second arrow.
And it's that self-induced suffering (and happiness) that we're mostly concerned with here. When we see someone suffering, we may well start off by being compassionate toward them. But when we see them wallowing in their pain, or acting in ways that are going to deeper their suffering, then we can end up losing our sympathy and feel annoyed and resentful: "Pull yourself together!"
So with equanimity we cultivate love and compassion toward beings, and even knowing that they bring about much of their own suffering we refrain from judging or blaming them. We also don't judge ourselves for being unable to keep them from suffering.
And similarly we cultivate love and compassion toward beings, and aware that they bring about much of their own happiness we refrain from approval. Normally we'd think of approval as being a good thing, and usually it is, but here approval is just the flip-side of blame. It might be useful to think of it as "conditional approval" — I'll love you as long as you keep being "good" and as long as you're happy. But as soon as you slip up, acting unskillfully and causing yourself suffering, I withdraw my approval and begin to blame you.
So this is what we're avoiding in even-minded love: we don't have conditional approval when beings are happy, and we also don't blame beings when they suffer. We recognize that beings' actions are outside our control, and while we continue to give them our love and compassion we don't feel resentful to ourselves for our inability to save the world, nor cling to the idea that we should be able to save the world.
This is the highest form of love: We do what we can to help others; we love them and have compassion for them when they cause themselves to suffer; and we don't judge. We love them and rejoice in their good qualities, and we rejoice in the peace and joy that come from those good qualities. But we don't judge.
Read More @ Source
HeraldOnline.com: The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique can help high school students stay on track for graduation, according to research published in the June issue of the journal Education (Vol. 133, No. 4). The study, which involved 235 students at an East Coast urban high school, showed a 15% higher graduation rate for students practicing the TM technique, compared to non-meditating controls.
"While there are bright spots in public education today, urban schools on the whole tend to suffer from a range of factors which contribute to poor student academic performance and low graduation rates," said lead author Robert D. Colbert, Ph.D., associate professor, and director…
It is remarkable that many Western Buddhists, before they decide to become Buddhists, are very much open to the idea that there is no-self or soul—so much so that they are willing to champion this idea; further believing the self or the ego, as they prefer to call it, is the main cause of suffering. And then they find Buddhism!
When Westerners become Buddhists, whatever the Buddha said in his discourses, that he asked his followers to abandon what is not the soul instead of the soul (P., attâ), has no impact when it should. It's dismissed. The idea is deeply stuck in their minds that there can be no such thing as a soul and even if there is, of what value is it for me?
For such people, the soul has no third-person relevancy. The value of the first-person and their experiences matters not, even though the first-person is, arguably, where we look to find the soul which, however, is unable to discern itself. When a person asks, "Who am I?" it is the soul that asks this question but cannot recognize itself no matter how many times it asks although it has the ability to do so. But who wants to go here? The soul has no value in a world in which third-person evidence is required that could not care less about qualia (first-person raw experiences).
The idea that there is no-self or soul seems to depend, heavily, on third-person evidence which is outside of the first-person. The value of the first-person is under siege in the twenty-first century. Those who come to Buddhism under the influence of the idea that there is no soul have no place in Buddhism. The Buddha never denied the soul—only what is not the soul or anâtman. Read More @ Source
Posted: 01 Jul 2013 10:00 PM PDT
Buddhaghosa decribes the "far enemies" of equanimous love like this: "Greed and resentment … are its far enemies … for it is not possible to look on with equanimity and be inflamed with greed or be resentful simultaneously."He also says, "[Equanimity's] function is to see equality in beings. It is manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval."
Equanimity destroys greed (or approval) and resentment, and greed (or approval) and resentment destroy equanimity, and so they're direct opposites or, as the tradition calls them, "far enemies."
Equanimity is a state of neither approval nor disapproval, aversion nor craving. It's a state of balance, calm, and peace. When it's applied in relation to our own experience, it means being with our painful experiences without resisting them in any way, and being with our pleasant experiences without clinging to them or longing for their continuation. We just act as skillfully as we can and let our experiences come and go.
Applied to our relationship with others, equanimity means more than one thing. It means that we don't play favorites. We recognize that each person's suffering and joy and welfare are as real to them as to anyone else. That's why we "see equality in beings."
Equanimity also means that as we wish beings well and wish for their suffering to end, we don't have any aversion to their suffering nor any craving for their happiness. This can be harder for us to get our heads around; this is most certainly not a state of uncaring, but is simply an acceptance of the limits of our power. To use language from the late "Seven Habits" author Stephen R. Covey, others' suffering and happiness are within our circle of concern, but are often outside our circle of influence.
And to avoid misunderstanding, it's perfectly possible to want to relieve someone's suffering and yet not have aversion to their suffering. Aversion here is an inability to deal with discomfort, where we can't accept the reality of others' suffering. And it's perfectly possible to desire the well-being of others without craving it. Craving is where we're attached to particular outcomes, and when those outcomes don't appear we suffer.
So the state of equanimity is where we have the courage to change the things we can, and the serenity to accept the things we can't.
In fact Buddhaghosa makes it explicit that equanimity, as a brahmavihara, is a stance where we recognize the limits of our influence:
Its proximate cause is seeing ownership of deeds [kamma/karma] thus: "Beings are owners of their deeds. Whose, if not theirs, is the choice by which they will become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will not fall away from the success they have reached?"This is one of those places where even-minded love becomes a wisdom practice, because we're cultivating an awareness of karma.
Now obviously not all suffering arises because of beings' own choices and actions, but much of it does. When something unpleasant happens to someone, like they lose their job through no fault of their own, or they are subject to a bereavement, there is initial suffering, which is the "first arrow." But the bulk of the suffering that comes from circumstances such as these is usually self-induced secondary suffering, and comes from the mourning and judgements and inability to let go that we commonly experience. This is the second arrow.
And it's that self-induced suffering (and happiness) that we're mostly concerned with here. When we see someone suffering, we may well start off by being compassionate toward them. But when we see them wallowing in their pain, or acting in ways that are going to deeper their suffering, then we can end up losing our sympathy and feel annoyed and resentful: "Pull yourself together!"
So with equanimity we cultivate love and compassion toward beings, and even knowing that they bring about much of their own suffering we refrain from judging or blaming them. We also don't judge ourselves for being unable to keep them from suffering.
And similarly we cultivate love and compassion toward beings, and aware that they bring about much of their own happiness we refrain from approval. Normally we'd think of approval as being a good thing, and usually it is, but here approval is just the flip-side of blame. It might be useful to think of it as "conditional approval" — I'll love you as long as you keep being "good" and as long as you're happy. But as soon as you slip up, acting unskillfully and causing yourself suffering, I withdraw my approval and begin to blame you.
So this is what we're avoiding in even-minded love: we don't have conditional approval when beings are happy, and we also don't blame beings when they suffer. We recognize that beings' actions are outside our control, and while we continue to give them our love and compassion we don't feel resentful to ourselves for our inability to save the world, nor cling to the idea that we should be able to save the world.
This is the highest form of love: We do what we can to help others; we love them and have compassion for them when they cause themselves to suffer; and we don't judge. We love them and rejoice in their good qualities, and we rejoice in the peace and joy that come from those good qualities. But we don't judge.
Read More @ Source
Posted: 01 Jul 2013 06:00 PM PDT
Harold Mandel, Examiner.com: Concerns have been growing worldwide over reports of continued repression in Tibet, with fears this will lead to more self-immolations by protesting Tibetans. The Central Tibetan Administration reported on July 1, 2013, China has to Address the Grievances of Tibetans: UN High Commissioner. With expressions of deep concern over the tragic situation in Tibet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said, "China has to examine and address the grievances of the Tibetans."
While responding to questions on BBC's World Have Your Say program, dealing with the UN's inability to engage China to address the sufferings of Tibetans, High Commissioner Navi Pillay…
Read the original article »
Read More @ Source
While responding to questions on BBC's World Have Your Say program, dealing with the UN's inability to engage China to address the sufferings of Tibetans, High Commissioner Navi Pillay…
Read the original article »
Read More @ Source
Posted: 01 Jul 2013 03:00 PM PDT
HeraldOnline.com: The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique can help high school students stay on track for graduation, according to research published in the June issue of the journal Education (Vol. 133, No. 4). The study, which involved 235 students at an East Coast urban high school, showed a 15% higher graduation rate for students practicing the TM technique, compared to non-meditating controls. "While there are bright spots in public education today, urban schools on the whole tend to suffer from a range of factors which contribute to poor student academic performance and low graduation rates," said lead author Robert D. Colbert, Ph.D., associate professor, and director…
