The sense of others which evokes empathy and altruism in us depends upon our sense of self as if to think, “This person is just like me.” Somewhat related, the infant’s social development takes place independently of language development. This social development is the development of a sense of self when, for example, the infant plays with their parents or siblings or some other person.
So, is a sense of self important in Buddhism? Yes it is. There would be no compassion without a sense of self in which the other of us (this person over there) is empathized with. This takes me to an argument that I often make.
The Buddha never denied the self or even the sense of self. He was mainly concerned with misidentification. What do I mean by this? He was concerned that we mistake as our self something that is not our self, this being the five skandhas or in Pali, the five khandhas, namely, corporeality, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, which are illusory. Let me say it again. The Buddha didn’t want us to identify with the corporeal body as being our true self. Why? Because it is impermanent. Why would our self or sense of self be something that is so fragile being always subject to change, sickness and destruction? The same goes with the rest of the skandhas.
The world of compassion can only arise from our own sense of self in which we see others to be like us evoking our empathy. At a deeper level, the Buddha’s compassion is directed to the higher self which we cannot yet see, which transcends birth and death, but more importantly, transcends the skandhas which ordinary beings mistake to be their primary self.
The Buddha knows that our higher self has to be saved. It is mixed up with the false self that is associated with the skandhas. The Buddha wants us to abandon our identification with this false self. Only then will the true self be recognized which is the Buddha, i.e., the awakened self whose compassion extends to all, teaching the higher self which in Pali and Sanskrit is nātha meaning the protector or lord. This term comes from the Dhammapada.
"The self is protector [nātha] of the self—who else might be the protector? With the self well subdued a man finds a protector who is difficult to obtain" (160).
"And you needed Bodhidharma to point that out for you, why? If the Mind is the Buddha, what need was there to go to some dude named Bodhidharma for quotes?"
There isn't. If this truth was not already present one's innermost heart there would be no Bodhidharma to point it out.
Posted by: n. yeti | January 28, 2019 at 09:39 AM
The self-appointed dog that suffers the painful predicaments of its own karma, is in dire need of Joshu´s compassionate reminder, as to stay above the recycling vortex of the walking dead.
Posted by: Jung | January 26, 2019 at 02:37 AM
"As Bodhidharma pointed out,there is no Buddha but one’s own mind." - And you needed Bodhidharma to point that out for you, why? If the Mind is the Buddha, what need was there to go to some dude named Bodhidharma for quotes?
Obviously, you are using things as "mirrors" to help you see the nature of the mind already. Do you think a quote is better or a book is better or a living enlightened master? Which is better? Which can respond, and which can point your ignorance?
A true teacher that can point to the nature of the mind is actually superior to all the sūtras. Every word he says is a mantra.
As for the "early Buddhism" - Buddha had 3 teachers, as did all Buddha's disciples (obviously).
---
To Graham: of course you can make progress on your own ... the main thing is the real motivation people have behind not looking for qualified teachers
Anyway, the person who writes this blog seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to Zen. So he is your teacher in a way, even if indirectly.
Posted by: Vyartha | January 25, 2019 at 07:20 PM
Graham points out the role of faith. I would like to add - and sorry for the wall of words since much can be said on this - the oft-cited Kalama sutra, which supposedly denies faith in preference for reason, is very relevant to this discussion.
The gist of the Kalama sutra is that every person needs to evaluate things on their own, rather than go by what is taught or held to be true by others. From this basis, many modern Buddhists who are abject atheists and, like Stephen Batchelor, seek to eradicate faith from contemporary Buddhism, because they lack awareness of any truth which does not pass through the screen of materialist rationality. Rather, this sect of nihilists seems to want to strip from Buddhism any aspect of the supramundane such as karma and rebirth, which are very much core aspects of what the Buddha taught. There is no way around this based on an honest read of the scriptures, much as the "secular Buddhist" community insists there is.
I think it is important to consider the Kalamas were confused by their teachers. That is the context of what was going on in the historical background of the sutra. And because they were confused, the Buddha invited them to cut that knot by looking inward, instead of placing their blind faith in teachers who were in conflict with one another, or more importantly, with each persons's own inner light which illuminates all understandings.
To support what Graham is saying, I am in full agreement that faith is an indispensable component of spiritual inquiry. When doubts are resolved, there is no longer need for faith because noble wisdom has taken root.
But really this is the crux of the matter: the teacher might guide or correct such inquiry through skillful means, but ultimately Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion and no one can find the answers for anyone else.
Posted by: n. yeti | January 25, 2019 at 12:17 PM
Although the pratyekabuddha has been replaced by the bodhisattva ideal in modern discourse, it is incorrect to state pratyekabuddhayana is somehow a "lesser" vehicle than that of sravakas. Quite to the contrary, in early Buddhism, the pratyekabuddha stands above the arahant of the sravaka vehicle, and is also one of four enlightened beings worthy of a stupa. In the Ekottarika-āgama, for example, Mahākāśyapa quite plainly states that for one like himself full awakening was certain, independent of whether or not a Buddha existed.
http://www.academia.edu/14932519/Pratyekabuddhas_in_the_Ekottarika-%C4%81gama
Posted by: n. yeti | January 25, 2019 at 07:16 AM