Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Concordiadiscordi
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Concordiadiscordi »

Generally speaking, Yogācāra doctrine is typically regarded as provisional from the standpoint of Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka due to the fact that the former is thought to conceive of ālaya-vijñāna as an inherently self-existent ground from whence all perceived phenomena emerge and to which all perceived phenomena return (hence, storehouse/repository consciousness). As Ju Mipham states in one of his commentaries, "The only difference between God [when conceived of as an unchanging, immutable, inherently self-existent entity or substance] and the alaya is that the former is supposed to be immutable while the latter is said to fluctuate." Thus, according to Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, the notions of God [when interpreted as previously described] and ālaya-vijñāna differ only in degree but not in kind, as they are both ultimately conceived of by their respective proponents as substantial and inherently self-existent urgrunds. Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka responds to such notions with the classical postulate of emptiness as a non-affirming negative, thereby negating every extreme position without affording any of its own.

Interestingly, however, Ju Mipham eventually goes on to cite the following passage from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra:

There are no real existents and there is no mind;
There is no alaya; there are no things.
But childish beings, like the lifeless dead,
Philosophize with empty sophistry.


Hence, it would appear that Yogācāra doctrine does contain within itself intimations of something akin to the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka 'viewpoint' (although, technically speaking, one cannot rightly attribute any 'viewpoint' or 'position' to Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, as this would contradict the very function of emptiness as a non-affirming negative).

Perhaps Yogācāra doctrine needn't be treated as inherently inferior to Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, and perhaps it needn't be treated as purely provisional either. The aforementioned passage clearly demonstrates that Yogācāra contains within itself the eventual negation of that which it provisionally posits (viz, the ālaya-vijñāna). Hence, one might speak of Yogācāra as encompassing both 'provisional' and 'ultimate' registers, the former of which would correspond to ālaya-vijñāna, and the latter of which would correspond to tathāgatagarbha.

Also, interesting and striking parallels may be drawn between the works of Nāgārjuna, for instance, and certain western mystics, such as Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopagite. I personally do not feel that God need necessarily be incommensurable with Buddhism. It all depends on one's understanding of the term - and perhaps, as in the case of Dionysius the Areopagite, one might eventually plunge into Divine Darkness, Mushin, thereby relinquishing any finite understanding altogether... just opening oneself to boundless and ineffable mystery with sincere love, humility and gratitude.

As Hubert Benoit once went on to state:

"The problem with the word 'God', as with all other names [...]., is that it evokes the idea of a person and so tends to personify the Metaphysical Principle and Origin. All religions have fallen into this trap and they are all misguided because of it. [...] When people believe in God, however subtle their image of Him, the God they imagine is an anthropomorphic figure, a being with all the characteristics of a human psyche, thinking, feeling and intending just as we do. [...] [This might] suggest the image of a supreme 'Thing', something fixed which, being in Itself and by Itself, would be hovering in splendid isolation above and unrelated to the movement of the cosmos. This mistaken view, like so many others, originates in the fact that language is constructed to indicate, study and understand the phenomenal world and its formal appearances, this apparent multiplicity in which we experience the illusion of things being separate entities. [...] Whatever [we might] say about God can only express intellectual views which are based on discriminations. Abstract ideas which rely on a discriminating process to give them a separate identity should not be taken literally and thought of as referring to distinct entities. Nothing in a correct initiatory teaching, no phrase, can claim to be a fragment of Absolute Truth, because that is One [not in the quantitative sense of linear numericality, but the qualitative sense of utter singularity], just as the Absolute is One. Absolute Truth is the intellectual attribute of the originating One, the Absolute Whole. It is the Cosmic Mind [i.e., One-Mind] of Ch'an. Because it is an aspect of the Whole, it is not made up of constituent elements and so cannot be broken down into fragments. But when we reflect on these matters we can only understand the issues they raise by analyzing them into subsidiary concepts and the relationships between them. So any phrase we use to express what we have understood intuitively is a product of this analytic process and the representation it provides is not endowed with Absolute Reality but reflects a reality which relates to the way our intellect functions verbally and formally. Though this is a relative reality, it is not without value and we can build on it with confidence in our search for knowledge. This is how the finger accurately pointing at the moon gradually emerges, and it is the completion of this guiding structure which may one day enable us to experience the inexpressible reality of our Buddha nature, our divinity."

God, Buddha, Cloud of Unknowing, Divine Darkness, One-Mind, All-good One-taste Matrix of Samantabhadra, Rigpa, Tathāgatagarbha, Ein Sof, Buddha-nature, Divinity, Truth, Moon, Absolute Reality, Rootless-root, Wakan Tanka, Axis Mundi, Dharmakāya, True Self, Universal Self, Great Spirit, mysterium tremendum et fascinosum, et al...

Perhaps all of these (and other, similar) terms might converge at a primordial point of ineffable unity which, in some sense, might transcend, encompass and subsume our social, cultural, historical, doctrinal, semantic and sectarian divisions...perhaps not. Regardless of our viewpoints, it is an intriguing possibility.

As a side note, what do you guys think of Theosophy?

Just some thoughts.

"All experience is resolved in the nondiscriminatory sameness of ineffable openness."
- Keith Dowman
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
- Tommy Smothers
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Grigoris »

Concordiadiscordi wrote:Also, interesting and striking parallels may be drawn between the works of Nāgārjuna, for instance, and certain western mystics, such as Meister Eckhart and Dionysius the Areopagite. I personally do not feel that God need necessarily be incommensurable with Buddhism. It all depends on one's understanding of the term - and perhaps, as in the case of Dionysius the Areopagite, one might eventually plunge into Divine Darkness, Mushin, thereby relinquishing any finite understanding altogether... just opening oneself to boundless and ineffable mystery with sincere love, humility and gratitude.

As Hubert Benoit once went on to state:

"The problem with the word 'God', as with all other names [...]., is that it evokes the idea of a person and so tends to personify the Metaphysical Principle and Origin. All religions have fallen into this trap and they are all misguided because of it. [...] When people believe in God, however subtle their image of Him, the God they imagine is an anthropomorphic figure, a being with all the characteristics of a human psyche, thinking, feeling and intending just as we do. [...] [This might] suggest the image of a supreme 'Thing', something fixed which, being in Itself and by Itself, would be hovering in splendid isolation above and unrelated to the movement of the cosmos. This mistaken view, like so many others, originates in the fact that language is constructed to indicate, study and understand the phenomenal world and its formal appearances, this apparent multiplicity in which we experience the illusion of things being separate entities. [...] Whatever [we might] say about God can only express intellectual views which are based on discriminations. Abstract ideas which rely on a discriminating process to give them a separate identity should not be taken literally and thought of as referring to distinct entities. Nothing in a correct initiatory teaching, no phrase, can claim to be a fragment of Absolute Truth, because that is One [not in the quantitative sense of linear numericality, but the qualitative sense of utter singularity], just as the Absolute is One. Absolute Truth is the intellectual attribute of the originating One, the Absolute Whole. It is the Cosmic Mind [i.e., One-Mind] of Ch'an. Because it is an aspect of the Whole, it is not made up of constituent elements and so cannot be broken down into fragments. But when we reflect on these matters we can only understand the issues they raise by analyzing them into subsidiary concepts and the relationships between them. So any phrase we use to express what we have understood intuitively is a product of this analytic process and the representation it provides is not endowed with Absolute Reality but reflects a reality which relates to the way our intellect functions verbally and formally. Though this is a relative reality, it is not without value and we can build on it with confidence in our search for knowledge. This is how the finger accurately pointing at the moon gradually emerges, and it is the completion of this guiding structure which may one day enable us to experience the inexpressible reality of our Buddha nature, our divinity."

God, Buddha, Cloud of Unknowing, Divine Darkness, One-Mind, All-good One-taste Matrix of Samantabhadra, Rigpa, Tathāgatagarbha, Ein Sof, Buddha-nature, Divinity, Truth, Moon, Absolute Reality, Rootless-root, Wakan Tanka, Axis Mundi, Dharmakāya, True Self, Universal Self, Great Spirit, mysterium tremendum et fascinosum, et al...

Perhaps all of these (and other, similar) terms might converge at a primordial point of ineffable unity which, in some sense, might transcend, encompass and subsume our social, cultural, historical, doctrinal, semantic and sectarian divisions...perhaps not. Regardless of our viewpoints, it is an intriguing possibility.
Intriguing, maybe, but definitely not Buddhism. Baked beans with sweet and sour sauce. There is no God in Buddhism, there are samsaric beings of the god realms, but there is no God. Samantabhadra does not even come close to the concept of God. This idea is arsing from a mistaken understanding of what Samantabhadra is. If anything, Samantabhadra is closer to the Titan Primodial Chaos of the pre-Olympian Ancient Greeks, than the God of the Abrahamic faiths. Given our friend "Green5" is from Turkey, I would assume he is referring to the Abrahamic God.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Concordiadiscordi
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Concordiadiscordi »

"The nondual reality that is the natural state of being is the timeless and nonspatial experience of the here-and-now. The naked blue adibuddha Samantabhadra represents that preexistent buddha-reality, the all-good reality whose pure and total presence never had a beginning and will never cease. He is a personification of the immutable nature of mind recognizing itself. Moment by moment Samantabhadra reveals the conclusive, definitive meaning of the nature of reality without prevarication, ambiguity, or tantric metaphor, without provisional instruction, but directly in the manner of Dzogchen Ati. [...] The supreme source is the original, all-inclusive adibuddha, Samantabhadra (Tibetan: Kuntuzangpo), known by that name particularly in the great root tantra of the Mind Series precepts, The Supreme Source (Tibetan: Kunje Gyalpo). In an uncompromising statement of radical Dzogchen, to forsake the gradualist approaches with their heavy baggage that precludes an open mind is a condition sine qua non of receiving the transmission of Samantabhadra. [...] The original face of absence is nondual, ultimate equality, and there is no time so no process, development, or evolution. The beginning, the middle, and the end of an event are actually always a total, undifferentiated whole and thus in a manner of speaking the same event. In this super-matrix of Samantabhadra the rational mind is absent so there can be no value judgment, and the matrix itself is nondiscriminatory. In the timelessness of the here-and-now there is no causality or conditioning and no glitches or veils. [...] The nature of mind, brilliant empty rigpa, neither eternal nor temporal, integrates inside and outside, the knower and the known. Since it is free of moral conditioning, devoid of karmic maturation and any latent tendencies that are the potential for experience, it is holistic transparence, the sole dynamic of Samantabhadra. [...] Just as all worlds and life-forms, matter and energy, are bound together by the same elemental space, so the five self-imaged external fields (of vision, sound, taste, smell, and sensation), together with the immediately released mental images and ideas arising internally, are bound by the same self-sprung awareness, which in turn is bound by the natural hyper-purity of emptiness. Nothing escaping that baseless total emptiness, it is called “Samantabhadra’s integrated matrix.” [...] The unchanging face of rigpa, free of all endeavor, beyond thought and expression, lacking intention and goal-directed activity, all-inclusive and indivisible, this is the nature of Samantabhadra. Whatever good or bad experience of samsara or nirvana appearing in his space is actually absent from the start, so its existence is purely nominal, merely label. Then nominal existence, subjected to intense investigation, is resolved in pure nameless reality—inconceivable and ineffable."
- Keith Dowman

Perhaps I, or others, might utterly misconstrue Samantabhadra, but the previous selection of passages certainly intimates something of a primordial and ineffable unity impervious to nominal and conceptual discriminations/preferences - a primordial and ineffable unity represented, in this instance, by Samantabhadra.

Call 'it' whatever you want. Pick and choose and quarrel over words, concepts and images for countless aeons. It won't change a thing - you'll only frustrate yourself.

Pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable...

Also, Green5 might be speaking of an Abrahamic God (and he might not - you will have to clarify that with him), but I am not speaking of an Abrahamic God, nor of Pre-Olympian Chaos. Actually, I don't know what I am talking about in much the same way that Bodhidharma, when asked "Who is facing me?" by Emperor Wu of Liang, could only respond with "I don't know." I am merely suggesting that if the term God were merely understood differently (instead of being limited to our vying perspectives, such as Abrahamic vs this vs that ad nauseam), there might not have to be an incommensurable gulf separating God from Buddha, when conceived under the aspect of 'primordial reality'. Instead of thinking that we understand exactly what God is or isn't, why can't we relinquish our partial perspectives and just plunge into Bodhidharma's "I don't know"?
Last edited by Concordiadiscordi on Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
- Tommy Smothers
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Grigoris »

Concordiadiscordi wrote:I am merely suggesting that if the term God were merely understood differently (instead of being limited to our vying perspectives, such as Abrahamic vs this vs that ad nauseam), there might not have to be an incommensurable gulf separating God from Buddha, when conceived under the aspect of primordial reality.
Sure, and if you called sh*t roses, it would smell like roses right? This is not a discussion about the term, but what the description of the term actually describes. God is... Samantabhadra is... The terms are not interchangeable, because they do not describe the same thing.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Concordiadiscordi
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Concordiadiscordi »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
Concordiadiscordi wrote:I am merely suggesting that if the term God were merely understood differently (instead of being limited to our vying perspectives, such as Abrahamic vs this vs that ad nauseam), there might not have to be an incommensurable gulf separating God from Buddha, when conceived under the aspect of primordial reality.
Sure, and if you called sh*t roses, it would smell like roses right? This is not a discussion about the term, but what the description of the term actually describes. God is... Samantabhadra is... The terms are not interchangeable, because they do not describe the same thing.
On the contrary, roses would smell like roses regardless of whether you preferred to refer to them as roses or shit, just as 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' would remain 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' regardless of whether you chose to call it God or Buddha or anything else. As soon as the slightest like or dislike arises, the Way is as distant as heaven from earth.

It simply is what it is.

What is it?

"I don't know."
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
- Tommy Smothers
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Grigoris »

Concordiadiscordi wrote:On the contrary, roses would smell like roses regardless of whether you preferred to refer to them as roses or shit, ...
Uuuuummmm... that was exactly the point I was making. You cannot switch terms in order to describe dissimilar "phenomena".
just as 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' would remain 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' regardless of whether you chose to call it God or Buddha or anything else. As soon as the slightest like or dislike arises, the Way is as distant as heaven from earth.
Except that the term God, except in some rare individual cases, is not used to describe a 'pure nameless reality', whereas the term Samantabhadra (and Chaos, to an extent) does. In all circumstances.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Concordiadiscordi
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Concordiadiscordi »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
Concordiadiscordi wrote:On the contrary, roses would smell like roses regardless of whether you preferred to refer to them as roses or shit, ...
Uuuuummmm... that was exactly the point I was making. You cannot switch terms in order to describe dissimilar "phenomena".
just as 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' would remain 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable' regardless of whether you chose to call it God or Buddha or anything else. As soon as the slightest like or dislike arises, the Way is as distant as heaven from earth.
Except that the term God, except in some rare individual cases, is not used to describe a 'pure nameless reality', whereas the term Samantabhadra does.

Indeed, but you do admit that there are 'rare individual cases,' and so you implicitly admit that God need not necessarily be incommensurable with Buddhism.
Last edited by Concordiadiscordi on Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
- Tommy Smothers
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by muni »

Write God on water and Buddha as well. Form-emptiness/emptiness form.

Peace.

The idea of something Higher than, yes... that is an idea.

:namaste:
User avatar
Concordiadiscordi
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Concordiadiscordi »

muni wrote:Write God on water and Buddha as well. Form-emptiness/emptiness form.

Peace.

The idea of something Higher than, yes... that is an idea.

:namaste:
:namaste: :twothumbsup:
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
- Tommy Smothers
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by DGA »

Here are some DW discussions that are directly relevant to this thread:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11764" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 04&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


My question is this: What are you learning when you invent and define for yourself a spiritual path, and then commit to it afterward?
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Ayu »

The concept of a higher self as a concrete being is disturbing (for me), because it implies the existence of a lower being. For me this is not the right view to come out of the suffering.
Truth must be beyond black and white.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Grigoris »

Concordiadiscordi wrote:Indeed, but you do admit that there are 'rare individual cases,' and so you implicitly admit that God need not necessarily be incommensurable with Buddhism.
Some rare individuals living and practicing within an Abrahamic framework happened to experience the 'pure nameless reality - inconceivable and ineffable', and due to their cultural conditioning named it God. This is no way makes the concept of God, as experienced and defined by the vast majority of those that follow an Abrahamic faith, commensurable with Buddhism.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

Green5 wrote:I would like to reformulate my question:

Many practitioners reached the all-knowing state (Nirvana). This may prove that we are the supreme being itself (called Higher Self).

Hinduism accepts this possibility.

I wonder why this possibility is rejected in Buddhism.

Thank you.
Buddha's teaching of dependent arising:

https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawha ... oble-truth
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

On the OP:

I can understand why people from cultures which are deeply imprinted with the Abrahamic faiths might want to equate Dharmakaya with the Abrahamic God concept, I even think it can be a skillful way of bridging the gap with non-Buddhists who feel uncomfortable with Buddhism due to perceiving it as 'atheistic'. I think all of us from such societies have some conditioning in this regard.

That said, when it comes to the teachings, I think we have to take them at face value, and on their own merits, and I feel it's probably a waste of time (and frankly, a little self serving) to try to manufacture comfort with the teachings by bending them into an incongruous shape to suit our own desires. This question pops up every so often, and inevitably, it's always someone quoting something like the Kunjed Gyalpo and remarking how it "sounds similar" to some God concept...usually it seems to come down to lacking context on the scriptures being quoted. Little snippets of lots of stuff "sound alike".

In short, yeah..of course Buddhists believe in an "ultimate" of some sort, though I'll bet many would shy away from that term, what they don't seem to believe in is a First Cause (contrary to dependent arising), or an Entity that act in place of a notion of Karma - an integral part of the Abrahamic faiths, at least traditionally. Plenty of modern believers who have tacitly accepted materialism don't believe outright in causality being the work of God, but traditionally that is exactly what these faiths believe, and that is the part that is most incompatible it seems. It effects everything, notions of Karma and spiritual responsibility, purpose of the universe, how reality functions, etc.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by Jesse »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:On the OP:

I can understand why people from cultures which are deeply imprinted with the Abrahamic faiths might want to equate Dharmakaya with the Abrahamic God concept, I even think it can be a skillful way of bridging the gap with non-Buddhists who feel uncomfortable with Buddhism due to perceiving it as 'atheistic'. I think all of us from such societies have some conditioning in this regard.

That said, when it comes to the teachings, I think we have to take them at face value, and on their own merits, and I feel it's probably a waste of time (and frankly, a little self serving) to try to manufacture comfort with the teachings by bending them into an incongruous shape to suit our own desires. This question pops up every so often, and inevitably, it's always someone quoting something like the Kunjed Gyalpo and remarking how it "sounds similar" to some God concept...usually it seems to come down to lacking context on the scriptures being quoted. Little snippets of lots of stuff "sound alike".

In short, yeah..of course Buddhists believe in an "ultimate" of some sort, though I'll bet many would shy away from that term, what they don't seem to believe in is a First Cause (contrary to dependent arising), or an Entity that act in place of a notion of Karma - an integral part of the Abrahamic faiths, at least traditionally. Plenty of modern believers who have tacitly accepted materialism don't believe outright in causality being the work of God, but traditionally that is exactly what these faiths believe, and that is the part that is most incompatible it seems. It effects everything, notions of Karma and spiritual responsibility, purpose of the universe, how reality functions, etc.
People can only understand from their current circumstances, and current understandings. This applies to us all. I don't think it's self serving to bend things a bit to comfort ones-self, so long as in the future right understanding is reached. Preaching that mis-understanding as truth is probably self serving, though.

Just like a teacher will bend the truth to alleviate someones suffering, because sometimes it's frankly just necessary. Other times more capable and advanced practitioner can find comfort and peace in right understanding. For example I don't believe in 'god', but I still talk to him in times of hard-ship because it alleviates my suffering. I know im speaking to myself and perhaps even my own Buddha-nature, it doesn't bother me one bit to be deluded, because Im fully aware of my delusion! I certainty wouldn't tell others to do the same because they may misunderstand.

To the OP: It's taken me a very long time to break free from the Abrahamic upbringing I received, and I believe it has done me a world of good.. right and true understanding trumps ignorance any day of the week. We may suffer to attain right understanding but I think you would receive a resounding 'yes it's worth it' from any practitioner on this site -- or any other Buddhist. It's a long and hard path, but well worth it to investigate.

Sorry If my post is off-topic.. best wishes to the OP, hope you reach Buddha-hood swiftly.

Just a funny story -- A very long time ago I was having a conversation with 'god', and I asked him what he really was.. his only reply was 'you'. It's taken me a while to get that.
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Why Buddha rejected the concept of Higher Self

Post by LastLegend »

Green5 wrote:Hi,

Did Buddha reject the concept of Higher Self (modern view of supreme being)?

The all-knowing state (Nirvana) is a potential proof of the existence of the Higher Self.

Buddha spoke of non-self why would he advocate the Higher Self? Self is a false understanding that we are separate from everything else and we operate selfishly based on that. Thus, we experience suffering. If Buddha advocated Higher Self, then people will want just to reach that Higher Self. But the aim is liberation from suffering (grasping, attachment, etc) and help others liberate from suffering.

Also, if there is Higher Self, it is not separate from this very own mind? So what's Higher about it? The interconnected nature of all phenomona, where is room for Higher Self? Only the deluded (sentient beings) and the awakened (Buddha). "Higher" is inappropriate.
It’s eye blinking.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”