Next Steps For Study?

[myselfandeye]

I have fueled my interest in Buddhism thus far with readings, individual practice, research, and of course belief. Is is neccesary or recommended to further my journey by finding a guru or a group to practice with? If so, what are the common steps to doing that? If not, what's next? Where do I go from here?

[Thomas Knierim]

myselfandeye: ...what are the common steps to doing that?

Are there any common steps?

Here in Thailand every male becomes a Buddhist monk for at least a short period in his life. Sometimes only for a few weeks, or for a few months. Usually before or after military (...talking about non-violence, :lol: ). But that's a Thai tradition, not a Western tradition.

If you are serious about practice, a group (sangha) will probably be helpful. If you want to book a trip to Thailand, I can recommend you some English-speaking teachers and retreats with English instructions.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ronagon]

My biggest complaint about Buddhism is the notion that the self -- the notion of the individual -- can and should be eradicated. I think Buddhism errs in promoting this notion.

This is because the individual exists. Not merely incidentally or fancifully, but compellingly and essentially. Indeed, no progress could be possible without the individual standing up and setting change into motion.

"Collectives" -- which are so often touted as the "impetus" of change -- can accomplish much, once a process is set in motion. But they can initiate nothing. Only individuals can do that. All collectives are ultimately the handiwork of certain key individuals within them.

To illustrate my point -- and it is mine, and not merely this point, for example -- if the entity known as Thomas Knierem did not exist and did not acknowledge his own individuality, there would have been no initiative or initiative force to create -- much less maintain -- this very website, for as long as it has existed.

In this respect -- in this notion of the efficacy and interconnectedness of individuals, there is the germ for a bold new conceptualization of Buddhism. You see, this basic Buddhist concept of "non-self" could be turned on its head to capture the essence of the same idea. If, instead of saying that "nothing individual exists", we say that "individuals exist ad infinitum, and are all infinitely interconnected and interdependent", then we've accomplished something very good indeed.

If we do this, we capture the same all-important essence of interconnectedness that Buddhism so earnestly strives for while, at the same time, preserving the all-important truth that individuals do exist, and are each of paramount importance in the grand scheme of life.

With this new perspective as our guide, we could re-conceptualize the Buddhist practice of meditation not as the attempt to achieve a state of nothingness and non-self, but of something much more compelling: a state of the individual in total connectedness with all the other individual entities in the universe, through a vast web of field lines.

A much happier and truthful notion, no?

If this topic is of interest to anyone here, I would strongly recommend the recent book by Malcolm Gladwell, titled The Tipping Point which discusses the precise means by which collective trends and upheavals become set in motion,.

[locomotive]

I think it's the same only you change the name to make it more appealing?

[kurt]

i dig what you're saying man. i've always felt like there is something that connects all of us, but that there is something that also seperates us. and i believe embracing both the connection and the seperation will, for lack of a better term "enlighten" us. i don't see the need to eradicate the self, if we spend too much time searching for enlightenment through that manner, we're going to miss the experience that is life, including reincarnations and all.

[Ronagon]

I think it's the same only you change the name to make it more appealing?

No.

I'm talking about an actual, conceptual difference... not merely a semantic one.

The usual thing Buddhism talks about is the pursuit of eradicating the individual... the self... in order to achieve a sense of connectedness to all things.

What I'm saying is that the notion that you can even do that, is false. You cannot really eradicate the self. You can try, but you will put yourself in an impossible situation and go mad.

Rather, the individual self always exists, even when we might believe it doesn't.

And the fact that the individual self always exists, doesn't mean we can't achieve a sense of connectedness with all things. We can.

The truth is that true interconnectedness only happens between individuals. After all, if there are no individuals -- if there are just these patches of nothingness -- what is there to connect in the first place? If something doesn't exist in the first place, it can't possibly connect with anything else.

This is why the Buddhist notion of "non-self" is impossible, and even leads to an unhealthy mindset and way of life. The Buddhist notion of interconnectedness is possible, however, and is a very good feature of Buddhism.

[Thomas Knierim]

Ronagon: My biggest complaint about Buddhism is the notion that the self -- the notion of the individual -- can and should be eradicated.

I believe this may be a misunderstanding. Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of the individual entity; it denies the existence of an abiding, essential self. So, Buddhism doesn't question whether Thomas Knierim does really exists. Of course he does. :lol:

Buddhism does not deny that there is an organic life form named Thomas Knierim, one manifestation of billions of complex phenotypes descended from the order of primates. This life form manifests on this planet and -for a certain time- retains a physical body, which can be identified as an entity despite the ongoing changes that occur in it.

In addition, the neurological apparatus of this entity affords consciousness to form and retain mental events in certain structures which we call memory, emotions, sense impressions, conscience, and so on. However, all of this will eventually disintegrate and disappear.

In that regard, the life form we call Thomas Knierim is not much different from a flower, a river, a mountain, or any other impermanent phenomenon.

Non-self, or anatta, simply means that there is nothing apart from the phenomenon. It means that there is no soul, no platonic ideal, no abiding quality, and no essence. Only cause and effect.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ronagon]

Thomas:

So, is it safe to say that "anatta" encapsulates the notion that an individual entity is really just an evanescent, logical system that self-perpetuates for a time, and then extinguishes?

If so, I can agree with that. That's an elegant and profoundly accurate truth. But there has got to be a better way of expressing the idea than just saying "non-self". Just those words alone communicate a radically different idea.

As far as I'm concerned, a great idea that is communicated with poorly-chosen language might just as well be a lousy idea, and the creators and communicators of that idea have only themselves to blame if their notions are unacknowledged or dismissed because of this.

[Ronagon]

i dig what you're saying man. i've always felt like there is something that connects all of us, but that there is something that also seperates us. and i believe embracing both the connection and the seperation will, for lack of a better term "enlighten" us. i don't see the need to eradicate the self, if we spend too much time searching for enlightenment through that manner, we're going to miss the experience that is life, including reincarnations and all.

Thomas made an important point that clarified the whole "non-self" notion quite a bit.

[Thomas Knierim]

Ronagon: So, is it safe to say that "anatta" encapsulates the notion that an individual entity is really just an evanescent, logical system that self-perpetuates for a time, and then extinguishes?

Yes, that's how I understand it. In addition, it means that it is impossible to point out any unique essence which identifies the entity. In other words, there is nothing such as thomasknierimness, be it a soul or any other supernatural entity. There is nobody sitting inside you or me.

Ronagon: But there has got to be a better way of expressing the idea than just saying "non-self".

The confusion may be a result of the translation. If you look at the Sanskrit (anatman) and Pali (anatta) terms, this becomes somewhat clearer. Atman originally means spirit, soul, breath, essence, but the word also means self in the commonsense way (i.e. to refer to yourself). Thus it's a homonym. The prefix an- or a- means negation like the English un-, in-, non-. English translators mostly translate anatman with no-self rather than with no-essence.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ronagon]

In addition, it means that it is impossible to point out any unique essence which identifies the entity. In other words, there is nothing such as thomasknierimness, be it a soul or any other supernatural entity. There is nobody sitting inside you or me.

Okay, well, I disagree with that... at least the "supernatural, soul" part. Quite strongly, actually.

Actually, it depends on how you define these things.

While I don't believe in any kind of magical bug-a-boo inside us, I do think that each of us tends to operate on a signature priority set -- a core philosophy or bent -- that defines us, throughout our lives.

I think that there are early conditions of shaping influence in our lives that fills us with a basic agenda and perspective on life, that becomes quite dug into us from an early age, and we spend the remainder of our lives approaching reality from this sort of "operating system". Each of us carry a unique permutation of philosophical agenda and protocols into everything we do, and it seems to me to be pretty consistent until we die.

In this regard, I believe that there is something quite consistent about us over our lifespans. And, if you choose to attach the word "soul" to this, then I do think that we each have a rather permanent soul that stays with us through life.

Thoughts? Feedback? Rotten fruit?

[Thomas Knierim]

Ronagon: Each of us carry a unique permutation of philosophical agenda and protocols into everything we do, and it seems to me to be pretty consistent until we die.

Every human being has some characterstics that appear permanent throughout lifetime, and other characteristics that come into being or fade away. If you talk about "philosophical agenda", this is something that tends to last long unless there is a significant event (such as a trauma, an existential experience, or a removal of attachments) which induces change.

Buddhism looks at the devlopment of these characteristics not only for the duration of a single lifetime, but over the span of many lifetimes. If strong conditioning is present, there may be characteristics that appear constant over several consecutive lifetimes. Otherwise nobody could develop the paramitas and become a Buddha. These characteristics may appear permanent, but in fact they are merely dependent on conditioning.

The evolution of species is a very good illustration for this, because the conditioning is analogous. It was once believed that all species were created by God and have existed immutably since the beginning of time. Evolution theory invalidated this view. Although speciation is an extremely slow process, it is not immutable.

The question is then, is there something like dinosaurness or saurianity? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that saurian means of or relating to the suborder Sauria and in this adjective sense it describes phenomenal characteristics. No, in the sense that dinosaurness exists on itself apart from the phenomen, i.e. as a Platonic idea, or a noumenon. Anatta or no-self principally means that there is no noumenon.

Cheers, Thomas

[MidnightSun]

It was once believed that all species were created by God and have existed immutably since the beginning of time. Evolution theory invalidated this view.

Looks like evolution theory is going down as well.

[Ronagon]

Buddhism looks at the devlopment of these characteristics not only for the duration of a single lifetime, but over the span of many lifetimes.

I see no evidence for the existence of multiple lifetimes. So, if they exist, they will have to happen without my taking into consideration or planning for them. I will plan for only one lifetime and, if more exist, I will just have to be taken by surprise by coming back as a sea sponge or something.

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: thomas...is there nothing we carry with us into our lifetimes...for example once perveived does the interest in the spiritual not become part of our design in a future incarnations...

It does if the conditioning is strong enough. Mere "interest" isn't enough. There must be a great dedication/incliniation. Crystallisation is accomplished by lifelong practice.

Cheers, Thomas

[ghuber]

by planning for more than one life you endow yourself with good motivation to work toward positive change in this one -- for this life and the next one.

living just for this life may lead into the temptation toward into nihilism, the position that "nothing matters". that can be used to internally justify a lot of negative and/or self-serving behaviour, since there is no internal mechanism working to keep one's behaviour, thoughts, and actions directed and focused toward the positive.

just a thought.

graham.

[Thomas Knierim]

ghuber: by planning for more than one life you endow yourself with good motivation to work toward positive change in this one -- for this life and the next one.

That's an important point. I find that the concept of multiple lifes is the only sane basis for ethics (note that multiple lifes can mean both rebirth and interconnectedness), whereas the idea of one single life and then eternal damnation or eternal reward seems patently absurd to me.

Then again one might see the many lifes tenet from another (more critical) POV, namely that the belief in rebirth might give rise to hesitation and laziness, following the motto: what I cannot achieve in this life I will do in the next. Certainly the expectation of one single life does lend a sense of urgency. :lol: I believe this might explain some of the complacency in certain Asian societies.

Cheers, Thomas