Using multiple sources is a popular approach, but what I'm not certain of is where the Dhamma of the Suttas is seen to be deficient enough to warrant going afield. Right View is the foundation of the whole thing, and I do not see Right View any place other than the Dhamma; e.g. samadhi from other sources isn't going to be sammasamadhi.

To the extent that a sutra or other meditational/philosophical source deviates from sammaditthi (Right View), to that extent it will mislead and distract from the goal, and to that extent it should be set aside as irrelevant to practice.

So your saying that one could only obtain right view if they learn it and practice it entirely from the Dharma? Sounds robotic and superficial to just do as you are told without experiential discernment.

The Dharma is designed to show a way of life to which one is likely to obtain personal liberation, first through mental development and ethical conduct and then, through wisdom. The Dharma, for you and I, is the best way to build a foundation for proper conduct but, it is not the only way. To assume that it is such is to construct a limitation. In doing this, you create an other mental state to which one must overcome in personal liberation.

Thanks :) I'm a big fan of Bruce Lee, and he's a big philosophical influence for me, personally.

Simply that the Right View the Dhamma describes, whether discerned as a Buddhist, derived from Buddhism generally, or arrived at through other channels, is the Right View for the ending of greed, hatred, and delusion. It isn't doing as one's told, however:

Sanditthika Sutta:
"...the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves."

It's to be seen by the wise for themselves - experiential discernment, precisely as you say.

It may in fact be the only way, but in either case it is the most direct, as it is without speculative metaphysics, unexperienced beliefs, or mere fealty to authority. It also isn't likely, but assured, given one attains the Noble Path - sotapanna and so on.

One takes refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Noble Sangha, not in one among many Buddhisms. The Dhamma I referred to is that Dhamma, not this or that tradition.

Ha ha, my husband is a big fan of his too. Every time I have an epiphany, he shows me where Bruce Lee said it too :D

Not so sure a particular nut will fit every screw ... I do understand you though.

What the Buddha revealed is simply the truth. He didn't just make something up. For that to occur, the truth must have already existed before he taught it. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that this same truth can be expressed though other means as well.

yes :)

The Buddhas own teachings are

The Four Noble Truths/Dependent Co-Arising

Three Marks


The rest is just commentary :D

didn't he teach the five precepts and the eightfold noble path too?
and what are the three marks? I have never heard of it.

I think he is refering to the marks of existence: impermanence, unsatisfactoriness of all things and the absence of inherent existence; that is, anicca, dukkha and anatta.

The three marks of existence are as mentioned by Kaarine -anicca, dukkha, anatta. = impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. (No permanent unchanging 'self' or belonging to self)


The problem is that the "world out there" is constantly changing, everything is impermanent and it is impossible to make a permanent relationship with anything, at all.

If we examine the notion of impermanence closely and honestly, we see that it is all-pervading, everything is marked by impermanence. We might posit an eternal consciousness principle, or higher self, but if we examine our consciousness closely we see that it is made up of temporary mental processes and events. We see that our "higher self" is speculative at best and imaginary to begin with.

We have invented the idea to secure ourselves, to cement our relationship, once again. Because of this we feel uneasy and anxious, even at the best of times. It is only when we completely abandon clinging that we feel any relief from our queasiness.

These three things: pain, impermanence and egolessness are known as the three marks of existence.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/intro_bud.htm
Personally I think that 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'discontent' are better translations of dukkha than 'suffering' or 'pain'.

.

'unsatisfactoiness' is much better. Dukkha referes to a kind of constant striving. A teacher once gave the example of what happens when you greet a loved one whom you have not seen in a very long time. You are so happy, you rush up and give that person a big long hug. Now, this is the best thing in the world. You have never felt happier. Still, after a minute or so, you want to stop hugging and go do something else. You don't wish that you were hugging that person forever, frozen in time. This example illustrates that even when we are really happy, we are not perfectly content.

True. It it gives a much more complete and real insight of what is meant in the Four Noble Truths also.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Something I find really hard to get my head round is this: if there is no self/soul etc, what is it exactly that gets reincarnated?

Hi Nevare, welcome, its great to see you posting!

"Reincarnation" is a term used by Tibetan Buddhists to describe the tulku system in that tradition. Other Buddhist traditions tend to use the term 'rebirth '.

Confusing isn't it !

We already have some discussion threads about rebirth on the website which you might like to read, here are the links....

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...hlight=rebirth

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...hlight=rebirth

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...hlight=rebirth


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...hlight=rebirth

Nevare rebirth is a subject that many people find hard to get their heads round, it seems everyone's opinion differs, so there is no definitive answer.
Asking what happens after your death is like asking what happens to your fist after your hand opens.
Metta
Gary http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

The Dalai Lama points out (in Essense of the Heart Sutra) that it is precisely because there is no permanent self or soul, that rebirth is possible. This, of course, does not directly answer your question but it is a good place to begin. My understanding is that, if we think of rebirth meaning consciousness sort of jumping from one physical condition to another, as in the case of a physical body dying, and non-material consciousness being a 'thing' that then leaves that body, floats through physical space and takes root in another physical body, this is a convenient way of expressing rebirth but it is not really accurate.

The reason it is not totally accurate is that the physical body is not one solid thing, but is a collection of temporary conditions of physical elements all sort of happening at the same time.

Likewise, 'consciousness' is not a single thing (as would be a soul or self) but is also a grouping of cognitive events. Actually, consciousness is only happening in the very present instant. Even thinking about the past or the future only happens right now.

So, because cognition is only happening right now, consider the analogy of sitting by a river staring at the movement of the water. You are still but the water is moving. Yet, if you relax your eyes a little, it can look like the water is motionless and you feel as though you are moving. Sometimes if you lie on your back and look at clouds this can occur. The experience is that the clouds are still and you are moving. Perhaps a more familiar example is being in a train which is not moving, and the train next to you starts to move but you think at first that it is your train moving. Likewise, if we start with the thought that it is the mind, or consciousness that is moving from one body to the next, this is only true in a relative sense. It is the series of physical bodies that come and go.

But, ultimately it is not the mind that moves at all. Ultimately, consciousness doesn't jump from one body to the next. They arise together as a situation. You might say that it is the arising and ceasing of one physical body after another which takes up residence with the mind.

So what is this 'mind'?

Hello again Nevare,

It isn't essential to believe in rebirth in order to benefit from the teachings of the Buddha. Personally I neither believe nor disbelieve in rebirth because it isn't relevant to my practice in the here and now . I think its important not to get too intimidated when people think otherwise.

To quote Ajahn Sumedho of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition, who teaches in a very pure and immediate way :

"I've heard Buddhists say that to be a Buddhist you have to believe in the law of kamma and rebirth. But I've never felt that that was ever an expectation.

The thing that attracted me to Buddhism was that you didn't have to believe in anything. You didn't need to take positions. But these are terms that are used. So what is kamma now, rebirth now? Always bringing attention to the here and now rather than deciding whether you believe in the concepts or not. The concepts are just conditions, words."

(The Sound of Silence)

You can read more of what he has to say about kamma and rebirth(including the rebirth process) in a short chapter with that title here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ux8...page&q&f=false

Since you mentioned no- self, (or more correctly not-self or anatta) this would be a very helpful resource for you to read:

"Anatta and Rebirth" by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - who was a well known and very highly respected teacher in Thailand.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...nd_Rebirth.pdf


with kind wishes,

A-D

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

I also think that this quote from the Pali Canon ties in with what I was attempting to convey in the previous post about not getting too tangled up in concepts :


'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said.

With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing.

Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

(MN 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....140.than.html

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif