Refuge in Oneself

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by christopher::: »

kannada wrote:
Chris wrote:the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathāgata) uses without misapprehending them."
I believe I understand what you are saying. Words superimpose conditions on the unconditioned where previously there was none, creating 'thing-ness' (dhammas) at every expression.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All existents are products of assertion - that is the only way they can exist, definition distinguishes 'this' from 'that'. It is assertion that says 'I exist' for I know myself as 'I'. A tree or a brick do not (cannot) know of themselves as such, it is we who so assert them to be as 'brick' or 'tree'. Contradistinction asserts 'that' as seperate from 'myself' either implicitly or explicitly. 'That' object implies 'this' observer. Where contradistinction ceases both 'that' and 'this' cease to be together. This is a reversion from conditionality to unconditionality. The unconditioned 'arises' when conditionality ceases, just as darkness dissapears on sunrise.

A 'self' is a product of assertion, therein lies its existence. The assertions that constitute this 'self' are founded solely on delusion. Taking refuge in a 'self' is taking refuge in a delusion that owes its existence to its conceptual processes, when these processes cease the 'self' ceases. The Buddha and the Dharma are synonymous, each implies the other. The Dharma means 'as it is' or perhaps more accurately should be 'as is' for an 'it' implies thing-ness. Taking refuge in the Dharma simply means taking refuge in that clarity void of concepts - hopefully that will be your refuge for when those defining concepts cease there is no longer a 'me' to take refuge...
Makes good sense to illusory "moi" ..!

So, its okay to use terms like self, Oneself, just be sure we understand what happens when we hold such conceptions too tightly in our minds....

That the Buddha himself had reservations about using conventional speech, as Chris pointed out...

Is that what you are suggesting, kannada?

:smile:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

The reality is, of course, one can only start from where one actually is.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

Tilt wrote:The beginner's mistake, which is also a mistake made further down the road, is to think we can jump to Ajahn Chah's level. There is a great deal of work in betwixt and between here and there.
Still plugging the same theme Tilt - you should learn to let go. If you're implying that I assume myself to be at the Achan's 'level' then you are very mistaken. I simply said that his and my comments were not dissimalar.
Last edited by kannada on Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Just a view - nothing more...
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

Chris wrote:Makes good sense to illusory "moi" ..!

So, its okay to use terms like self, Oneself, just be sure we understand what happens when we hold such conceptions too tightly in our minds....

That the Buddha himself had reservations about using conventional speech, as Chris pointed out...

Is that what you are suggesting, kannada?

:smile:
As long as you don't get ahead of yourself, you can say anything you like Chris::: Just don't mistake yourself for the Buddha or something silly like that... :lol:
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

kannada wrote:
Tilt wrote:The beginner's mistake, which is also a mistake made further down the road, is to think we can jump to Ajahn Chah's level. There is a great deal of work in betwixt and between here and there.
Still plugging the same theme Tilt - you should learn to let go. If you're implying that I assume myself to be at the Achan's 'level' then you are very mistaken. I simply said that his and my comments were not dissimalar.
I am not making any assumption about you at all. You personally do not figure into this. I am simply saying that it is a mistake, a serious one that some people make, to assume that one can - or needs to or should try to - jump to Ven Chah's level without all the stuff in between.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

tiltbillings wrote:
kannada wrote:
Tilt wrote:The beginner's mistake, which is also a mistake made further down the road, is to think we can jump to Ajahn Chah's level. There is a great deal of work in betwixt and between here and there.
Still plugging the same theme Tilt - you should learn to let go. If you're implying that I assume myself to be at the Achan's 'level' then you are very mistaken. I simply said that his and my comments were not dissimalar.
I am not making any assumption about you at all. I am simply saying that it is a mistake, a serious one that some people make, to assume that one can - or needs - jump to Ven Chah's level without all the stuff in between.
If you quote someone and add your 'advice' under the quote then it would be logical to assume that the advice was meant for them - or that you are using them as an example of your assertion... Think about it...
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

kannada wrote:
Tilt wrote:I am not making any assumption about you at all. I am simply saying that it is a mistake, a serious one that some people make, to assume that one can - or needs - jump to Ven Chah's level without all the stuff in between.
Then find someone who's doing that and tell them, but I don't need to know because I'm not that foolish and I resent the implication that I am. If you quote someone and add your 'advice' under the quote then it would be logical to assume that the advice was meant for them - or that you are using them as an example of your assertion... Think about it...
I was using is what you said as an example of where things can go wrong, but it does seem to go a bit further than that:

"Wouldn't this contradict the teaching of Anatta? Taking refuge in a 'self' that is nothing more than a utilisable misperception..."

In the context of what had already been posted by Ngawang Drolma, this first statement of yours was already a problem. There was nothing in what she said or in her quotation of the 17th Karmapa that would suggest that - to use your words “. . . one is is going to turn anatta into atta...”

And again:

”Exactly... Who(m) needs a refuge when there is no-one to shelter?’

What level is everyone else but you speaking on here? Ajahn Chah’s? Probably not. More on this level, as Chris posted above:
In the Dhammapada, the Buddha taught:

Dhammapada Verse 160 - Kumarakassapamatuttheri Vatthu

Atta hi attano natho
ko hi natho paro siya
attana hi sudantena
natham labhati dullabham.


Verse 160: One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e., Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ve ... ?verse=160" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which you follow again with: ” If I am not mistaken the Buddha also taught Anatta, the bedrock of Buddha Dharma, which the Sangha of Bhikkhus also faithfully preserved. So it seems there is indeed a self within which to take refuge which is not really a self?

I take refuge in me which I am not...”


And you offer nothing in your subsequent postings to reconcile the differing levels which so very obviously are a significant part of the Buddha’s teachings and are being drawn out by others in this thread; rather, you continue, for whatever reason, to make the beginner’s mistake of focusing on the higher level at the expense of the conventional level - or so it seems.

Maybe you could simply explain yourself a bit more skilfully here in light of such texts as Chris has quoted and in light of what others are saying who see the utility of using both the conventional and higher levels of speaking, understanding the connexion between the two, that one does not negate or supersede the other.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
kidd
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:20 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kidd »

If we fully embrace the truth (the dhamma), do we not become a refuge to ourselves?

:juggling:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

kidd wrote:If we fully embrace the truth (the dhamma), do we not become a refuge to ourselves?
One would think so, though what is meant by "embrace" is an interesting thing to consider.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

I was using is what you said as an example of where things can go wrong, but it does seem to go a bit further than that:
"Wouldn't this contradict the teaching of Anatta? Taking refuge in a 'self' that is nothing more than a utilisable misperception..."
This remark is quite in accord with Buddhist doctrine on atta. If atta is a delusion, taking refuge in atta is taking refuge in a delusion.
In the context of what had already been posted by Ngawang Drolma, this first statement of yours was already a problem. There was nothing in what she said or in her quotation of the 17th Karmapa that would suggest that - to use your words “. . . one is is going to turn anatta into atta...”
My initial comment was a reply to the thread title (as quoted), not anything written by Drolma or the Karmapa.
And again:
”Exactly... Who(m) needs a refuge when there is no-one to shelter?’
This was my expression of concord with imagemarie, a rhetorical expression of understanding with her.
What level is everyone else but you speaking on here? Ajahn Chah’s? Probably not. More on this level, as Chris posted above:
The level of logic and clear understanding. Though I much admire some Buddhist masters, I do not parrot their expressions but formulate my own conclusions. If I care to quote someone I will provide credits.
In the Dhammapada, the Buddha taught:

Verse 160: One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e., Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ?verse=160

Which you follow again with:
” If I am not mistaken the Buddha also taught Anatta, the bedrock of Buddha Dharma, which the Sangha of Bhikkhus also faithfully preserved. So it seems there is indeed a self within which to take refuge which is not really a self?

I take refuge in me which I am not...”
Refuge is taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. There is no mention for taking refuge in oneself. I assume the above quote to mean that the work of cessation cannot be performed on one's behalf by another. The work is performed by oneself, for oneself in order to remove the delusion of oneself. Though I respect the body of works that constitute Buddhism I also have a healthy scepticism regarding authenticity, undisputable authenticity cannot be guaranteed. I am a practitioner, not a believer.
And you offer nothing in your subsequent postings to reconcile the differing levels which so very obviously are a significant part of the Buddha’s teachings and are being drawn out by others in this thread; rather, you continue, for whatever reason, to make the beginner’s mistake of focusing on the higher level at the expense of the conventional level - or so it seems.
I do not see the teachings of Buddha-dharma as a series of levels. I see them as a clearly defined methodology that produce certain results. Anatta is a fact of Buddhist life and adherents of Buddhism should understand it accordingly. Without this understanding practice is a waste of time.
Maybe you could simply explain yourself a bit more skilfully here in light of such texts as Chris has quoted and in light of what others are saying who see the utility of using both the conventional and higher levels of speaking, understanding the connexion between the two, that one does not negate or supersede the other.
I see no problem in my explanations, they are formulated by an estimate of the receivers understanding. I don't accept your theory of 'levels' if the teachings be competently taught.
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by christopher::: »

hi kannada.

Your objections make sense, to me.

In several other threads we have been talking recently (Tilt, BlackBird, Jechbi, myself and others) about some of the nitty gritty approaches of practice. Mindfulness, sati, cultivating equanimity, unraveling the hindrances, observing reactiveness within us, letting the arising thoughts and emotions go...

We take refuge in the 3 jewels, its like that is the support system that gives us all we need to do this work, to empty ourselves of these notions of self, the mind patterns that keep spinning dukkha for us.

I agree with what i see as the main point of the OP, we need confidence in the teachings, in the positive qualities of ourselves... a capacity for insight, for metta, for wisdom, for making the effort, for being compassionate, etc...

:heart:

But that's confidence and trust in human qualities, dhamma qualities (?), not a self. There is no self to go to refuge to, so why say there is?

Just some thoughts, which i won't spend too much time defending... :jedi: if its gonna deplete my or anyone else's upekkha levels in the slightest....

:hug:

P.S. Tilt!! I just finished Goldstein's Hindrances talk. Amazzzzzzzzing...
thank you so much.

:bow:
Last edited by christopher::: on Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Sanghamitta »

Upekkha cannot be depleted. If it can be depleted, by definition it is not upekkha.
That wasnt meant to be a put down. Its a comment on the nature of upekkha. Upekkkha is in part detachment from views, defending views, including the idea that we can have our own store of upekkha. :smile: The way that I was taught is that upekkha is a by- product of mindfulness, mindfulness leads to a non identification with whatever arises. That includes a non identification with she or he whose mind set is characterised by upekkha.
Just a thought in response. That is my understanding which is always subject to new insights or data that may arise.
Last edited by Sanghamitta on Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Sanghamitta »

I am suprised Christopher::: that your reponse was not to answer, agree with or disagree with my post , or even to ignore it, but instead to bump it.
If I have butted in rudely to what you were communicating I apologise.
I was just trying to help.
:anjali:
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Sanghamitta »

My last post now appears to be redundant.. :smile:
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Sanghamitta. That was an error, i hit the wrong reply button...

:toilet:
Sanghamitta wrote:Upekkha cannot be depleted. If it can be depleted, by definition it is not upekkha.
That wasnt meant to be a put down. Its a comment on the nature of upekkha. Upekkkha is in part detachment from views, defending views, including the idea that we can have our own store of upekkha. :smile: The way that I was taught is that upekkha is a by- product of mindfulness, mindfulness leads to a non identification with whatever arises. That includes a non identification with she or he whose mind set is characterised by upekkha.
Just a thought in response. That is my understanding which is always subject to new insights or data that may arise.
Concerning your point, I was making the translation in my mind of upekkha to equanimity... but could be using a metaphor that doesn't fit well. My experience is that throughout the day there is a shift in degrees or "levels" of calm... that i need to avoid certain situations, keep close watch on the hindrances, meditate or do some mindfulness activity so that i experience equanimity on a regular basis.

I may be conceptualizing or describing this in an erroneous way though, that is possible.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Post Reply