Selfhood

[alan humm]

I'm reading a book by the Dalai Lama and he says that, in order to be "brave" enough to be properly altruistic, you need "a strong sense of self". In the light of what I understand about Buddhist teachings, I find that very confusing.

He also says that, sometimes, violence is necessary. Harsh words, too.

Can anyone clarify this?

[Aloka]

Can you give the title of the book please ? Also some idea of the context of these statements and a quote from the text for those of us who haven't read the book, would be helpful.

Its quite difficult to comment otherwise.


:hands:

[alan humm]

The book is "Transforming The Mind". The context is altruism; simply that. How to be altruistic and why it isn't a passive practise. The words that I've quoted are his words in full. He didn't amplify, which is partly why I'm confused, I guess.

With regard to harsh words, I haven't got the book on me so I can't quote from it. He says it's all about intention. Someone might occasionally need harsh words; if someone's coming at you with a knife it's obviously right to defend yourself. Still: it goes against the precepts, doesn't it?

[Aloka]

Hi alan,

Your book might be based on "The Eight Verses of Training the Mind" which is a lojong text by Geshe Langri Tangpa.

There's a commentary on each of the verses from the Dalai Lama on his website - and you might get the answers you seek from that.

http://www.dalailama.com/teachings/training-the-mind/verse-1

There's another translation of the verses and information about Geshe Langri Tangpa here:

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/geshe-langri-thangpa/eight-verses-training-mind


With regard to harsh words, I haven't got the book on me so I can't quote from it. He says it's all about intention. Someone might occasionally need harsh words; if someone's coming at you with a knife it's obviously right to defend yourself. Still: it goes against the precepts, doesn't it?

Regarding intention, the Buddha said:


Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
(AN 6.63)



The five lay precepts are:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html

:hands:

[alan humm]

Thank you.

[Zen Free]

I'm reading a book by the Dalai Lama and he says that, in order to be "brave" enough to be properly altruistic, you need "a strong sense of self". In the light of what I understand about Buddhist teachings, I find that very confusing.

He also says that, sometimes, violence is necessary. Harsh words, too.

Can anyone clarify this?

Hi Alan,

I think maybe the Dalai Lama was referring to the true self: the natural mind.
The natural mind (higher consciousness) has been hijacked by the emotions (lower mind or emotional mind)
The true self can only be revealed when you disconnect from the lower emotions.
Does duality describe this dilemma?

[Aloka]

I think maybe the Dalai Lama was referring to the true self: the natural mind.
The natural mind (higher consciousness) has been hijacked by the emotions (lower mind or emotional mind)
The true self can only be revealed when you disconnect from the lower emotions.
Does duality describe this dilemma?


Have you read the book, or the Dalai Lama's commentary on the Eight Verses of Training the mind ?

[Zen Free]

Have you read the book or the Dalai Lama's commentary on the Eight Verses of Training the mind ?

I have read book; some time ago......
But my main criticism is the complexity of the concepts, put my head into a spin.

I like the concept of Western Buddhism: Buddhism without the rituals and complex ideology.

Ie: what is Buddhism?
Freeing the mind from dualism....!

[alan humm]

Thank you, Zen Free. That helps.

[rchoates]

I think the word "violence" is misleading, perhaps.

If someone were to attack me, I, of course, would defend myself by whatever means necessary. The resulting action may be a violent one, but I have not intended to do violence. I may have acted to protect myself, and the attacker may be hurt or injured in the process (which would be their kamma), but I have not acted from a space of violence in my heart or mind. My intent was to defend myself, not cause harm to another. Violent action, but not violent intent, on my part.

Hope this helps.

[Zen Free]

I think the word "violence" is misleading, perhaps.

If someone were to attack me, I, of course, would defend myself by whatever means necessary. The resulting action may be a violent one, but I have not intended to do violence. I may have acted to protect myself, and the attacker may be hurt or injured in the process (which would be their kamma), but I have not acted from a space of violence in my heart or mind. My intent was to defend myself, not cause harm to another. Violent action, but not violent intent, on my part.

Hope this helps.

You've made some very interesting points.
If you look at martial arts in japan they are primarily designed for defence; a violent response that is just used to parry a violent attack. Some Japanese people believe the samurai practiced these Zen tenants of behaviour, but some would say that the Japanese behaviour in ww11 was cruel in the extreme towards POWs bring the whole ideology of Zen into disrepute.

Is violence met with violence karmic justice, or just an escalation of bad karma?

[rchoates]

I've done some reading on the history of Japan, the Samurai, and Zen, and I think it would be misleading to assume that the "Samurai" practiced Zen tenants, or even that the Japanese people are swayed in the direction of Zen "ways". People practice Zen, not a Samurai or a Japanese. No doubt there were quiet a few Samurai that were indeed Zen Buddhist, or practiced their own kind of Zen, but there were even more who did not. The Samurai were an elite class, and not at all revered by most Japanese commoners, the majority of whom may have been Zen in word or description, but not Zen in heart or practice.

As for violence meeting violence as a form of karmic justice, I don't believe that at all. Karma is simply a process, and not a sentient dynamic that seeks to even scores. Where an individual is concerned, karma is found in the intent, not the action that results from the intent.

Karma is a huge subject. I don't even pretend to understand the core of it.

[Zen Free]

Where an individual is concerned, karma is found in the intent, not the action that results from the intent.



... Or maybe the other way around: karma is the 'emotional result' of taking action?

Do you think just 'intent' could alter the resulting karma of 'taking action'?

[Aloka]

The intention comes before the action and although its often the case that people include the results of the action in with the word "kamma/karma", the actual term for the result of kamma is "kamma-vipaka"

This booklet might be helpful :

"Good Evil and Beyond - Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching" by Ven. P.A.Payutto

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/good_evil_beyond.pdf

[rchoates]

"Karma is the 'emotional result' of taking action".... This is rather psychological, and not what the Buddha taught. But we are, of course, all free to believe how we choose.

The Buddha, however, knew what he knew as a result of direct seeing, and outlined a path that others could walk and see for themselves. You can spend your time in endless speculation, or you could utilize your energies to walk the path that leads to liberation and direct seeing. That choice belongs to everyone.

[John Marder]

I'm interested in the selfhood aspect of Alan's initial question
He quoted the Dalai Lama as saying
in order to be brave enough to be properly altruistic, you need a strong sense of self
And of course Alan, quite understandably is questioning how to reconcile that with the apparent virtues of 'selflessness' or 'no self' that we Buddhists sometimes talk about.
I have noticed that as my practice has developed over the years, and I certainly feel more free of greed, hatred and delusion, that I have at the same time developed a stronger sense of self.
I agree with Zen Free in #6 in that this is associated with a 'true self' or I would say a 'greater self' as opposed to the 'lesser self' which of course will be selfish and lacking in compassion.
And this relates to courage too; the lesser self being weak, insecure and vulnerable while the greater self doesn't suffer in that way. I think the confusion lies in the word 'self'. The greater, 'true' self is indeed 'selfless' insofar as it that it recognises it's interconnectivity with, and lack of distinction from, all the other 'selves' in the universe.:hands: