Defilements and projections onto other people

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:57 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Halleys theory does not fulfil one of the four seals of Dharma: "ALL phenomena are empty" ,thus it is not Buddha Dharma.

This is Mr. Halleys facebook profile outlining his personal interests:
The Psychology of Paranormal Phenomena, Jungian Psychology, Connection Depth Psychology & Quantum Physics, Clinical semiotics, Spirituality, Psychic side of Sports, movie making and movies for archetypes and as dreams, dream interpretation, Dream Healing Energy, simulation.


Notice how the Buddha Dharma is not mentioned anywhere?

Now please feel free to talk about half-shorn sheep, I can understand and even agree with a lot of what your are saying, but at some point in time you may wish to differentiate between a sheep and a goat. You see New Agers don't differentiate between sheep and goats, they figure if it's got hooves then it must be the same. Unfortunately though, horses have hooves, cows have hooves, donkeys, mules, giraffe, deer and pigs have hooves. Even camels have rudimentary hooves. But guess what?! They are not all the same. Well, except for the fact that they have hooves.
:namaste:


I don't think anyones attempting to say Mr. Halley is expounding buddha dharma.

But what he is saying about thought is the same thing the buddha dharma says.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease....

- Opening lines of The Dhammapada



When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
if there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected, and when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
if there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them, then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without
anything being projected. Since the clear light of your own intrinsic
awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakāya; and this is like the sun
rising in a cloudless illuminated sky. Even though (this light cannot
be said) to posses a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be
fully known. The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is
especially significant.

- Padmasambhava
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby Aura » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:57 am

gregkavarnos wrote: You see New Agers don't differentiate between sheep and goats, they figure if it's got hooves then it must be the same.

Thank you for this outstanding example of ill-defined namecalling, sweeping unsubstantiated generalization and conclusion, and the classification, distancing, and defiling of other sentient beings as somehow less than oneself. It is a wonderful example of projection, the subject of this discussion.

Do you regard specific mention of Buddhadharma to be in some way more important
than exemplifying its teachings with one's behavior and speech?
Aura
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:29 am

Aura wrote:Thank you for this outstanding example of ill-defined namecalling, sweeping unsubstantiated generalization and conclusion, and the classification, distancing, and defiling of other sentient beings as somehow less than oneself. It is a wonderful example of projection, the subject of this discussion.
You are welcome! And you thought that you had the monopoly on ill defined projection! :tongue: And just for the record, different does not necessarily mean lesser.
Do you regard specific mention of Buddhadharma to be in some way more important than exemplifying its teachings with one's behavior and speech?
Nope, but only when the behaviour and speech satisfies the four Dharma seals do I consider it allied to Buddha Dharma, now if you personally have other criteria please feel free to exercise them.
Ukkacita Sutta: Bombast
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Monks, there are these two assemblies. Which two? The assembly trained in bombast and not in cross-questioning, and the assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast.

"And which is the assembly trained in bombast and not in cross-questioning?

"There is the case where in any assembly when the discourses of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are recited, the monks don't listen, don't lend ear, don't set their hearts on knowing them; don't regard them as worth grasping or mastering. But when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, artful in sound, artful in expression, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. Yet when they have mastered that Dhamma, they don't cross-question one another about it, don't dissect: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They don't make open what isn't open, don't make plain what isn't plain, don't dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in bombast, not in cross-questioning.

"And which is the assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast?

"There is the case where in any assembly when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, artful in sound, artful in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited, the monks don't listen, don't lend ear, don't set their hearts on knowing them; don't regard them as worth grasping or mastering. But when the discourses of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. And when they have mastered that Dhamma, they cross-question one another about it and dissect it: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They make open what isn't open, make plain what isn't plain, dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
One must look at the motivation of non-Buddhist teachings. If one is using the theory of the emptiness of phenomena and the projection of qualities in order to further bolster, strengthen or fortify the sense of self: "I" am the creator, by not engaing in an analysis of the emptiness of self as well, then the behviour that arises from the analysis will not be in line with Buddha Dharma. Motivation plays a HUGE role in the formation of karma. An action like generosity may be wholesome but if the motivation is unwholesome, well... An action like stealing (taking what is not given) might be unwholesome, but if the motivation for the action is wholesome, well...
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby muni » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:16 am

duckfiasco wrote:I've heard it said and read it many times that when we see qualities in other people we don't like, those are actually defilements in our hearts, and a representation of specific aspects in ourselves we don't like. I have a hard time seeing how this is in some instances, and would love to delve into this subject and learn more, if possible.
!


Delving, mind lost in (just use this word if you allow so) all what appears, whether fellows or whatever, that is dream-samsara.

Mostly I see many fools, but I don't see "who/what" is seeing all this in that way.
Because mind is caught by thoughts and concepts who are seeing instead of "my clear seeing". phenomena get a color and modified shape by story making concepts...and i believe all this.

By fixation we roll in thought-dream and the story maker is not seen. :spy:
muni
 
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby muni » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:34 am

asunthatneversets wrote:[



When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
if there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected, and when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
if there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them, then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without
anything being projected. Since the clear light of your own intrinsic
awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakāya; and this is like the sun
rising in a cloudless illuminated sky. Even though (this light cannot
be said) to posses a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be
fully known. The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is
especially significant.

- Padmasambhava[/i]



Thank you. :anjali:

Aura: "I do not understand why this thread was moved such that it was difficult to find. I regard it as a good discussion on the phenomenon of projection and Buddhism".

Maybe jewel teaching is in lounge like the highly accomplished masters can appear as a simple beggar, farmer. :smile:
muni
 
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:21 pm

duckfiasco wrote: Some questions before I forget. I feel like I'm going in circles, but I hope it's actually a spiral... albeit a very, very gradual one :D

From a relative point of view, we see objective outside being observed by subjective inside, so we can go, "He's rude" and feel like quality X out there is observed empirically by person Y in here. The substance of our being is this experience which we create with our aggregates.


'Aggregates' is just a relative term used to break experience down into constituent pieces for means of evaluation. They're solely a convention. "We" create nothing, because "we", "I", "you", "me" are imputed projections (conventions) as well. Nothing is created or destroyed.

duckfiasco wrote: It still seems obvious to me though that there is something aside from those aggregates that influences them. Is it still inaccurate to say they're part of the continuum of existence, like cells in a body, even if the aggregates are not a discrete, enduring self?


It only seems that way, because you're accepting that there are inherently existent aggregates for some type of influence to act upon. Positing that something is acting upon "something else" is always ultimately a product of projection(but is useful in it's place). Yes it would be inaccurate to say they exist in a continuum of existence. It's truly all tetralemmic and paradoxical in nature when it comes to capturing this truth in words.

It's naturally cleansed of the four extremes' stains.
- The Tantra Of Awareness' Natural Freedom


duckfiasco wrote: I can see how changing the process of observation can change what is observed in the sense that the observer has no other referents, but why would that have any substantial bearing on the thing itself, and therefore how others might perceive it?


These reference points and processes are conventions of language... and all lack inherent existence. That includes the 'thing itself'. There appears to be bearing on the 'thing itself' because there never was a 'thing itself' to begin with. The perceiving of a 'thing' is a projection of ignorance and the removal of this veil of ignorance is the dawning and actualization of truth.

duckfiasco wrote: I feel like I'm getting two messages... that our experience of a thing isn't the thing itself, but then there is no thing, just our experience of it. It feels like it all boils down to subject-object again.


Language is naturally dualistic so it's impossible for it to accurately describe that which is being discussed. But to clear up your two messages in a way that points somewhat closely; Experience appears to happen, however there's no experiencer and nothing which is experienced. However the absence of self/phenomena cannot be believed, because the self is reborn in the belief, as that which believes or disbelieves. The experience of a thing is a projection, there is no 'thing itself'(even apart from sensory perception like noumena). So there are no 'things' or objects anywhere in experience(of course there is conventionally). But if this is left on the level of belief then it's a rebirth of the same exact ignorance. A notion of absence is just as imputed as the original notion of appearance. A subject-object split of any nature is a projection of ignorance. Thought creates all separation, the problem is that thoughts are believed, and it's believed that thoughts are merely commenting on a 'thing' which inherently exists apart from the thought. But in truth the thought creates the 'thing'. The thought implies a thinker and that which is thought of. Thought and memory create time, space, everything. If you can start to view thought in it's suchness, as merely a sound, that points to nothing and self-liberates the moment it appears, and then eventually see that there's no one who views the thought but that it is self-originated... and it continues to collapse in from there with a few other possible steps until it's only emptiness.

duckfiasco wrote: I remember reading in one of my books that thinking, "I don't exist" and "Only I exist" are nearly the same wrong view. It's frustrating that those options keep popping up in my head.


This is because holding onto either view is what reifies the alleged "holder". Only a self would believe there's no self. The intellect cannot access the true state of what-is. Attachment and aversion is what generates and keeps the illusion of self/other alive.

duckfiasco wrote: When I meditate on emptiness of self, I dissect all the parts of myself and try to locate where this sense of solid "self" comes from. It's not in my fingers, bowels, eyeballs, brain... it's not in a memory, thought, opinion, or even consciousness which can be knocked out. And not a single one of these exists in its own right, but has a gazillion causes and matter helping them be what they are, while they in turn influence everything else. There's not even really control by something over something. It's just stuff being caused and creating other causes.


On the highest platform causes are actually conventions as well, as is matter. But the causal view is no doubt helpful, just don't take it to be an ultimate truth.

duckfiasco wrote: So then things start to get very weird. If this is so, what in the heck is observation really, just change by a different name? How is it so clear that there is no observer when I search for one with a fine-toothed comb, then one magically appears as soon as I get off my meditation cushion? And if there is no solid, controlling observer in the ultimate sense, how could there be influence over the process of observation? It feels like it's all smoke and mirrors.


Change is an imputed projection. Its a useful convention but experience is always in the immediacy. Observation and processes of observation are also imputed, a process would require time, point of origin, end point, etc.. And observation as an act itself would require an observer and something observed.

duckfiasco wrote: And in the big picture, if there is no witness/observer to the aggregates of self and their observations, what is it that causes change from delusion to right view then experiences it?


The aggregates are also imputed as mentioned above, as well as observations... the cause for the removal of ignorance is described in different ways, and realization itself varies among the different vehicles. Realization in Theravada isn't to the same extent as mahamudra or dzogchen. Each tradition has it's own nomenclature as well. On the ultimate platform nothing ever happens, there is no change, no samsara, no nirvana etc.. But that is a little extreme for this discussion. I guess you could say 'that-which-is' suddenly becomes aware of itself, although that isn't exactly accurate either. The metaphor of the sun being obscured by the clouds is good too like Greg mentioned, the sun is ever-present and ever-shining and only seemed to be absent or difficult to see due to the cloud cover. The Dharma is the means to remove these clouds.

duckfiasco wrote: I suppose in all honesty, I have no clue how to approach this problem. I can do all the thinking and intellectualizing I like (and believe me I have!) but it doesn't feel like I really know how to apply it. It's like I've studied music theory inside and out, but have yet to play a piano and for that matter, where do you even get one?


Again like Greg said qualified teacher is the best way to start. And then depending on your personal preference the vehicle you implement is up to you.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby duckfiasco » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:34 am

Thank you and thank you again, asunthatneversets!

I think the most valuable thing you've shown me is that my foundation needs a lot of work. I thought I had a bit of understanding developing, but you did what Chogyam Trungpa also does for me, which is to pull the rug out from under this self-assured "ah, that's how it is". I can get very cerebral and make all kinds of tidy justifications for my beliefs, doing just what this thread is about... taking my perceptions as reality. It's like if I somehow justify my perceptions with Buddhist thoughts, then it's not just projection any more. :oops:

I'll be filing away your insights for later. I think I need to do the basics first, like daily meditation (not semidaily!) and finding a teacher as you say :) I've begun that process. I feel like I'm heading in the right direction in general, and that's exciting :)

I hope we can swap more ideas in the future! :cheers:
Namu Amida Butsu
"When people of the Pure Land school chant Namu amida butsu, they are doing zazen with their mouths, and when we do zazen, we are performing Namu amida butsu with our whole body." - Kosho Uchiyama (Opening the Hand of Thought)
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:51 am

Excellent! :applause:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Defilements and projections onto other people

Postby joecarreras » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:47 am

i think you have it backwards. hate the sin , love the sinner. Just because you see what you consider a defilement does not mean that it is in that persons life and his kamma , yours have been excised in this case in my opinion. conversesly when you see a higher attribute in another that you wish you had, worry not cause you already have it just by being able to reconize it. It is when the eyes aare not open, so to speak, that progress is slower. turn it around and dont worry yourt fine....to all others very first tyime on this maqchine since the royal typewriter excuse grammiticals, etc...
joecarreras
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:29 am

Previous

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lhasa, Norwegian, pemachophel, rachmiel, supermaxv and 17 guests

>