Monday, November 27, 2017

The Correct Negation of 'Self'


THE 5TH. SAMDHONG RINPOCHE, LOBSANG TENZIN


Today when we talk about the Buddha’s teaching of selflessness or the not-self or Shunyata, people mostly cannot comprehend the real connotations of these teachings. And they always fall into the error of negating the relative self. When you speak of selflessness, they take it to mean that they are completely devoid of self, that self does not exist at all.

It is only in Buddhism and in some non-Buddhist Indian traditions that the Truth is classified into two levels: the Ultimate Truth and the Relative Truth. And these two need to be understood at their respective levels. They are two sides of one coin, yet they differ vastly. The key point is that, if you deny the relative truth, then you cannot realize Shunyata, but will fall into nihilism instead: the negation of everything.

The Buddha does not negate the relative existence of anything, but teaches that whatever exists in the relative or conventional sense, exists interdependently and the common-sense of the interdependent nature of things cannot be denied by anyone. It is truth; it is a fact. Things do not exist as we view them in this moment, we who do not realise the true nature of existence. The ordinary person views phenomena as existing by their own nature, complete and independent in themselves. They impute the quality of inherent existence to these phenomena, as they do to the self. But the fact is that relative phenomena, including the self, exist in interdependence on each other and on a myriad bases. This quality of interdependence does not imply that relative phenomena simply do not exist at all, but only that their existence is not inherent to themselves. In simple terms, if you remove the interdependent factors of which phenomena consist, the phenomena themselves would disappear because they have no inherent existence of their own, or from their own side. So unless you clearly recognize what is to be negated and what is to be affirmed, there is every chance of descending into nihilism. In this case, what is to be negated is the notion that relative phenomena exist absolutely. On the other hand, it is equally important to affirm that they exist relatively or conventionally. It is important to take care and be very cautious about this; that you should not negate the relative existence of self. But the self which we conceive of now as an absolute entity having independent existence from its own side is to be negated.

So, unless you very profoundly see how you conceive yourself, you will fall into the error, either of absolutism or of nihilism. But if your understanding of self is profound, then you can very easily negate the notion of an inherently-existent “I,” and that negation is Shunyata.

The simple negation of inherent or independent existence is Shunyata. The way we conceive of self, the way we conceive of phenomena, need to be very precisely and clearly recognized. Then you will realize that it is completely different from the real nature of the existence of self. So, it is quite a difficult process of analysis. But unless and until you realize what is to be negated, it is very dangerous to negate anything. You might negate the whole thing, and then you would fall down into nihilism.

So, it is very difficult to verbalise; but through meditation, through observation, you will realise how you conceive the self. It is not yourself which you negate, but that self of which you have formed a conception: that conception is to be negated.

At this moment, if somebody calls you or addresses you, you immediately conceive a self which is almost identical with body, mind, and speech: the gross combination. But you never conceive of self as something very subtle or very different than your conception of it.

Somebody hits you, and you feel that he has hit you, he abused you, he oppressed you: and at that time your conception of “I” is so gross, so monolithic, and so singular. There is the perception of the singularity of “I” which comes forward—a sense of the singular existence of “I,” and that is a misconception, and that misconception is to be negated.

After negating that mode of existence, then you will automatically understand the transitory and interdependent existence of the relative self — and when you realise the relativity of self, it will cease to create attachment or hatred — and it will see, since it is in the right view of self-existence, and it will automatically give you the right view of the existence of others, and then compassion arising from that profound understanding of the equality of all beings will come out naturally.

So, the negation is not negation of the relatively existent self, but the negation is the negation of how we view ourselves right now. That view is to be negated.

In the Canon and in the teachings the self as a whole, as an entity per se, is negated — but at that time the teacher is addressing you directly, attacking, as it were, the way you perceive yourself. It is a method for finding that which indeed is to be negated. So it sometimes seems as though the teachings are negating the total relative self. But we need to separate the teaching technique from the object which it seeks to accomplish. We need to separate these two and identify the object which is to be negated. Only then can the reality of selflessness be realized.

Thursday, November 16, 2017


Great, great, great Uncle Bedazachefczchickleslov Wronski. Great, huh? Fo shizzle my Wronskizzle.

That's quite a mouthful of a name too, huh? Just call him Bedaz for short. Pronounced, "Bad-Azz", with emphasis on the latter syllable. Interesting. He was quite the badass, in fact. But, like it is with almost all us Wronski's, ahead of his time; i.e., well before that term was a term.

Additionally, Uncle, he was the original "bedazzler". Only he did it before glitter and sequins were things. He was, as they say, a man of means; precious and semiprecious gem stones did it for him; that be sparkle. And — you might guess where I'm going here — also before the term bedazzle was a term.

Also, one of the most decorated warriors in the great pantheon of Wronski Warriors of lore, and among most other warriors of any lore for that matter. In the Crimea he was known as the one "who never met a man he didn't kill".

That scimitar ... encrusted with diamonds. Big ones. What did I tell you? I know! He predictably went in for the big "WOW" factor. Blade, as sharp as a razor. Forged over years of painstaking effort by the most famous sword maker of his time. Coincidentally, also a Wronski family member. Sharp ... and, tough. 

Just like Uncle Bedaz. But, hey, that's a Wronski.

To this day among all the family members observant of the Wronski traditions, Thanksgiving — well, in fact, just about at any holiday or family gathering — it is custom to remember Uncle Bedaz's prowess with the sword in a ritual called "Flaying the Bird". Not a pretty sight for outsiders. But to a Wronski, mother's milk. A touchstone for what it is to be a Wronski. By the way, it was Uncle who invented "spatchcocking". He didn't give it that name, he just did the deed. The name was given to the culinary procedure by yet another one of the Wronski clan, Aunty Spatchinzcokschvitzskia. And, oh boy, she was something too! 

But, enough for now. 

And for the full bore Wronski hystericalicity CLICK to go to this page.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

What's the Point of Citing Science?

You can't convince anyone whose mind is already certain they know what you're talking about.

Image may contain: meme and text

The image above was recently posted on a Facebook page I like.

Since I chime in about the benefits of Rolf Structural Integration whenever there seems to be an opening, I said:

"There was Dr. Ida P. Rolf who had this idea of fostering an integration of the Human Energy Field with the Energy Field of the Earth. Depth ecology."

Comment 1: "Interesting."

I added: " “Some individuals may perceive their losing fight with gravity as a sharp pain in their back, others as the unflattering contour of their body, others as constant fatigue, yet others as an unrelentingly threatening environment. Those over forty may call it old age. And yet all these signals may be pointing to a single problem so prominent in their own structure, as well as others, that it has been ignored: they are off balance, they are at war with gravity.” – Ida P. Rolf, Ph.D." 

And this graphic ...



Comment 2: "There has never been a shred of peer-reviewed evidence that "Rolfing" offers any benefits beyond those of a good massage — in fact, for certain issues, it can cause *more* damage."

Me:



Then: "Link to source, please? Meaningless without context."

Wronski: "The photo to the best of my knowledge comes from the files of the Guild for Structural Integration."

Reply: "... hence, worthless." 

Me: "Assuming the representation is accurate and truthful, showing the results of 10 sessions of Rolf Structural Integration, pre/post, at least demonstrates the possibility that we humans can learn to work with Gravity along the same lanes as what architects and the building trades honor in their designs and structures — plumb and square as the cardinal reference for enduring through balance.

" If you want to wait for the Science to come in, go ahead.

"It's like asking the guy at the Wagon Wheel in Birmingham, Michigan to show the scientific proof that the top slice of that eponymous sandwich won't slide off. (Assuming you go back far enough to remember the Wagon Wheel.*)

"Forget about whether Rolfing works. Consider the images in the attached photo. The body is well understood to be plastic. The first thing is to decide if you want to learn to find balance in the make up of your body such that it works with Gravity. Down the road, if you want, Rolf Structural Integration offers personalized assistance."

* The gentleman in this exchange lives in Michigan, near the city of Birmingham. The Wagon Wheel sandwich is an overstuffed affair and a slice of dark bread 6" in diameter.