There are many Buddhist books that slam people if they think of themselves. Well I’m sorry, thinking of oneself does not necessarily mean that one is selfish or does not think of others. One can think of oneself and also offer joy to others, help end the suffering of others, and see others joy as your own. The inward and outward are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, I would go further and say that if one is not there for oneself, one cannot be there for anyone else. All our spiritual work is done first and foremost for ourselves, to end our suffering. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, ending our suffering is the essence of Buddhism. It requires a great deal of motivation to walk the path and that is what provides it. And it is only by walking the path that we can eventually live a Right life and follow the Five Precepts with equanimity, thus helping others.
When the Buddha started turning the wheel of the dharma, he focused on what it is within ourselves that causes us suffering ... our cravings. And his teaching showed us how to free ourselves from those cravings. What is critical is to be free of our ego habit-energy, to be in a place of equanimity. Yes, thinking of others is an important part of the path to freedom, but the primary point is how each person can free themselves from their samsara.
Some may question my line of reasoning here by saying that I am talking too much about my self. That this is contrary to the teaching of no-self. But as I explained in my book, The Self in No Self, the concept of no-self is often misunderstood and mistaught. There is no contradiction between being at one with all things, free of ego, which is the essence of the teaching of no-self, and having an identify, a self, that is different from others due to the temperament that is your unborn spirit, the elemental nature of your true Buddha nature. That difference has nothing to do with ego; it is the self free of ego.
We live in different circumstances, have different interests and professions ... that makes us different in once sense, but does not disturb our feeling of oneness with all things. As I state in the book, even if you look at holy men such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, they are not clones of each other. They each have their own temperament, or personality if you will, which is the elemental nature of their true Buddha nature.
Nor is this contrary to the other aspect of the teaching of no-self which is being self-less in one’s actions. Whatever we do ... whether it’s our work, hobbies, volunteer work, charity giving, or working in the garden ... we should do these things not to feed our ego but to benefit others. So long as you are being there for yourself from a place of equanimity rather than to feed your ego, there is no conflict here with the teaching of no-self. In this instance, the inward and the outward are actually symbiotic.
For more on the question of "self" and the Buddha's actual teaching on this subject, see my post, "The Misleading Teaching of No Self."
Indeed, I would go further and say that if one is not there for oneself, one cannot be there for anyone else. All our spiritual work is done first and foremost for ourselves, to end our suffering. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, ending our suffering is the essence of Buddhism. It requires a great deal of motivation to walk the path and that is what provides it. And it is only by walking the path that we can eventually live a Right life and follow the Five Precepts with equanimity, thus helping others.
When the Buddha started turning the wheel of the dharma, he focused on what it is within ourselves that causes us suffering ... our cravings. And his teaching showed us how to free ourselves from those cravings. What is critical is to be free of our ego habit-energy, to be in a place of equanimity. Yes, thinking of others is an important part of the path to freedom, but the primary point is how each person can free themselves from their samsara.
Some may question my line of reasoning here by saying that I am talking too much about my self. That this is contrary to the teaching of no-self. But as I explained in my book, The Self in No Self, the concept of no-self is often misunderstood and mistaught. There is no contradiction between being at one with all things, free of ego, which is the essence of the teaching of no-self, and having an identify, a self, that is different from others due to the temperament that is your unborn spirit, the elemental nature of your true Buddha nature. That difference has nothing to do with ego; it is the self free of ego.
We live in different circumstances, have different interests and professions ... that makes us different in once sense, but does not disturb our feeling of oneness with all things. As I state in the book, even if you look at holy men such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, they are not clones of each other. They each have their own temperament, or personality if you will, which is the elemental nature of their true Buddha nature.
Nor is this contrary to the other aspect of the teaching of no-self which is being self-less in one’s actions. Whatever we do ... whether it’s our work, hobbies, volunteer work, charity giving, or working in the garden ... we should do these things not to feed our ego but to benefit others. So long as you are being there for yourself from a place of equanimity rather than to feed your ego, there is no conflict here with the teaching of no-self. In this instance, the inward and the outward are actually symbiotic.
For more on the question of "self" and the Buddha's actual teaching on this subject, see my post, "The Misleading Teaching of No Self."
RSS Feed
