a question to ask:

Isis SG

In buddhism do we focus inner self or outer objects/subjects?

Shouldn't we focus on the relationship; in between of the inner self and the outer objects ?

cheskiz SG

When you see a babe, what do you feel. Your inner-self is constantly being affected by what you see on the outside and it activate the hidden kilesas. So you focus on the inner-self rather than the outer-self. How can you focus on the outer-object when your inner-self is already greatly disturbed.

High monks do more medidation rather than chanting, they constantly self-reflect where does the pain or desire come from, and understand its source and eradicate it.

sinweiy SG

Originally posted by Isis:
In buddhism do we focus inner self or outer objects/subjects?

Shouldn't we focus on the relationship; in between of the inner self and the outer objects ?

can u explain a little bit more on wat you mean?

/\

justdoit77 SG

What is the benefit to focus on the relationship, any example?

cheskiz SG

In the light of dharma, no benefit..Only make the wheel of samsara and kilesas grip on to you tighter.

In the layman eyes, yes, realationship is needed to fufil the emptiness and create pleasure and fun. Twisted Evil

An Eternal Now SG

Inner self. In the conventional sense, that is.

Why? Because rather than judging and grasping on what is outside, we should shine the light (awareness) within to look in ourselves.

If we always shine a spotlight on others, and see how dirty they are, we will forever miss the 'dirt' that is within our very own minds.

That is like being able to distinguish everything out there, but know nothing about ourselves. This is not the way to liberation.

Zen Master Dogen Zenji says,

To study Buddha Dharma [or Buddhism], is to study the self. And to study the self is to forget the self [or to let go of the self]. And to let go of the self, is to be enlightened by all things [the 10,000 dharmas]. To be enlight-ened by the 10,000 dharmas is to find perfect freedom for yourself and for others, and this trace- less enlightenment goes on and on and on, not leaving any trace at all.

To be able to realise no-self, first of all, we must learn what this self is about.

Now in the ultimate sense, there is no inner or outer. No self. So in terms of insight practice, we are taught to just observe everything without judgement. And then eventually we will be able to penetrate the subject-object duality -- in seeing, only the seen, no seer. In hearing, only the heard, no hearer. In thinking, only the thought, no thinker. Everything that is self-arising is self-luminous and self-liberating, inseparable from conditions.

At that time you will not ask if there is relationship between 'inner' and 'outer', because everything is seen in Wholeness. There is no inner to relate to outer in the first place.

sinweiy SG

Q: When something confronts us, it follows that we perceive it, but how can there be perception when we are confronted by nothing at all?

A: We are now talking of that perception which is independent of there being an object or not. How can that be? The nature of perception being eternal, we go on perceiving whether objects are present or not." Thereby we come to understand that, whereas objects naturally appear and disappear, the nature of perception does neither of those things; and it is the same with all your other senses.

Q: When we are looking at something, does the thing looked at exist objectively within the sphere of perception or not?

A: No, it does not.

Q: When we (look around and) do not see anything, is there an absence of something objective within the sphere of perception?

A: No, there is not.

7.Q: When there are sounds, hearing occurs. When there are no sounds, does hearing persist or not? A: It does.

Q: When there are sounds it follows that we hear them, but how can hearing take place during the absence of sound?

A: We are now talking of that hearing which is independent of there being any sound or not. How can that be? The nature of hearing being eternal, we continue to hear whether sounds are present or not.

Q: if that is so, who or what is the hearer?

A: It is your own nature, which hears, and it is the inner cognizer who knows.

http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/The_Zen_Teaching_of_Instantaneous_Awakening_By_Hui_Hai

/\

An Eternal Now SG

This is well said, though it may be misunderstood. What this is saying is just like what Shurangama Sutra is saying - when sound is taken to be objective reality, it is seen to have birth and death. We must not grasp on the concept of sound bcos that is to grasp on birth and death, we must not chase after sound bcos that is chasing a concept and getting lost in conceptual 'birth and death', and lose our own nature. Our own nature is not lost, but we are obscured from seeing it.

But ultimately there is no sound 'out there' apart from the hearing nature, and the hearing nature is the sound. Not in terms of concept, but the bell ringing is Buddha Nature. That is what is meant by 'hearing nature'. There is no coming and going. Sound is not an object 'out there'. It is pristine awareness.

There is no sound 'out there', there is no sound that can have birth and death, there is only hearing, the hearing is the sound (not as the conceptual object that comes as go, but as the riingggg of the bell)

As a Zen master said..

When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.

Isis SG

what i mean is buddhist have a tendency to focus too much on self.

There should be a middle way.

justdoit77 SG

yes, I agree with that.
Sometimes a person is attached too much to himself and his wrong view. Although it is good to reflect internally, but if he got stuck somewhere and cannot proceed, he will need to seek advise from an experienced practitioner or a teacher, so the teacher will be able to diminish his wrong view.
But eventually he still need to focus back on himself until when self is no longer exist.