Best thought of the thread:
Chris wrote:33. "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
In this context, taking refuge in oneself is taking refuge in Dhamma. If this notion of taking refuge in oneself is not discussed in context, it's easy to misinterpret what is being said, and what might be implied. There was a similar discussion in a previous thread about taking refuge in kamma. A person put forward without context that "kamma is our refuge." In that thread, I asked for the context.
When I hear the term "refuge," I think Triple Gem. So I think it's wise to tread carefully and understand the context when statements are made about "taking refuge in kamma" or "taking refuge in oneself." Yes, responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, and we each have our own work to do. But yes, I think kannada is perfectly justified in seeking to draw out the discussion for the sake of greater context and understanding.
tiltbillings wrote:The classic beginners mistake.
I'm not sure that's quite a fair characterization of kannada's remarks. In one sense, kannada appears to me to be absolutely correct to highlight the potential pitfalls of putting too much emphasis on some notion of "self," without simulteously acknowledging the anatta teaching. I read kannada's remarks as open-minded and cautionary. I don't regard that as a "beginner's mistake."
tiltbillings wrote:Language within the Dhamma is used various.
Yes, exactly, that's the point. And the term "refuge in oneself" seems invite some confusion, because ordinarily we might associate that kind of language with "refuge in Buddha, refuge in Sangha, refuge in Dhamma." So I can understand how a person might respond to the term "refuge in oneself" with some questions regarding context.
A few passages here that I really like:
tiltbillings wrote:The radical insight of the Buddha is that we are not a singular independent self, but we are, rather, a dynamic interdependent process where choice, feelings, sensations, the whole catastrophe plays itself out without a need for an unchanging self, no matter how rarified we imagine the “I am”, the self, the “being” to be. Though there is an intellectual component to this teaching of the Buddha to which we can give assent, it is really a matter of cultivating mindfulness that gives rise to the insight into seeing what we truly are.
...
In the mean time - until we are awakened - we have to deal with this sense of self, this sense of “being”. We can tell it where to get off, but being stubborn, recalcitrant, and primal it won't get off. The sense of self, of “I am”, persists. So, in a very real sense, via the practice of the Dhamma, we cultivate the self, we train it, we tame it via Right View, the precepts and meditative practice, through giving and lovingkindness practice, all of which help thin the walls of delusion of permanence with which we surround the self and by which we build up the sense and idea of “being.” The insight - vipassana - from practice of the Buddha-Dhamma allows us to see the self's actual interdependent nature, which allows us to let go of that sense – delusion -- of self, of being, that we seem to think is so real.
...
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed. Sn 705
That is all wonderful.
In my personal opinion, the best way to take refuge in oneself in this context is to be kind to oneself, be gentle with oneself, be patient with oneself. In other words, as much as possible, approach oneself selflessly. Then keep on working, step by step, with adhitthana and viriya for sure, and also with the understanding of the underlying dukkha, anicca
and anatta nature of that which we experience. fwiw.