Mindfulness vs. True Self

BoatS

I've recently been thinking about this conflict between being mindful and your true self. If by being mindful (in this case of your thoughts) are you not in a way using conscious mind to depict everything you say and do? I don't understand how Buddhist claim that when you reach nirvana that you are able to then be your true self. Or is making every decision in the moment what truly being yourself is?

Could someone please help clarify this!

Thank you,

BoatS

taiyaki

Maybe one moment of mindfulness is true self.

Being mindful one can see multiple possibilities rather than the conditioned reactions.
Respond verse react. Both on a micro (self) and macro (community) scale.

ThailandTom

There is no true self that lasts a nano second if I am not wrong.

person

The self is a view, an idea. Nirvana is a view, an idea. Only awareness exists in the present. Wisdom is in the present beyond views and ideas, responses to events arise naturally out of wisdom not the conscious, intellectual mind of views and ideas.

weighted

The self changes all the time. This is what meditation and mindfulness teaches us: what we are thinking or feeling one minute changes with the next. The idea of a static self that is unfixed and unchanging is one that is dualistic (self/nonself) and it's one of the hurdles we need to jump over in our practices in embracing nonself and recognizing that who we are changes all the time and isn't something permanent. As @ThailandTom says, our selves change every second, and mindfulness makes us aware of these changes.

Dakini

I've been noticing that teachings on the self (and Self) vary according to the Buddhist tradition. Someone here commented that in Zen, it's said: lose the self, and realize the Self. Also, the Jonang/New Jonang tradition in Tibetan Buddhism teaches about a True Self. I think this "self vs. no-self" thing is a lot more complex than most of us have been lead to believe. There's no pat answer, because traditions differ on the subject.

federica

Why does Mindfulness have to be 'vs' True Self?

BoatS

Why does Mindfulness have to be 'vs' True Self?

I'm having trouble identifying exactly what "true self" is. To me, it would seem to be how one would act if there were not outside factors (or you don't let them) to alter your perceptions. Or maybe your actions would be guided by pure intuition rather than conscious choice. So it does seem that mindfulness may have some relation with true self.

It's rather difficult to write about this subject, each time I write something I find myself coming to a contradiction.

I'm going to think about these posts for a bit, there are many good opinions. Thank you for the input.

misecmisc1

My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: mindfulness as translated from Pali word Sati means to remember something in mind - so in the 4 frames of reference it becomes the object of meditation.

From living perspective, keeping Dhamma or Noble 8-fold path in mind is mindfulness and guarding your actions against it - abandoning wrong speech and entering remaining in right speech, similarly for the rest like action, livelihood etc.

Now True Self is different from true self. Buddha clearly said there is no self as everything is a phenomena which is arising and ceasing, being empty of any inherent existence. So to understand this arising of phenomena, Buddha explained Dependent Origination.

Buddha did not answered 10 questions in which one was - Whether there is any Self existing different from body?

Now in Hinduism, Bhagwad Geeta says there is Jeevatma(Consicousness) and Parmatma(Universal Consciousness) - from a dualistic point of view and Consciousness is part of Universal Consciousness.

Now Yoga in Hinduism states that there is True Self - and it represents it as Turiya(4th state) - but it says that it can only be experienced and cannot be explained in words. The other 3 states are - conscious mind, active unconscious mind and latent unconscious mind.

Coming back to Buddha's teachings: There is no self and I is just a label given to totality of the 5 aggregates - matter, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness. Now mindfulness is to see things as they are in the present moment, without adding anything extra to it. For example, if you are feeling happy in the present moment, then mindfulness will only say - there is happiness in this moment, without adding anything extra, whereas our normal thinking will say - i am feeling happy because i am eating this chocolate.


Having said all this, now coming to your query:

I've recently been thinking about this conflict between being mindful and your true self. If by being mindful (in this case of your thoughts) are you not in a way using conscious mind to depict everything you say and do? I don't understand how Buddhist claim that when you reach nirvana that you are able to then be your true self. Or is making every decision in the moment what truly being yourself is?

Nirvana is unconditioned view of reality. Samsara is conditioned view of reality.

Whatever we see, hear, say, do , think in this physical world is conditioned. Why? because it is being perceived by our senses, which are already conditioned. Why? Because of NameAndForm. Why? This list goes on and it is what is Dependent Origination, which Buddha explained along with this/that conditionality.

So whatever decision you are making in this world is already conditioned. Clinging to anything - bad or good - both is wrong, because it continues the cycle of Samsara.

So you making any decisions by yourself or being affected by external factors is all conditioned.

Now by studying of Buddha's teachings, since there is no I, so nothing is like your decision etc. Everything is a phenomena which has a beginning and an end.

Mindfulness helps in attaining concentration, leading to the 4 jhanas and then final liberation or Nirvana.

In my view, only after attainment of Nirvana or Self-Realization, this thing whether there is a Self or not could be directly experienced.

SpinyNorman2

I've been noticing that teachings on the self (and Self) vary according to the Buddhist tradition. Someone here commented that in Zen, it's said: lose the self, and realize the Self. Also, the Jonang/New Jonang tradition in Tibetan Buddhism teaches about a True Self. I think this "self vs. no-self" thing is a lot more complex than most of us have been lead to believe. There's no pat answer, because traditions differ on the subject.

Yes, there are different ideas within Buddhism and is complicated - some people talk about seeing one's original mind for example.
The solution perhaps is to put these ideas to one side and use meditation and mindfulness to discover the truth for ourselves.

Spiny

Gui

When the Dharma body awakens completely,
There is nothing at all.
The source of our self-nature
Is the Buddha of innocent truth.
Mental and physical reactions come and go
Like clouds in the empty sky;
Greed, hatred, and ignorance appear and disappear
Like bubbles on the surface of the sea.

Hsuan Chueh of Yung Chia / Yoka Genkaku

Dakini

I've been noticing that teachings on the self (and Self) vary according to the Buddhist tradition. Someone here commented that in Zen, it's said: lose the self, and realize the Self. Also, the Jonang/New Jonang tradition in Tibetan Buddhism teaches about a True Self. I think this "self vs. no-self" thing is a lot more complex than most of us have been lead to believe. There's no pat answer, because traditions differ on the subject.

Yes, there are different ideas within Buddhism and is complicated - some people talk about seeing one's original mind for example.
The solution perhaps is to put these ideas to one side and use meditation and mindfulness to discover the truth for ourselves. Spiny

Thank you for addressing this, Spiny. This helps.

Jason

I've recently been thinking about this conflict between being mindful and your true self. If by being mindful (in this case of your thoughts) are you not in a way using conscious mind to depict everything you say and do? I don't understand how Buddhist claim that when you reach nirvana that you are able to then be your true self. Or is making every decision in the moment what truly being yourself is?

Could someone please help clarify this!

Thank you,

BoatS

One might first want to ask, "Is there a real you?"

As for mindfulness (sati), the term simply means 'to keep something in mind.' As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "The term mindfulness means being able to remember, to keep something in mind. In the case of establishing the body as a frame of reference, it means being able to remember where you're supposed to be — with the body — and you don't let yourself forget." And in the Buddhist path of practice, mindfulness is an important tool in the development of wisdom or insight (panna).

No dilemma as far as I can see. In fact, I think mindfulness can help up see through the illusion of permanent selfhood that we construct around the five aggregates, the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, what the Buddha calls, 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109).

Just something to consider.

KarunaDharmakaya

There is no true self that lasts a nano second if I am not wrong.

There is a true self(Buddha)
the self the Buddha said to get rid of is the tainted ego individual self(the "i" the "tim"this is the self we think is true.our 'self" changes every five seconds and is not true

the other extreme is NONSELF this is nhilism and anhilationism.which means we dont exist the Buddha said this is wrong view.

so if their their is no anhilationism or nhilism that means we have an eternal life force that continues to be reborn for all of eternity(hence rebirth of LIFE)
the self that we are to get rid of is DEFILEMENTS on this life force it is the discriminateing individual tainted ego self.

so you already know their is no anhilation of life,and the ego self is gone what is LEFT??
the eternal Buddha(there is no anhilation of life so thier is a continuance of life)there is no tainted self it has permantely ended as the 4th noble truth states(permanance)

this is the TRUE SELF(Tathagatagarbha Mahayana Buddhism)

KarunaDharmakaya

I've been noticing that teachings on the self (and Self) vary according to the Buddhist tradition. Someone here commented that in Zen, it's said: lose the self, and realize the Self. Also, the Jonang/New Jonang tradition in Tibetan Buddhism teaches about a True Self. I think this "self vs. no-self" thing is a lot more complex than most of us have been lead to believe. There's no pat answer, because traditions differ on the subject.

Hey dakini
yes the problem we are having is a doctrinal issue due to the fact we have seperated the sutras,if we put all the sutras back together as ONE book on ONE life story of the Buddha and his teachings(from mahayana perspective) then you will get an entirely different message all the sutras about emptiness,dependant origination and such were considered provisional teachings that pointed to and lead Buddhists to the final and complete teaching Tathagatagarbha,

are you fimilar with the lotus sutra??this is the turning point in here all the sutras before it are shown to be provisional leading to the final teaching(in chapter 2 the monks who didnt want to accept it got up and left this is the no self crowd.in the Lotus sutra it PROCLAIMS the eternal permanent never changeing Buddha it states the last sutras to be the Final teachings, the Last sutras are Tathagatagarbha and TRUE SELF teachings.

the problem we have is we have broken the sutras apart and have not put them back together as one book with one life story,read ALL the sutras in order up to the end (MAHAPARINIRVANA sutra) you will see the TRUE SELF,from the Lotus sutra on the teachings are true self and Buddha nature the ones before it are provisional.

(please dont take any offense im just stateing what the sutras state if you have read the lotus ustra and the final sutras then you know exactly what i am talking about.

WallyB

My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: mindfulness as translated from Pali word Sati means to remember something in mind - so in the 4 frames of reference it becomes the object of meditation.

actually, mindfulness remembers to engage the Noble Eightfold Path. when the Noble Eightfold Path is engaged, the objects of meditation arise automatically.

please consider: as the four frames of reference are impermanent, how can the mind remember feelings when feelings arise at a certain time, exist for a certain time & vanish after a time?

the practitioner can only be mindful of dhamma that can be remembered or recollected at will, such as right view & right intention. but the practitioner cannot recollect feelings such as rapture & bliss, for example, at will, because rapture & bliss only arise after the necessary amount of path development

or the practitioner cannot remember the breathing because the breathing is a physical object. mindfulness can only remember mental objects

sati means to remember the dhamma, as buddha taught below:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve.

One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right speech.

One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right action.

One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right livelihood.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

WallyB

My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now: mindfulness as translated from Pali word Sati means to remember something in mind - so in the 4 frames of reference it becomes the object of meditation.

let us examine the following stock phrase:

There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... dhammas in & of themselves — ardent, alert & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

1. the Pali does not state: "remains focused". the Pali states "sees" (upassi), which is the same as the Pali word: "passa" (sense contact). in short, mere seeing; bare seeing

2. the Pali does not state: "alert". the Pali states: "clearly comprehends"/"has reflective awareness" (sampajanna)

3. the stock phrase uses the word: "mindful" within the phrase, as something distinct from the other words

4. being mindful here is defined as: "putting aside covetous (liking) & distress (disliking) with reference to the world. in short, practising the 2nd & 3rd noble truths

most students, due to translations & clumsy practise, believe mindfulness to mean: "seeing the objects of meditation". but the objects of meditation are just "sign posts" or "references" that right mindfulness has been established

practising mindfulness means: "remembering to put aside covetous (liking) & distress (disliking) with reference to the world"

so regardless of which impermanent meditation object is in the mind, whether boody, feeling, mind or dhammas, the mind constantly practises mindfulness by putting aside greed & distress with reference to those meditation objects

metta

patbb

I've recently been thinking about this conflict between being mindful and your true self. If by being mindful (in this case of your thoughts) are you not in a way using conscious mind to depict everything you say and do? I don't understand how Buddhist claim that when you reach nirvana that you are able to then be your true self. Or is making every decision in the moment what truly being yourself is?

Could someone please help clarify this!

Thank you,

BoatS

being mindful just mean to be aware of what is happening right now.

mindfulness is a tool and a skill to use that tool.


Being mindful is a useful skill that allow you to see whats going on inside.
Once we see and understand whats going on inside, we realize that we have alot of crap, things like fears, insecurities... and these things have nothing to do with us.
Just random mindless programmed reactions, impurities that influence our thoughts and actions.
This is what mindfulness is good for.
Then we can proceed purify ourselves and change the habits up picking up new impurities... mindfulness is good for this too.

The true self is the one that is pure, not influenced by any of the impurities.