Self?
SarahT
Time ... space ... joySouth Coast, UK Veteran
@lobster said:
You haz self? Don't tell any of them Buddhists or they might want to know what that self is . . .
You have such a great way of expressing deep truths in a way to make them accessible, lobster. Thank you!
Perhaps folk here can shed light on the following for me:
"Cogito ergo sum". That is the only thing I know beyond doubt, the perception of thoughts. And if "I" think, there must be an "I". Is it realistic to expect that "self" to be explicable in our limited language or to deny that there is a self just because I don't know what it is?
A friend whose study of Buddhism has got further than mine tells me that Buddhism holds each individual to be "the centre of the universe". This doesn't accord with my understanding of Buddhism at all ... but is he right?
Namaste 
Comments
When you say "I know", what's this I? That's the question. Buddhism says it's a construct. There is awareness, there are thoughts, but the "I" is as much an illusion as "a car" or "an airplane". They work, they function, but there's no real core essence to them. Cogito Ergo Sum, "I think therefore I am", is to me reduced to "There is awareness of thoughts, therefore both awareness and thoughts exist." When you front-load it with "I", of course it's going to confirm that "I".
As for #2, I've never heard that. Ever. It could be metaphorical, as in that's the way things appear to us, or it could be dealing with responsibility (in that we're each responsible for our own experiences, our own lives). But literal? That would be solipsistic.
No it is completely wrong to deny the self just because you do not know what it is.
Yes. "The world is born in the six, exits in the six and dies in the six". (six senses)
The world is the result of the manifestation of the ego. When the ego is born then what is perceived as the world is born.
/Victor
I think, therefore I am, is about as wide off the mark as anything could be.
Furthermore....
Thinking happens. You, I, we, don't think. Just like we don't beat our own hearts, thinking happens.
You don't start or stop your thoughts, they just show up and ruin your day
. Or annoy or distract or provide information or solve problems.
Thinking occurs withOUT an "I". The "I" is a construct created from thinking. So "cogito ergo sum' is actually backwards.
Buddhism says that thinking only is proof there is thinking. 'I am' is a relative construct done by vijnana the consciousness that divides things in this case into self and other. The diamond sutra shows this concept with examples. The heart sutra also does.
The eye is dependently originated and is a relative truth. For example looking in a pool of water to see the moon we need a pool, a moon, transparent air, no clouds, a sense organ, and a visual consciousness. If any of those is missing then the experience of the moon disappears. The essence of the moon is not in any of those things because removing even one of them makes the experience go 'poof'.
There is a luminous/clear, spacious/open, and sensitive mind, but it cannot be found and is pointed out by the guru in my understanding. You can read some sutras such as the Nirvana sutra talking about Self with a capital S. But a guru helps point out this self.
Cogito ergo [EGO] sum. That's about the ego, the conventional, everyday part of our mentality with which we either butt heads or cooperate with other "EGOs." The "self" refers to the deeper layers, and therefore the two terms should not be confused. As to the rest of the argument, I leave that to others. Indeed, as @Jeffrey addressed above, the greater truth of Descartes' starting point of philosophy is that it isn't really true except as a starting point for a philosopher caught up on the clouds of speculation. Ortega taught that Life is Preoccupation. Therefore, it would be truer to say, "I am; therefore I think!" And that is where Buddhist practice comes in to direct this thinking and to suspend it almost entirely in meditation. Our thoughts can drive us crazy. Indeed, what Descartes thought through is no longer relevant to anything but the historians of philosophy. This is arcane stuff and obscures any subject on which it is dropped.
I know that I have perceptions, but I do not know their quality or their accuracy. I only know my perceptions from my senses --added to my many memories which I also "know." But though I cannot know whether my perceptions be true, I do perceive them. In the end, "know" and "perceive" are just words relating to our knowing -- or acquaintance with things. And the circumstances are composed of my perceptions and actions together, and these three things with my emotions and my thoughts make up my life.
That's just the Ego thinking. I'd argue that the self is a "seer," not a thinker.
Yes, to a very large extent....
No, but I don't think that's the reason that people deny the real existence of a permanent self, or any other self for that matter. But at least, in theory, they are not being selfish.
This seems to me almost diametrically opposed to anything Buddha taught.
I have heard a seasoned practitioner talk like this. In a sense we are the centre of our universe. Does that accord with no ones experience? It sounds like an inflation of our importance? Ah well 'I am what I think' . . . so I won't bother . . . finding out what the centre of every universal being is . . .
Unlike some here, I don't have that much to criticize about "I think, therefore I am" as an expression of Buddhist philosophy. It just doesn't go far enough. Yes, you exist in some manner. Something is reading these words. That same something sits in meditation and watches thoughts come and go. So perhaps the cart is just before the horse in this case. "I am, but I am not my thoughts." might be closer. So the question to answer is, if you are not your thoughts, then what are you? What is watching the thoughts? Now say your name. What is remembering your name and moving your lips?
I am. But I am not my thoughts, or memories, or body. So what am I?
As for the last part, I also have no idea what the man might mean by this. Ask him to explain.
A friend whose study of Buddhism has got further than mine tells me that Buddhism holds each individual to be "the centre of the universe". This doesn't accord with my understanding of Buddhism at all ... but is he right?
@SarahT
There are some awakening experiences which can present what can feel to your sense organs like an almost limitless sense of awareness in all directions.
From that perspective it can feel like you are at the center of existence but that doesn't stand apart from the knowledge that all other consciousness is also the center of it's own existence just as you would not consider that such an experienced perception as being representative of a self....but rather what the absense of a self really might present.
1: I think therefore I am. If you try and find the "I" you won't find it.
*if the I is your body, the you can't say this is "my" body. Shows owner ship.
*since your body isn't "I" nor is the mind, how can both together be "I"
If you have a herd of cows. How can the group be a sheep? It's just cows.
*if the "I" is not our body or mind. Or the collection of both. It must be separate? If this is so then you should be able to find it outside of all body and mind?
Every time you try this all you will see is mind or body. Take away body and mind and what do you have left? "I" is therefore not separate from mind and body.
There is no "I", "me" , "myself in reality.
As for number 2: you can not experience anything outside of the 6 senses. So YOUR universe is the centre of everything. You are the universe.
it sure feels like there's a world "out there" right? 
That's what we are trying to understand through Buddhism.
With metta
Descartes was only partially right when he said, "I think, therefore I am."
He would have been correct if he has said, "I think, therefore I think that I am."
for I am is just another thought.
There is no thinker behind those thoughts. One could ask, "Can there be a thinker without thoughts?"
With metta,
Having written a long, long post on this with loads more confusion, perhaps I am beginning to understand? It's not that Buddhists say there is no self, it's just that only a small part of it can be "known"? Perhaps the mind consciousness or even the store consciousness (the ālāyavijñāna)? After all, it seems to me that the other 5 consciousnesses in the 6 consciousnesses model (eye, ear, nose, tongue and body) could quite easily be constructs of the mind consciousness.
Guess all Descartes is saying is that there must be a mind consciousness. But then I go on to read:
and
both from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na
So that mind consciousness is not me?
Laundry time ...
@SarahT a meditation teacher explained to me that every part of your body has it's own consciousness.
An example is if your burn "your" finger. The hand will pull away before the stimulus has reached the brain.
So the finger experiences sensations of pain. "You" didn't do anything. Nor should you suffer. Its impermanent and non self. Plus it's the fingers problem.
The voice in my head disagrees with this, time for my laundry too!
Reminds me of a story I heard of a young boy who got into a snowball fight. First he got hit on the legs and in return replied," You missed me. You only got my legs."
The next time he got hit on the arms - "You missed me. Only got my arms."
Then he got hit on the head - "You missed again! ....."
The moral of the story-
I can never be found, so how can I ever be hurt?
The big question for us is whether this statement is really true.
Others will do better than me, but it helps to remember that Buddhists practice with the concept of NOT SELF, rather than no self.
That might make it a little easier to understand how six consciousnesses can all clamor and call themselves "I" in a constant flux of smooth, imperceptible transition from one to the next. Will the real "I" come forward! No, not self
@pegembara it's true, but you can only know this once you dissociate yourself from pain. You view pain as a sensation and not a problem.
You have to do this yourself. Then you know. It's really hard to do and you start with mere moments. But you see the pain without the vocal chatter telling you it's sore.
That helps!
Found this:
And I thought it was just curiosity, just trying to understand ... I am familiar with the concept of unhelpful questions from my days of studying philsosphy. Happy to consign this one there
In gratitude - Sarah
Oh yes, I love me some Thanissaro Bikkhu
It was he who made sense of this very issue to me. He is gifted at explaining very esoteric teachings.
I took an online course comparing Buddhism and modern evolutionary psychology last spring. One of the books we read was "The Modular Mind". The current who's who in psychology land are much more persuaded by the existence of multiple 'selves', as was the Buddha. So what is it that has awareness of all these selves?
@SarahT that helps. Nice post.
I think this goes for most things, I may or may not understand it intellectually but either makes no difference to ending suffering.
I used to lie awake trying to figure all this out, I'm beginning to realise the folly in this.
The only truth in the world is the truth you know for yourself.
Yes, "I think, therefore I think I am" captures the Buddhist view quite well. Identifying with the thinking, assuming it to be an expression of self.
Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" might explain that since you think, there has to be a being that is aware of the fact that thinking is taking place.
But you are not your thoughts, you are not your mind.
When Buddhism talks about "no self," it means that the person you see and for the sake of convention you define as SarahT, is not self-generated, rather you are the product of an interdependent combination of factors that resulted in a "you."
And those aggregates that compose that "you" change all the time, anyway.
Not only your physical aggregates, but also the way you process your feelings, the way you perceive the world, the way you process those perceptions...
SarahT even comes with an expiration date.
As to your friend's comment, reading between the lines and making abstraction of many ideas, yes, there is some Buddhism in the idea, but it's definitely not a notion exclusively akin to Buddhism.
We are the centre of the universe from the point of view that we look at the world through the lenses of our conditioning, our history, our biases.
Take an object and three people, and you get three different objects.
Rather, Buddhism is a path meant to be tread as a way to become mindfully aware, and hopefully shake off that conditioning, those biases, our personal neurosis.
Exactly so.
It is why you sometimes here Buddhists talk about the self, the continuum of being as illusionary. We have an individual casual arising. Our monkey mind jumps from one thing to the next but we are not sensations, not memories of gone experiences, fantasies and fears of tomorrow or others impressions . . .
This is why in meditation we try to 'grasp' at the essence of self. Nothing there but moments and arisings.
When we reside in the 'Nothing there' are we there yet? . . . or in a more subtle form of being . . .
:wave: .
To find that out I suggest an alternative experiment... you could try putting your hand against a brick wall and bang it as hard as you can with a hammer and then say the words "There is no self".
And if you succeed to form the words with some kind of conviction then repeat.
/Victor
I don't think those would be the_ first _words out of my mouth
lol
is pain a self?
It could be done, but if you already know it then you wouldn't go hitting your hand with a hammer like a jackass.
Forgive me @federica (aka Fed Express) I have sinned.
Here I meaned hear . . .
. . . meanwhile I wish to return to our centrality in the universe . . .
Don't know about you but my experience is centered or revolves around my universe . . . As far as I am aware others like the lighted cushion picture are also centres of awareness. Dervishes sometimes describe our awakening as the gift of God wishing to share the discovering of divinity.
In Buddhist terms we might say, the Awake is already present.
The important thing for me is not who thinks what but how to think in a helpful and useful way on as many levels as possible.
Pain arises when a hard object contacts flesh. This happened because of stupidity of trying to prove a point by smashing one's hands with a hammer.
Pain is real and unpleasant. Even babies who have no sense of self feel pain.
Trying hard to prove a point is also a type of clinging(to view).
With metta
@pegembara "pain is real and unpleasant"
I would agree on the first part, you saying pain is unpleasant is saying Justin Bieber is a great singer. It's debatable.
Pain is a sensation on the spectrum of sensations. Just like loud is to soft. There's nothing inherently unpleasant about pain. It's our conditioning that tells us it's bad.
Through meditation you can see it happen, for me on a minor scale. I'm not up to the arrow in my leg yet haha.
Kia Ora,
"I am just a thought who thinks I am thinking I am just a thought !"
Metta Shoshin .
..
Yes @pegembara this is correct too. The issue is a paradox. But one with a solution. IMO.
(I am a bit unsure of the reference to sutta. Found it here http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf)
So for an Arahant (well-instructed disciple of the noble ones in Sallatha Sutta you quoted) the self illusion is dissolved and there is nothing belonging to it.
But for at least me I clearly feel I have a self and it would be deluding the self to assume a view that ‘I have no Self’.
I believe both these cases can be resolved with the hammer experiment. If one was stupid enough to try.
Peace and metta.
Victor
EDIT: I believe these six views can only exist in a person who is not an Arahant. And to varying degree depending on the progress on the path.
Pain is a good place/time to find the self. If there is a self most probably it will stand out/up when there is pain.
At least that is my experience.
I also see self when hungry people look at food and drink for instance.
As far as I am aware highly advanced practitioners can begin to lose the self or attachment to personal being. That is beyond my pay grade and experience.
Samadhi (intoxication in Sufism) is a precursor to greater stability, not somewhere to lose the plot.
I feel the distinction of 'No Self' being explored is far more relevant to us. :wave: .
In my experience it is possible to give up the self in many cases through applied practice without having reached the end of the Path. I think most of us have tried this?
But still "I" will not manage the hammertest "I" fear.
@Victorious I wouldn't do the hammer test unless someone paid me to do it, but I would do it... with a shrug, a yelp, a laugh and a lot of pain (so probably $100, but I wouldn't hit my hand so hard as to break bones). It's not really a great test for anything though. You have to define "self" for it to mean anything.
How the self arises (and what it is) is described in the dependent origination. It really is tricky but well worth the effort to try and understand the process and see for yourself how it arises in "you".
Delving into dependent origination is deep down dhamma.
I like to do adhittana sittings/sittings with determination.
The point is to resolve not to move for an hour long meditation. The sense of self rears it's head as you get an itch or pain in the leg.
The purpose is to stop your subconscious reactions of aversions as well as craving. It works really well, you realise you are the one creating the problem(ego)
The itch or pain in your leg won't kill you, you create your own suffering.
Still hard for me though.
Yepp and try just watching the urge to breath without relenting to it. How many seconds can you manage?
.
And for all Finnish people and descendants out there. When the world starts going black and field of vision narrows... it is time to start breathing again or you will pass out.
Seriously!
/Victor
Could you elaborate?
There is "unpleasantness" from the physical sense which tells the body what to avoid eg. excessive heat or cold, reflex withdrawal from hot objects.
The psychological unpleasantness is what we inpute into our experience (through clinging).
So dukkha is a purely mental experience?
In short, the **clinging **aggregates are dukkha. The 2nd NT.
How are feelings to be viewed?
Feelings(pleasant, painful and neutral) are to be viewed as just feelings that arise due to causes and conditions. Feelings remain as just feelings, as not I, mine or myself.
With metta
One scenario is taking "self" to mean ego (more or less), but who would argue that ego doesn't exist? The real problems begin when people create an idea of self that is permanent and independent; the kind of thing that they can see existing after death (because they're driven by fear and desire to escape death). At this point "self" and "soul" are parallel notions, if not the same notion in multiple guises... the result of mind/body dualism.
Even as ego, "the self" would be an abstract concept like "the car". I'd take it to be a co-dependent arising/process. It's really nothing special, but it is the result of conditioning and ignorance, is causally related to dukkha, and can be abandoned.
I think we have to get over the idea of a permanent/independent self, and work on dissolving the conditioned self (ego) through practice.
Kia Ora,
"I" thought I knew who I was, until that fateful day-
when a wise Lama kindly pointed out the error of my way.
He made me stop and think about my body, thoughts and mind-
I realised then that this concept of "I" was really hard to find
When I say "I" do "I" mean my mind, body or my thought ?
The deeper "I" delved into it, the more "I" became distraught
I could not find "I" in anything that I once thought was me
This entity "I" often thought of as "I" (or my self) was elusive as can be.
So am "I" just an illusion, like a distant rainbow to behold-
and when up close finding nothing, the trail just runs cold.
Thought itself could be the thinker-Oh why didn't "I" think of that
This could be why it's difficult to think where "I" might be at.
But I guess I should give up the ghost and just say to the Lama-
I can't seem to pin down who "I" am- I'm like the byproduct of past karma
Metta Shoshin .
..
Probably endlessly.
The wikipedia explanation is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas
But from there to come to my own understanding of the DO is a walk and not entirely uncontended.
I would suggest starting with normal breathing exercise and the understanding of dukkha, anatta and anicca and then working yourself backwards from there.
What do you wish to know more precisely?
/Victor
I was interested in your understanding of it. I was reading in a sutta recently how experiencing a feeling activates "I am".
Self is an Illusion which arises due to the Delusion of Self grasping Ignorance. We apprehend a truly existent Self, In reality when we look for the truly existent self it cannot be found to exist at all.
That sounds a bit tautological, Caz.
Sounds like gobbledygook to me.... But then, on my level, it would.