non self idea for others?

Seeker567

so my dad regularly asks me about Buddhism, and he basically understands everything except the non self. how could I explain this to him? (he's Christian if it makes a difference) (and sorry for all the topics)

Kunga

hehe I struggled with the exact same issue!

Here's a podcast called "Explaining your Practice to your Mother". I can't remember whether it specifically deals with the issue of non-self or not, but maybe it could help!

http://www.theidproject.org/media/podcast/explaining-your-practice-your-mother-david-nichtern

SherabDorje

Maybe you could "switch" to the idea as it is presented in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. A "self-image" is made up of a system of thoughts and beliefs, some of which are accurate, and some are not. Say for instance your Dad's name is Bob. When he was a child, was he Bobby? If he's not still Bobby, then who is he now? Is he "a husband", "a father", "a golfer", "an investment banker"...? And so forth. The point is, a self-image is a very fluid thing, and at different times of the day, week, month, year, or lifetime, various combinations of all those things go into making a "self-image". If there are beliefs he doesn't like about his self-image, for instance, then he can replace those beliefs with more adaptive beliefs, or ask for feedback from people so that he can adopt more realistic beliefs. Of course, I'm not saying he has to do all those things, but it's one way of getting across the whole idea of "self" and "self-image". It's a very fluid thing. And the idea is not that far away from the Buddhist idea.

In a conventional sense, of course, he's still him and you're still you, and we need things like ego and self-image to be able to function and interact with the world and with other people.

But in a non-conventional sense, a self-image is just a very fluid thing. That's what the whole idea of not-self means. Our image of ourselves can be too rigid, and that's when we run into trouble. So we "loosen up" our image of ourselves to be able to adapt to changing circumstances, especially ones that cause suffering. If your Dad's self-image is such that he says to himself "I would never be able to stand X", he may one day find himself in those very circumstances and find that he can indeed "stand X", and learn something new about "himself".

So it's not that we're not "selves" in a conventional sense, because we are. But when we use the Buddhist concept of "not-self" to create a relative state of psychological relaxation, then we diminish suffering. Which is what Buddhism is about.

Talisman

There is no inherent, abiding, permanent self. There is still conventional "self" as constitued by the formation of the aggregates. Difficult to explain to someone without context, though. I have the same issue with my father trying to explain rebirth without a transmigrating soul.

Jason

The basic idea behind the teachings on not-self (anatta) is that whatever is inconstant (anicca) is stressful (dukkha), and whatever is stressful is not-self, since whatever is inconstant and subject to change isn't fit to be called 'me' or 'mine.' To hold onto anything that's inconstant, subject to change, break-up and dissolution as self is a cause for mental stress and suffering; therefore, the teachings on not-self are designed to help one let go of what isn't self (i.e., the five aggregates) in order to be free from the suffering engendered by clinging to ephemeral phenomena.

fivebells

Point out to your Dad that there are people walking around with only half their brain, as result of trauma or other injury. So which half of the brain is really them?

This is not really not-self as it comes up in Buddhist practice, it's just an idea. To really get it, you have to experience it in practice.

Sabre

Dear Seeker,

So he's a Christian, that's cool. You can use that as an advantage. For example, say he is not separate from God, but is his child. He'll probably agree.

Just in the same way, we are not separate from anything, are no-self. Once we realize that, we can be united with 'God', which is life, which is all that is happening in and around us. The garden of Eden was on earth, so can still be found here if we look deeply.

That's what I would say.

Sadly my parent's aren't Christian

Metta,
Sabre

genkaku

As an intellectual (meaning, explanation, belief, etc.) and thus tentative matter:

The past cannot be grasped. It is gone.
The future cannot be known. Try it, you'll see what I mean.
And by the time anyone can claim to have a handle on the present, it has turned into the past.

Based on the intellectual observations above, it can be said that what we call the self is a phantasm. Buddhism does not teach that there is something called a non-self. As stated above, Buddhism teaches that there is no abiding self.

All of this is strictly intellectual banter -- an encouragement to see clearly. Of itself, this banter cannot assure clarity.

The actualization of what is casually discussed above generally requires some practice ... attention, determination, responsibility, courage, doubt, etc. Without this effort, the teaching of no-abiding-self remains a matter of belief. Belief relies on the past and cannot be grasped, and for that reason belief is unreliable in the sense that it can not assure an easy, unlimited peace.

For this reason, many Buddhists make a determined effort to realize and actualize what others merely discuss.

The payoff is laughter.

Daozen

Tell him to look at a photo of himself as a baby/child, then to look at himself in the mirror now.

That's not-self.

Vincenzi

focus on something like this: "there's no conclusive evidence for the existence of an eternaly unchanging self, and to hold such view usually leads to suffering".

Jason

Richard Gombrich sums it up nicely in What the Buddha Thought as, "Nothing in the world has an unchanging essence" or "There is nothing in our normal experience that never changes."It's more a doctrine of pragmatic empiricism than ontology.

Vincenzi

@Jason

indeed. the focus is on ending suffering.
holding views of nihilism, materialism and eternalism eventually lead to suffering.

anatta actually makes a lot of sense, and is the easiest position to hold with a "straight face".
people talk about unchanging essences (soul), creator gods, and "benevolent" gods in a world with so much suffering, hold this views with flaky evidence and arguments.

Malachy12

It sounds like your dad is concerned about the definition. He might be worried if you tell him "We have no sooouuuulss!" :rarr: Try saying what SherabDorje explained. Maybe try to explain what the "self" is composed of instead of jumping right to "and that stuff is all an illusion dad". Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

hermitwin

Why does god allow us to suffer?
Becos there is no God according to Buddha.

zenff

There’s more than one answer, obviously.
This is just my shot at it; not the shot of the pali-cannon.

I think I would connect to the fact that Christians have no picture of God. Or when they do, they are supposed to understand that the picture is fairly inaccurate.
In a sense there “is no God” because every description fails.

The sense of self we have is equally inaccurate.
Every picture we create is not the real thing. So there really “is no self”.

Always just don’t know.
That’s the truth.

Vincenzi

@hermitwin

there are some deities in (some schools of) Buddhism... but they are mortal and not workshiped.

@Malachy12

and Buddhism doesn't propose soullessness, you may want to check what anatta really means.

DhammaDhatu

so my dad regularly asks me about Buddhism, and he basically understands everything except the non self. how could I explain this to him? (he's Christian if it makes a difference) (and sorry for all the topics)

"Not-self" means it is not yours; you don't own it.

It is the same as when you tell a child: "Don't touch that thing, it does not belong to you!"

You can tell your father Buddhism teaches all things are creations of nature & merely "belong" to nature.

This the same as believing all things are creations of God & merely belong to God.

That we come from God, are sustained by God and return to God, is the meaning of not-self.

Best wishes

federica

This take is extraordinarily simplistic, and many may well buckshot-pepper it full of holes, but here goes:

Take a beautifully crafted wardrobe.
Examine it.
Discover that it's not one big carved chunk of wood, but actually composed of many different parts.
The mouldings, the panels, the doors, the shelves, the knobs, the drawers, the runners... every single piece is held on to it's neighbouring component, and interacts as part of the structure. *This* wouldn't work properly without *this*, and *that* would be useless without *that*.
The whole - works perfectly.

Now, piece by piece, take it all apart. Lay each bit down carefully, until you have the whole wardrobe, in separate pieces, neatly laid out before you.

Question:

is it still a wardrobe?

No.

Yes.

Well....No.

But Yes.

Now, one by one, take each carefully-crafted piece of wood, each skilfully carved component - and put them through an industrial shredder.

What are you left with?

Sawdust.

It's really no longer a wardrobe, is it?

But it was.....

Malachy12

@Vincenzi But that's still what Christians hear when it is not carefully explained.

Vincenzi

@Malachy12

that's what some buddhists think; that Buddhism is about soullessness.

Malachy12

@Vincenzi My catholic friend was utterly convinced that I had gotten into nihilism. I couldn't convince her otherwise. Explaining your beliefs to Christian loved one's is sometimes like stepping into muddy clay.

DhammaDhatu

@Seeker567

also, the purpose of the not-self teachings is the free human minds from suffering

example, if we believe all things are merely creations of nature or "God" then there will be no suffering when we lose things or at death

also, when we do good, there will be no boasting because our abilities simply come from nature or "God"

regards

pegembara

@ DD Love your quote:


All things are creations of God & merely belong to God.

We come from God, are sustained by God and return to God.

Nothing belongs to us. All things will return to God. When we truly accept that we will find peace and contentment.

Regards

fivebells

Richard Gombrich sums it up nicely in What the Buddha Thought as, "Nothing in the world has an unchanging essence" or "There is nothing in our normal experience that never changes."It's more a doctrine of pragmatic empiricism than ontology.

What the Buddha thought? What the Buddha THOUGHT??? That heretic SOB's gonna burn... :rarr:

Cinorjer

When discussing Buddhist concepts with a Christian, you have to understand their mindset and use their vocabulary. Throwing Buddhist jargon at them doesn't get you anywhere.

To a Christian, no-self when applied to a mortal life and death DOES mean no soul. To them, the soul is eternal, unchanging, and exists outside of the world of form and substance and your consciousness resides in your soul. It is not the same thing to them at all as our Atman concept, leave alone any Buddhist skandha teaching.

So no-self means no permanent, unchanging self. Just say it means people change. To a Buddhist, you're not the same person that you were as a child, or ten years ago, or a year ago, even. Just the act of being a living, breathing human being changes you day by day in tiny ways, until those tiny changes add up to someone different. That much they can understand.

fedaalis

Maybe you could "switch" to the idea as it is presented in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. A "self-image" is made up of a system of thoughts and beliefs, some of which are accurate, and some are not. Say for instance your Dad's name is Bob. When he was a child, was he Bobby? If he's not still Bobby, then who is he now? Is he "a husband", "a father", "a golfer", "an investment banker"...? And so forth. The point is, a self-image is a very fluid thing, and at different times of the day, week, month, year, or lifetime, various combinations of all those things go into making a "self-image". If there are beliefs he doesn't like about his self-image, for instance, then he can replace those beliefs with more adaptive beliefs, or ask for feedback from people so that he can adopt more realistic beliefs. Of course, I'm not saying he has to do all those things, but it's one way of getting across the whole idea of "self" and "self-image". It's a very fluid thing. And the idea is not that far away from the Buddhist idea.

In a conventional sense, of course, he's still him and you're still you, and we need things like ego and self-image to be able to function and interact with the world and with other people.

But in a non-conventional sense, a self-image is just a very fluid thing. That's what the whole idea of not-self means. Our image of ourselves can be too rigid, and that's when we run into trouble. So we "loosen up" our image of ourselves to be able to adapt to changing circumstances, especially ones that cause suffering. If your Dad's self-image is such that he says to himself "I would never be able to stand X", he may one day find himself in those very circumstances and find that he can indeed "stand X", and learn something new about "himself".

So it's not that we're not "selves" in a conventional sense, because we are. But when we use the Buddhist concept of "not-self" to create a relative state of psychological relaxation, then we diminish suffering. Which is what Buddhism is about.

That's one of the most helpful explanations of not-self I've ever read. Thank you very much:)

SherabDorje

You're welcome.

DairyLama

So no-self means no permanent, unchanging self. Just say it means people change. To a Buddhist, you're not the same person that you were as a child, or ten years ago, or a year ago, even. Just the act of being a living, breathing human being changes you day by day in tiny ways, until those tiny changes add up to someone different. That much they can understand.

This is a good way of explaining it. I've noticed that people get quite attached to the idea of having a fixed personality, maybe it makes them feel more secure, like it's something that can be relied on.

P