Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Self.
I know this is a fairly basic Buddhist idea, but today I was looking in the mirror and began to think about the idea of self. Are we just a bag of organs hung on a skeleton? With a brain that can think, and sensory organs that can allow our brain to create an image of the world around us. There really is no self is there. Are we just organic robots, doomed with the ability to think?
So all ideas of self, and me, and what I think, believe in etc. - are just thoughts and memories in my brain - an organic computer. Is this not a pointless, meaningless existence?
So all ideas of self, and me, and what I think, believe in etc. - are just thoughts and memories in my brain - an organic computer. Is this not a pointless, meaningless existence?
0
Comments
There is no inherent self.
Since everything is constantly changing. Your body. Your mind. Your body/mind. What is that one thing that doesn't change?
Awareness. Consciousness. The vast nothingness within.
Where do all thoughts, feelings, mental images come from and go to?
Back to the silence. Back to the vast nothingness.
You are that which observes all mental phenomena. It's not that you become it. You are it. Consciousness is.
But again even consciousness is empty.
If there is no self, then there cannot be the other. The other only exists in relation to the self. So the point is to work on yourself for the sake of others. Because since there is no self/other there is only you. Meaning there is only different manifestations of the same consciousness. They are just you in different meat suits, well that is what is perceived.
good luck!
i might be wrong though.
Was the Buddha's life as a bag of bones and organs meaningless? He faced the choice of remaining in a meditation state and experiencing bliss and insight, or going forth to bring the message of the Dharma to humanity. He chose the path of compassion, sharing the Dharma. Does that help?
Could you please clarify what you said, especially about compassion, that didn't quite make sense to me.
We are emptiness. We are infinite potential at our root/source. Meaning right now I can do really anything I want to do. I can go ride my bike. I can eat a pizza. I can go to sleep. All these "actions" are the expression of that potential. There is a saying that jesus spoke about. To be in the world but not of the world. In embodying that infinite potential or emptiness aka being arises form (the expression of emptiness). That form can be compassion. Compassion can arise from intention, but as buddhist we should work on spontaneous compassion as well. This spontaneous compassion arises from being here right now. It has no conditions because it is from non-intention. This compassion looks for no outcomes nor does it want anything. It is perfectly content, yet functions. It can seem pretty weird as well when looked at from our side. For instance a zen monk can start screaming and hitting you. This will cause a shock and that shock can potentially create a gap in which awakening can occur. The most compassionate act in that moment was the monk to realize that his/her student was ripe for awakening and BAM the zen monk expresses his infinite potential.
That's a crude example, but it hits the point. True compassion arises from emptiness.
If you want to describe your brain as a computer you can. I honestly wish I was as smart as a computer, I could be a SUPER ENGINEER and make lots of cool, innovative products for people to enjoy. However, I'm not and I'm limited to my intellect and can only increase my knowledge and abilities through some work.
Your idea of life as being a meaningless and pointless existence is entirely up to you. For me, I really don't need a 'point' or a 'meaning' to live. I find life to be much more fun and free if I live it intelligently and see it for what it is instead of creating an imaginary meaning for myself.
The majority of people think that who they are is a combination of this body, thoughts, emotions. Which makes sense. However, I can have control over what I want to have control over.
If I want to eat, I can go eat.
If I want to poop, I can go poop.
If I don't think a thought is important I can ignore it.
Think about this intelligently bro, being cynical isn't exactly scientific. It's just dumb and makes your life harder than it has to be. Trust me, I've been there.
As far as the brain being a computer I think that analogy is off the mark and may be why you're thinking the way you are. A computer is a just a powerful adding machine, it takes concepts and just piles them one on top of the other. Some computers now days are so powerful that they can mimic the behavior of the human brain but what is actually going on is quite different. The brain sees things in terms of wholes and parts and is "built" for pattern recognition. It instantly sees context whereas you have to build up every detail of context with a computer.
Take the Jeapordy computer Watson for example, if I were to tell it to "pass the football" it would have a hard time understanding what that means. First of all what does the word pass mean, the fact that football comes right after has no meaning to a computer it doesn't recognize context. Do I mean get a passing grade? Do I mean pass like when driving? Or take football, Watson doesn't know if we're in America or somewhere in the rest of the world so it has no idea what kind of football we're talking about. Something that your brain instantly knows based on the context of who's asking the question and in what country.
I may have just went off on a wild tangent but I think if you view our minds like a computer its easy to get a little too deterministic about our ablility to control our fates. We always have the ability to choose.
When you want to get down to it and I hate telling people this. You don't know what the buddha said. It is your faith in the scriptures, which you believe the buddha said. Who knows what the buddha really said.
Okay that is out there. Now most of buddhism deals with this notion of no self. I'd have to say that without "no self" there really is no Buddhism. I mean that is the main concept that separates Buddhism from Hinduism. Hinduism asserts an eternal soul or Atman, which is permanent and never changing. Buddhism asserts that even this atman has no self.
The buddha according to the scriptures did not teach one consciousness. This is a new age term. It is pointing to the interconnectedness of reality. It is an existential claim. I am that which is aware of the various mental phenomena. And it is not that I am aware. I don't own awareness, nor do I identify with awareness. Awareness/consciousness IS. So conventionally I can say that I am awareness. But again one has to existentially realize this and have the shift from ego to no ego.
The ego only exists because we grasp at a permanent, separate entity. If we look inside we realize that there is nothing there to grasp. Logically we can just prove that we cannot be the ego. Our personalities change, thus we are aware of this change. It is more accurate to say that we are that which is aware and allows all of these mental formations to occur.
But even as consciousness, one must realize that consciousness is empty as well. Consciousness is grasped by Hinduism as the atman, but one must realize that consciousness cannot be grasped as a separate entity.
Meh. Time to drink some tea.
How do you separate Buddhism from the teachings?
you can grasp all you want to your physical body and construct a self. at the end of the day you die and your body changes.
it's not that there is no personality structure or a meat suit. there is. the buddha asserted that all things were empty. all things lack a permanent, inherent existence.
no self is a main teaching of buddhism. along with impermanence and dissatisfaction.
what is true buddhism is the truth of reality. it is the truth that anyone can access. it is a timeless truth and a truth that is reality as it is. not some kind of philosophical assertion, but an existential one.
i can sit here right now and examine whether or not the concepts given by the sutras are true or not. if they aren't true right now then they can be thrown out. for example i know that i am not my body, because i am aware of this body. there is an itch and i can watch that itch. it's more logical to say that i am that which watches the body.
the same can be done for thought, feelings, beliefs. they all come and go. they are all impermanent. nothing lasts. i can see that right now. i can see that my thoughts come and go. my feelings come and go. my beliefs change.
i can also see that all things lead to dissatisfaction. what we truly desire is the freedom from all desires aka contentment. i can see that contentment is a product of appreciating what is right now. not chasing for some future desire or some ice cream cone in the sky. what i truly want is contentment, which can only be found right now. i can examine that right now and i can also look at previous experiences. for instance in the past i would desire things that i eventually got. then once i got them i was happy for a little bit. that passed and then i moved onto another desire.
basically that is samsara. make believing that something that i desire will bring full fulfillment. when the reality is that i have a shit ton of evidence that says other wise.
on the note about self. there is no graspable self. even if we make believe that there is. you are grasping at air. where is this self? i cannot find it. i don't think anyone can find it. the idea is that people make believe that there is a self through ignorance. they believe that they are the body, mind, or a combination of both. essentially it is the grasping which causes the self to exist. don't grasp and where is it? the self is just a bunch of thoughts, feelings and beliefs which we grasp onto as an identity. Thus creating the other. Thus duality. Thus this whole samsara process.
don't think. just be aware and you are already complete/perfect.
The point is, nothing we can point to is permanent. Nothing we can point to came into existence of its own accord, or is unsupported by other things/conditions. Life is fleeting, phenomena in flux constantly being rearranged by conditionality and cause/effect. No sooner do we label something, either of natural composition or constructed by human society, than it changes. There is nothing to grasp, and no independently existing being to do the grasping.
When we understand the impermanent nature of all things, we naturally see that no "thing" can be "self", and vice versa. Knowing both impermanence and not-self, "emptiness" if you will, we know that any grasping must lead to suffering. Attachments will be broken, pain will follow.
http://www.cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html
but on the same note you realize the emptiness of it. i get what you're getting at buckyg.
to deny ego can cause problems. for it isn't the ego that causes problems but the grasping/attachment to ego.
but once one realizes their true nature as consciousness, one can truly become an individual. for instance the buddha was truly an individual. jesus christ was truly an individual as well. emptiness manifests by form. form can be an ego as well. form is the expression of the emptiness, which is potential. that expression is unique, but it lacks any inherent existence.
we can say that there is no self, but we can also say there is. labels
How can you grasp anything without a self? How can YOU have so many OPINIONS about "no self" without a self?
2. you're right no one knows what the buddha asserted. it is my opinion/interpretation of what people claim the buddha said.
3. the buddha awakened to reality as it is. the truth was already here. the buddha didn't make some truth up, he just told us all how it all was when one saw clearly. i never asserted that one doesn't need teachings. the maps help us and point us to truth. it's very helpful.
the self doesn't grasp. there is no agent that grasps. there is just grasping and then believing that there is some entity which grasps. an action doesn't assert that there is a subject doing it. only in language is this the case.
there is only the verb.
B@ease
BG
Also from what I have read the Buddha neither denied or affirmed the Self. And from what I have read also, yes we are different to what Hinduism teaches. My teacher teaches a True Self but he is just being too kind perhaps. Still, methinks (from intuition) maybe you are missing DO?
Enjoy your posts. Best wishes,
Abu
that's why trying to capture truth is in a way meaningless, other than trying to convey it. but even trying to convey it will lead in utter failure. so failure from the start. you have to taste the cake to know what the cake tastes like.
true nature or large Self is just another part of the path. first we identify with ego, then with awareness. then that is even dropped as well. we come to nothing and everything. we come to potential and expression. these are just concepts but they point to various stages on the path to enlightenment.
oh its fun exploring these concepts as a human. hehe.
Take care,
Abu
_____________________________________
Maybe so, but if you stop trying to assert that things are "meaningful" or "meaningless," maybe there's room for laughter.
Man I'm gonna get owned now.....