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.
Batchelor on Self/no-Self
Dakini
Veteran
[Mod Edit: Moved to Advanced Ideas section for general discussion.]
From pg. 104 of Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs":
"The denial of "self" challenges only the notion of a static self independent of body and mind--not the ordinary sense of ourself as a person distinct from everyone else. This notion of a static self is the primary obstruction to the realization of our unique potential as an individual being. By dissolving this fiction through a centered vision of the transiency, ambiguity, and contingency of experience, we are freed to create ourself anew. The notion of the world as an alien reality composed of stubborn, discrete things is likewise the primary obstruction to world-creation. In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise free to engage with the world afresh. "
This is the most lucid, and simple explanation of self and no-self I've ever come across. The conventional Buddhist explanations are difficult for me to understand and relate to. Here, it makes perfect sense, and seems very natural. I also notice that S.B. very handily deals with the question of "everyday ego" that we use to function in the world--a question that's been raised more than once on this forum. He says the concept of "no self" is NOT about the ordinary sense of ourselves as a person distinct from others.
Is this an accurate explanation of self and no-self?
He seems to imply that by freeing ourselves of the notion of a static, permanent self, we are freed to become co-creators of our reality and... of the world ("world-creation"). Is this what no-self is about?
From pg. 104 of Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs":
"The denial of "self" challenges only the notion of a static self independent of body and mind--not the ordinary sense of ourself as a person distinct from everyone else. This notion of a static self is the primary obstruction to the realization of our unique potential as an individual being. By dissolving this fiction through a centered vision of the transiency, ambiguity, and contingency of experience, we are freed to create ourself anew. The notion of the world as an alien reality composed of stubborn, discrete things is likewise the primary obstruction to world-creation. In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise free to engage with the world afresh. "
This is the most lucid, and simple explanation of self and no-self I've ever come across. The conventional Buddhist explanations are difficult for me to understand and relate to. Here, it makes perfect sense, and seems very natural. I also notice that S.B. very handily deals with the question of "everyday ego" that we use to function in the world--a question that's been raised more than once on this forum. He says the concept of "no self" is NOT about the ordinary sense of ourselves as a person distinct from others.
Is this an accurate explanation of self and no-self?
He seems to imply that by freeing ourselves of the notion of a static, permanent self, we are freed to become co-creators of our reality and... of the world ("world-creation"). Is this what no-self is about?
0
Comments
The enlightened mind is thoroughly familiar with "no-self" but manifests "self" as mere social interaction, like a "play thing". Also, Buddha actually taught "not-self" rather than "no-self". All things, including the mind's conventional/social self, are "not-self".
Regards
When we see no-self in all things, we realize everything is a part of us. We aren't separate from anything. With this goes our conditioning and thus freedom. From this freedom arises the potential to become a true individual, free from all external/internal conditioning. So realized beings such as jesus, buddha, lao tzu all have various different personas and achieved in a sense the highest archetypes of individuality. Freedom allows one to just be who they are meant to be rather than what they are forced to be. One does not cling to a permanent self, so one is free.
Since there is nothing within, you become everything. You are everything. The more free we are, the more and more we should look like individuals. But at the same time we embody/know the same truths. And that truth manifests through us to a certain audience. The root is the same, but the branches differ.
This is just my opinion though.
If I assert that I am everything, that means there is no individual here. Even to say I am everything is wrong in a way but it is a poetic expression of something that cannot be expressed.
I'm going to sit on it. lol. but thanks for the input.
What we are has always been a part of everything and always will be; that should be enough to comfort us. It denies us an independent/permanent ("self") existence, but since the stuff we are has always been around, we should be able to understand that that's okay. Nothing's changed about our situation as empty phenomena; nothing will. We just have to look to our lives now that are based on wanting happiness and sort out whether we want to suffer or not! Then we have to expand our view to other lifeforms (minds) and what we will become (future generations that come from our actions, our very bodies and plant/animal matter).
I think that's the most clearly I've ever explained it. If that doesn't make sense, then either I'm wrong or it will come to you some day.
Does no self have a need to create? Creation implies "bringing something into existence" which contradicts Clouds concept of "always been a part of everything and always will be"
I think if we realize creation as a moment moment awakening rather than initiating actions to conform to our desires.
Its almost like we need a new vocabulary for common words
The illusion of self is in assuming we have something unique and "mine". Our atoms were a part of stars, molecules a part of plants and animals, ideas from parents and other teachers etc etc. Saying or seeing "not-self" is recognizing this on a very visceral level, and could be noticed as an genuine abandonment of pride.
He's saying all the concept of no-self is, is the realization that we're not in a way, frozen in time. We embody constant change. This doesn't address the issue of ego-clinging that is usually part of the discussion of self vs. no-self, though.
This notion of a static self is the primary obstruction to the realization of our unique potential as an individual being
Is he really trying to say that we are just an eggshell of our real self? :hair:
How are we measuring this static self? So it doesn't matter what I do with my static self because there's nothing to gain from it? Am I understanding this correctly? :eek2:
Exactly what can we create anew? There is no self but we can create a new self? That's not logic. Sounds more like some kind of Hindu idea. The Buddha clearly said the five aggregates are all without a self. This means the following: You do not own your body or mind. Nothing in your body or mind is really you, including the will and the consciousness. We are just natural phenomena. So whatever we can recreate after realizing no-self is anything but a new self. But that's the beauty of it, there's no more need to worry or doubt about yourself. In a sense there never was.
Batchelor admitted he experienced no life changing insight and he also claims the Buddha didn't. Obviously from suttas and (indirect) claims by life long monks the latter is not true. So to be quite honest, they are maybe useful, but I would not trust Batchelors words on not-self too much because they are incomplete.
Stephen is simply saying when the mind realises "not-self", because it does not believe it is a real "self" and because it has nothing to cling to, the mind can act spontaneously & freely and manifest its "conventional self" however it chooses.
The mind becomes creative, like say The Dalai Lama and Ajahn Brahmavaso are very creative in their conventional/outer/social personas.
metta
that's how i view it. the buddha just doesn't attach to the narrative/interpretation of these things.
olives or no olives on pizza. doesn't matter ultimately. but hell i'd like olive please.
see where is this 'thing' called pizza now?
it is in your (my) mind but no where else
if 'it' is in your (my) mind then can there be an inherent existence for such pizza?
hmm..
calling it pizza and denying that it is any label is the same game. just don't attach to either then you win.
when you don't attach. you can call it pizza or you can just accept it for what it is. Both are valid truths. thus the complete blending of absolute/relative.
the buddha operates/functions from such stance of no stance. thus the buddha can have olives on his/her pizza.
language alone isn't what is causing our suffering. it is merely attaching to a view. if you attach to a view that is wrong view. if you assert that pizza is pizza and have the full realization that it is empty, then you live within that paradox.
but hey this is just my interpretation of no self/nirvana/emptiness.
I meant conventional world.
It may seem like a silly thing to have to make a distinction about, "we are everything" versus "we are part of everything", but it's more important than it appears at first. Bad seed.
In the sense that we direct our attention we are creators.In any given situation here are a myriad of possibilities that catch our senses and set off reactions . Meditation proves this to us and buddhist teaching direct us to choose the ones to amplify (compassion,tolerance, kindness )
We know how much we create our reality when for example a garden hose is mistaken for a snake and we feel fear.How many times a day do we act out of similiar assumptions which affect our emotions and relationships? In that sense meditation
itself a creative act in that it assists us to become aware of a" different reality" than the one we assume to know