Psychological Self vs. No-Self

Yishai

An interesting read, for sure. It also gives clarity to some murkier ideas I've come across.
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/05/psychological-self-vs-no-self/

For me, it helps to reconcile the difference between the solid self and changing self.
Thoughts?

Theswingisyellow

Yishai,
Thank you for the article. I think that in order to walk a path, one that in all seroiousness may strip you bare, pull the conceptional rug right out from under you,and leave you treading on a groundless ground, one must have a secure sense of self. This is not a self that is cherishing, whose belief that everything exists for it and that revolves around it. It is a self that is held lightly and knows its proper relation to the world, as a mirror, not-self. The psychological self plays its part here in that there is esteem, lack of self hate, and compassion for self. Indeed metta-bhaavanaa is the fusion of compassion and love for self and compassion and love of others. I think practicing Buddhist already join the two concepts. Good article. I love this part:
"Over time this sense of solid “me” becomes the most salient feature of all of our experience and our greatest source of anxiety. The fact that we see this constantly changing process as a solid “me” creates endless problems for us because it sets up a never-ending fight between us and reality (and reality never loses)".
I am bewildered that psychology does not consider this to be a problem and acts as if this self is real and as tangible as this desk (which isn't real or tangible either) I think psycholgy, on this score, misses an important mark.
My best to you,
Todd

SpinyNorman2

I am bewildered that psychology does not consider this to be a problem and acts as if this self is real and as tangible as this desk (which isn't real or tangible either) I think psycholgy, on this score, misses an important mark.

But psychology is concerned with building a "healthy" sense of self.

Spiny

BuckyG

I am bewildered that psychology does not consider this to be a problem and acts as if this self is real and as tangible as this desk (which isn't real or tangible either) I think psycholgy, on this score, misses an important mark.

But psychology is concerned with building a "healthy" sense of self.

Spiny

and you and the desk are real, tangible and solid :buck:

BuckyG

Self & Not-Self Series Ajaan Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu): http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/11021/

Anatta: Selves and Not-Selves, Aj. Geoff: http://www.audiodharma.org/series/16/talk/1855/

Q&A: SELF & self, Amma Thanasanti Bhikkhuni, http://awakeningtruth.org/teachings/talks (Contact and the Aggregates; Albuquerque, Day 1 [March 5th, 2011])

Hang On To Your Ego, Aj.Geoff: http://www.tricycle.com/dharma_talk/3822-1.html?page=0,2&offer=dharma

No-self or Not-self?: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

Not Self: Taking a Fresh Look, Aj. Geoff: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/5980/

Self & Not-Self Series: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/11021/

Yishai

I am bewildered that psychology does not consider this to be a problem and acts as if this self is real and as tangible as this desk (which isn't real or tangible either) I think psycholgy, on this score, misses an important mark.

But psychology is concerned with building a "healthy" sense of self.

Spiny

The solid "self", the one we feel is unchanging. The unwavering identity... that is never healthy. It sets us up for disappointment.

Yishai

Self & Not-Self Series Ajaan Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu): http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/11021/

Anatta: Selves and Not-Selves, Aj. Geoff: http://www.audiodharma.org/series/16/talk/1855/

Q&A: SELF & self, Amma Thanasanti Bhikkhuni, http://awakeningtruth.org/teachings/talks (Contact and the Aggregates; Albuquerque, Day 1 [March 5th, 2011])

Hang On To Your Ego, Aj.Geoff: http://www.tricycle.com/dharma_talk/3822-1.html?page=0,2&offer=dharma

No-self or Not-self?: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

Not Self: Taking a Fresh Look, Aj. Geoff: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/5980/

Self & Not-Self Series: http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/179/talk/11021/

Thanks for the wealth of links. I'll have to bookmark these.

santhisouk

Thank you Yishai and Bucky for the articles. It's no doubt the idea of no-self is intriguing. I've come to a conclusion that the best way to look at it is: attachment to self causes rebirth, and detachment from the self or waking up from the self brings forth liberation. I am open to discussion.

May all beings experience metta

Theswingisyellow

For me not self is realizing all the the things we hold on to as us, our jobs, relationships, thoughts, our body and our feelings are simply not self, not mine. They never were and really how can they be?

santhisouk

Its the clinging that makes us think its ours. Things we hold dear to ourselves we claim it as ours, yet things that are subjective to impermanence can never really belong to anyone.

SeaOfTranquility

Another way to look at no-self -

The things in life that I think of as mine are not mine. What is important cannot be taken away from me and does not belong to me.

My possessions. Temporary at best.
My relationships. Well everyone I care about is going to die.
My knowledge and memories. I am going to die too.

Impermanence is the nature of everything that exists.

So then what is important and real.

It is something that cannot be grasped. There is nothing to attach to. It is the simply the present moment. How I experience this and how I choose to interact and react are what is important and real. This is where meditation practice comes in.

Best Wishes

Theswingisyellow

Well said Sea.