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.
The Illusion of the "Self"
Hello
I'm a beginner in parcticing Buddhism, and one of the most difficult concepts for me to accept, intellectually, is the so called illusion of self.
Decartes showed that if there's one thing we can know with metaphysical certainty is that the "I" exist. You can investigate what's real and what's not in your mind, and while doing so doubt perhaps the existence of almost everything, but the fact that someone is conducting this investigation can't be denied. The fact that I have awerness can't be denied by myself. And how could there be subjectivity without a subject? And yet it seems that buddhism denies the existense of the subject (the "I", the "soul" as a driver of the human machine), while maintaing subjectevity (the mind), and that's literaly mind blowing for me.
It latley accored to me that perhaps buddism speaks of the "I" not as a subject, not as a "soul", but as an identity around the subject. My name, for instance is Danny, and in my mind and the minds of the people who know me, "Danny" has a certain meaning. It is like a portfolio that was created and labled when I was born, where all my deeds and accomplishments and failures and expectetions go, when in fact, this "Danny" doesn't really exist at any given moment other than as a temporary assambly of physical features that are attached to myself, to the sentient being that is labled "Danny" but infact isn't "Danny" and doesn't carry a portfolio of past things that don't exist anymore and expectations for a future that hadn't happened yet. That kind "I" or "self", as an Identity and not a subject, would seem easyer for me to doubt.
Well, what does Buddhism truly denies when it denies the existence of the "I"?
I'm a beginner in parcticing Buddhism, and one of the most difficult concepts for me to accept, intellectually, is the so called illusion of self.
Decartes showed that if there's one thing we can know with metaphysical certainty is that the "I" exist. You can investigate what's real and what's not in your mind, and while doing so doubt perhaps the existence of almost everything, but the fact that someone is conducting this investigation can't be denied. The fact that I have awerness can't be denied by myself. And how could there be subjectivity without a subject? And yet it seems that buddhism denies the existense of the subject (the "I", the "soul" as a driver of the human machine), while maintaing subjectevity (the mind), and that's literaly mind blowing for me.
It latley accored to me that perhaps buddism speaks of the "I" not as a subject, not as a "soul", but as an identity around the subject. My name, for instance is Danny, and in my mind and the minds of the people who know me, "Danny" has a certain meaning. It is like a portfolio that was created and labled when I was born, where all my deeds and accomplishments and failures and expectetions go, when in fact, this "Danny" doesn't really exist at any given moment other than as a temporary assambly of physical features that are attached to myself, to the sentient being that is labled "Danny" but infact isn't "Danny" and doesn't carry a portfolio of past things that don't exist anymore and expectations for a future that hadn't happened yet. That kind "I" or "self", as an Identity and not a subject, would seem easyer for me to doubt.
Well, what does Buddhism truly denies when it denies the existence of the "I"?
0
Comments
Thats is my awareness NOW it may not be my belief if only after I learned and move to higher awareness . Awareness is NOT STATIC and it change and should be moved closer to purity . My opinion / belief is changing after I move to higher awareness .
Form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness
These 5 processes are mutually dependent and give rise to the illusion of an abiding self. There is perception but no perceiver, there is the function to discern (consciusness) but no discern-er. There is feeling but no feeler. Do you understand?
stop ruining threads with your nonsense!!
I should correct my previuos post:
Form, Feeling, Perception, Formations, and Consciousness
It could be called volitional formations, or fabrications. "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about"
The beauty of this ability to self realize is that we don't need anything other than what we are given at birth (as far as I know). The buddha (re)discovered a path and taught others using the 4 noble truths and the noble eight-fold path. The answers are in the practice of the 4 noble truths and the noble eight-fold path. Since you are admittedly new to buddhism, I would suggest you study the 4 noble truths and the noble eight-fold path extensively. There are many free texts online to chose from and people on this forum are always willing to share their sources as well. Get as many different translations and commentaries on them. As you apply it to your life, try to focus on how it applies to you now, at the present moment. People get caught up in advanced topics before they have the basis to understand them. Would you learn calculus if you never learned arithmetics? The 4 noble truths and the eight-fold path appear to take on new meaning as you continue to practice them (as if the rules in calculus were in arithmetic, but you can't see that until you experience arithmetic). This is very analogous to what you may understand about meditation having various levels. The lesson on self will come when you are ready, in the mean time you might enjoy reading "Ego - The False Center" by Osho.
Enjoy it, it is a great experience to explore the frontier of the interior.
* - I use 'self' and other egocentric terms for ease of communicating; at all times, I always encourage right view.
You gave a great explanation and good guidance on starting with the fundamentals first. The concept of "not self" is very advanced indeed, and easy to get lost in if taken too literally.
And I don't think Buddhism necessarily denies the existence of the "I" as much as it points out that the 'I' as we see it is illusory and can serve as the cause to all our suffering if we get too attached to it.
Good luck on your path @Danny_Ben_Ishay.
Namaste'
Kwan Kev
We say the self is empty, an illusion, not that you don't exist. Of course you exist. You're sitting there, reading this post. To say you don't exist is nonsense.
Think about what illusion means. It means a false appearance. All Buddhism says is that the self appears to be some ghost-like, independent, unchanging and eternal thing that inhabits your body. That is illusion. Your self is dependent on the skandhas for existence, is in fact composed of those skandhas which ultimately are empty themselves, and is ever-changing in unnoticed ways.
The self as an independent, unchanging thing is illusion.
Take this quote...
"The idea of a self is merely a convention. In ultimate reality there isn't anybody, there is only earth, water, fire, air, elements which have combined temporarily. We call the body a person: mind, but ultimately there is no me, there is only anatta. (not self)" - Ajahn Chah.
what good is thinking about that I tell myself... haha self.
I'll just meditate.
May you find the truth.
In Buddha , we have to concentrate on our Buddha energy NOT "ourself" as ourself is pollutant in Buddha . If we keep on "entertaining" our pollutant , branding our pollutant specially for ourself , we are actually deter ourself from Buddha energy . We will have to undergo more and more purification process to finally in Buddha . We suppose to clean ourself not dirty it again and again .
Human used "knowledge" to learn thing, use knowledge to know thing , use knowledge to create thing and use knowledge to obtain more knowledge .
Knowning Buddha is IMPOSSIBLE solely based on knowledge but one have to sincerely free of all ego of knowning , ego of own capability , free of any "knowledge" and try searching ownself by not being ownself . Start knowing ownself without any introduction by others including our own .
Dont get me wrong , perhaps I could see my pollutant but I still "enjoy" alot of my pollutant ok.......I am still full of rubbish.
He is actually wasting his life / his purification process by defending "goshiki".... a name given by his father ...a "package" created by his pollutant......a "waste" enjoy by him......