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.
True self
pauliwago
Explorer
Hi everyone,
I understand in Buddhism that there is non-self; there is no eternal, non-changing agent doing things behind the scenes. The "I" we use in the conventional sense doesn't ultimately exist. That being said, how about our true self? True self isn't something we can point to or really describe (it is NOT our ego). From my understanding, our true self is nirvana (it is what "experiences" nirvana..I'm trying to not be dualistic here but I don't know how else to word it).
True self is unchanging...its nature isn't influenced by anything (which means it doesn't influence anything either). How I picture it is like it being released from samsara (causes and conditions).
Is this correct? And I know consciousness is not the true self. But this very broad, subtle awareness is...? What Suzuki Roshi calls "Big Mind" in his book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind?
Thanks a bunch, I realize trying to conceptualize these things is near impossible (frankly, they sound conceptually to be nonsense). I hope they make sense to you!
I understand in Buddhism that there is non-self; there is no eternal, non-changing agent doing things behind the scenes. The "I" we use in the conventional sense doesn't ultimately exist. That being said, how about our true self? True self isn't something we can point to or really describe (it is NOT our ego). From my understanding, our true self is nirvana (it is what "experiences" nirvana..I'm trying to not be dualistic here but I don't know how else to word it).
True self is unchanging...its nature isn't influenced by anything (which means it doesn't influence anything either). How I picture it is like it being released from samsara (causes and conditions).
Is this correct? And I know consciousness is not the true self. But this very broad, subtle awareness is...? What Suzuki Roshi calls "Big Mind" in his book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind?
Thanks a bunch, I realize trying to conceptualize these things is near impossible (frankly, they sound conceptually to be nonsense). I hope they make sense to you!
0
Comments
Any form of self reveals some form of clinging no matter how subtle. This was the reason why the monks in the Mulapariyaya Sutta MN1 were displeased when they heard
"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
Just change True Self to Buddha Neture and there you go. Translation of terms in Buddhism is a tricky thing.
Kosho Uchiyama, in his book "Opening the hand of thought", explains those terms. Sometimes self and Self are distinguished by capital letter. It gives a whole new (or should I say correct?) meaning to the famous verse of Dogen:
To study Buddhism is to study the Self.
To study the Self is to forget the self.
Also, in Tibetan Buddhism, there is considerable debate between shentong/rangtong positions, which could shine some light on your question.
I am more and more convinced that the True Self spoken about in Advaita Vedanta is really the same thing (or rather no-thing) that Buddhism points to. Except it's spoken about in positive terms, rather than negative (emptiness).
This is part of a popular chant is some zen traditions called "Hakuin's Song of Zazen"
Hearing this truth, heart humble and grateful.
To praise and embrace it, to practice its Wisdom,
brings unending blessings. bring mountains of merit.
And if we turn inward and prove our True Nature, that
True Self is no-self, our own self is no-self, we go beyond ego and past clever words.
Then the gate to the oneness of cause-and-effect is thrown open.
Buddha nature is merely self, because self also contains Mara nature.
i expounded this view some time ago, and another member argued that we do not have Mara nature. however, when I asked why, I never received a reply.....
But we're not fully enlightened.
so we might well have Buddha 'nature' (characteristics, attributes, potentials) but we equally have Mara nature' (characteristics, attributes, potentials).
Explaning the unexplanable causes more confusion than is neccesary. As for the "True Self", you will know when you know.
buddha nature = emptiness = infinite potential
true self is the emptiness of self. not as a "thing" but rather the lack of "thing".
this is the freedom. since suffering isn't inherent and non suffering isn't inherent, all things are lacking of inherency.
even wisdom and even ignorance. no nature is what emptiness points to.
so true self is no essence or no self. but it is merely a positive way of teaching emptiness so that people don't freak out. skillful means! not a metaphysical essence.
Mara nature is impermanent which is how one becomes enlightened.
Buddha nature is outside of time: beginingless, no middle, and no end. It is out of time because the kind of time we are talking about is psychological (experience) time and with no self to reference to then there is no time.
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
-Heart Sutra
Here's something interesting regarding nagarjuna's work which is where the emptiness teachings in the Tibetan lineage certainly come from. I would speculate zen/chan as well, but I am not sure.
http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/NagarjunaGC.pdf
it is a teaching method pointing to reality as it is. in the form of positive language.
even the words buddha nature are themselves buddha nature. appearing out of no where and spontaneously disappearing. plop.
the buddha = emptiness of buddha = buddha nature
lacking of self nature, but dependent on causes/conditions/projection. (negation and then how they do they exist)
so true self is is the absence of "X". X = whatever the hell is projected from the mind haha.
Illustrating the unconditioned the heartwish is a direction. All of the things we try to fill it with: pizza
the shentongpas (other empty) feel the rangtongpas are attached to a negation. Whereas buddhanature is suchness.
actually everything is empty and the self/other duality is merely a teaching method to free the student from where they are grasping. it is easy to see the emptiness of phenomena but it is really hard to see the emptiness of self.
but when both are seen through then there is only emptiness and both self/other is a projection.
the conditioned is the unconditioned. appearing to the mind everything looks conditioned. but everything is unborn.
so buddha nature is both the unconditioned and conditioned from the mind. take out of the projection of mind and then we cannot say it is conditioned or unconditioned. but since there is mind, the mind can see both the conditioned and through seeing the conditioned the mind sees the unconditioned and vice versa. thus samsara and nirvana are literally the same thing. it is the mind that projects samsara or nirvana based on wisdom or ignorance.
btw if i am wrong please critique anything i have to say. i am still learning this stuff.
just adding this so people don't start making the mind into an independently existing thing.
can you point me into a direction or rather where is the incorrect interpretation?
In some sense you are correct, but there are differences between the paths. All of the paths are going to enlightenment, but it is wrong to say that they are the same. It would like saying tomato is the same as apple even though both are to keep alive.
@pauliwago If you're interested in Buddhist teachings about "True Self", you can contact New Jonang teachers on www.freesangha.com But it sounds like Zen has an interpretation of this, too, which is interesting. And I see we have several votes for Buddhanature as "true self". Take your pick.
Concerning what is called Mahamudra
All things are your own mind.
Seeing objects as external is a mistaken concept;
Like a dream, they are empty of concreteness.
This mind, as well, is a mere movement of attention
That has no self-nature, being merely a gust of wind.
Empty of identity, like space.
All things, like space, are equal.
When speaking of 'Mahamudra'
It is not an entity that can be shown.
There the mind's suchness
Is itself the state of Mahamudra.
It is neither something to be corrected nor transformed,
But when anyone sees and realizes its nature
All that appears and exists is Mahamudra,
The great all-encompassing Dharmakaya.
Naturally and without contriving, allowed simply to be,
This unimagined Dharmakaya,
Letting it be without seeking is the meditation training.
But to meditate while seeking is deluded mind.
Just as with space and a magical display,
While neither cultivating nor not cultivating
How can you be separate and not separate!
This is a yogi's understanding.
All good deeds and harmful actions
Dissolve by simply knowing this nature.
The emotions are the great wisdom.
Like a jungle fire, they are the yogi's helpers.
How can there be staying or going?
What meditation is there by fleeing to a hermitage?
Without understanding this, all possible means
Never bring more than temporary liberation.
When understanding this nature, what is there to bind you?
While being undistracted from its continuity,
There is neither a composed nor an uncomposed state
To be cultivated or corrected with a remedy.
It is not made out of anything
Experience self-liberated is dharmadhatu.
Thinking self-liberated is great wisdom,
Non-dual equality is dharmakaya.
Like the continuous flow of a great river,
Whatever you do is meaningful,
This is the eternal awakened state,
The great bliss, leaving no place for samsara.
All things are empty of their own identities.
This concept fixed on emptiness has dissolved in itself.
Free of concept, holding nothing in mind,
Is in itself the path of the Buddhas.
For the most fortunate ones,
I have made these concise words of heartfelt advice.
Through this, may every single sentient being
Be established in Mahamudra.
-This was given orally by the great pandita Naropa to Marpa at Pullahari.
(Translated by Erik Pema Kunsang.
Published in Songs of Naropa: Commentaries on Songs of Realization, by Thrangu Rinpoche (Rangjung Yeshe Publications, 1997).
What do you think about this?
but if emptiness is the same emptiness. it is the lack of "something'
so if we project a self then it is emptiness of self that is needed.
if we project a other then it is emptiness of other that is needed.
if we project emptiness then it is emptiness of emptiness that is needed.
and if we projection the emptiness of emptiness then it is emptiness of that which is needed.
whatever is projected must be seen through because of the strong karma that forces us to grasp to something when there isn't "a thing" to begin with.
From Rigdzin Shikpo's Never Turn Away:
"One of the greatest Indian Buddhist masters, certainly for Tibetans, was Guru Rinpoche, the "Lotus Born". He is thought of as being totally enlightened, in a primordial way. But even the greatest gurus must recieve teaching otherwise there is no path to follow. So, in order to demonstrate this truth, one of Guru Rinpoche's life stories tells how he went for instruction to the great teacher Shri Singha, the "Glorious Lion".
Shri Singha gave instruction on the nature of mind to Guru Rinpoche, who meditated and realized this teaching. Shri Singha then called his realization "beyond words and thought, beyond action, beyond anything that can be described." He then said to Guru Rinpoche: "You may be the greatest guru of them all, the very essence of buddhahood. But that will make no difference; you still won't be able to describe this to anyone else!" And it seems Lotus-Born agreed."
will do. but if you ever find the answer please tell.
don't think "I am going to be aware of whatever happens around me!" Just allow yourself to experience it simply. Without trying to protect yourself, or feeling the need for tricks or techniques, open out to whatever happens and experience directly a you can.
Trungpa taught that it doesn't matter if you don't know what to do when you open out like this. Don't worry about that. If you don't know what to do, let that be the case. Just open--immediately and simply--to your experience and allow it to carry you. His analogy was a cook: a good cook doesn't question whether or not he can cook; he just cooks. And that is how we should be. Just go ahead, without questioning whether or not you can do it. You may not be a perfect cook, but this seems to be really the only way to learn about our experience.."
Not sure why I post that but it is not off the topic of the thread ie true being!
just live life and relentlessly embrace everything.
thanks for the reminder!
Summary: The question 'what is mind?' can be answered on several levels, eventually taking us to the primordial ground.
Student: Please can you say a little more about what we understand by mind?
Lama Shenpen:
One could say that everything that we think we know is just a conceptual representation or interpretation of sense data and that would be one level of meaning to 'it is all just mind'. Another level of meaning might be that the sense data itself is of no other nature than the mind that knows it – so that mind now has the meaning of the stuff of the Universe, the base of everything out of which thoughts and knowledge arise like waves.
A yet deeper level of meaning might be that everything is mind means that it is none other than the Buddha nature itself – the clear light mind (prabhasvarachitta) that is beyond all determinations such as mind and its waves - its infinite, unborn, unceasing, unconditioned...
Taking this still further this Primordial Ground beyond any thought such as mind and not mind, gives rise to the whole manifest universe that arises as its display that is never anything other than itself.
At this level to say everything is mind is only a small part of the story - everything that manifests manifests from and to the mind perhaps but that is only an appearance. In essence everything is simply what it is and what it is is the totality itself – without limit – infinite, eternal and unchanging.
Student:
Would it be good just to keep coming back to the question "What is mind?" or "What is experience?" without expecting an answer?
Lama Shenpen:
It is good to keep coming back to such questions and noticing that there is something still eluding us. This helps to weaken our habitual conceptual patterns that think that we know what we don’t know and its this habit of thinking we know what we don’t know that obstructs our ability to open to true knowledge as indicated above. So simply questioning in the way you suggest is a practice in letting go of concepts and is sufficient in itself. As you say, there is no particular answer that is going to be right - but there is going to be a right way of asking it and a right way of noticing that habitual ways of thinking are wrong. Beyond that there is a right way of opening up to the implications of that and a right way of relating to what you discover. There is a right touch and a right way of being completely simple with it. You find that right touch in much the way you find your balance when walking or riding a bike. You find it yourself you could almost say you find it in and with your body.
Student:
If we find it with our bodies, then what happens when we die, or when this body we have now, dies?
Lama Shenpen:
Well, it seems to be this physical body because what we think of as our physical body corresponds to a deeper reality which one could say is what our body really is. When our understanding deepens that real body as one might call it, shifts and changes and from our ordinary point of view it feels as if we felt it in our ‘body’. The real body doesn’t die when what we call the physical body dies.
no thing to link. everything arises spontaneously. one thought has no relationship with another thought. just thought. plop. thought. plop.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
Aj Chah
To see our own mind clearly,
Without being caught up in its movement,
To watch thought without trying to do anything with or about it,
Simply seeing it and letting go of it,
This is the way to free from dukkha.
Luangpor Teean
The Buddha said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.