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.
Difference between understanding self - atheism and buddhism
Jeffrey
Veteran
Ok in another thread somebody said the self WAS the skhandas whereas I believe the self is NOT the skhandas...
So if the self is a relative self, then how is this different from atheism. Strictly from the perspective of the view of what a self is betwixt the two. That is I realize the atheist may not follow the five precepts and so forth, but just strictly on the view of relative self and dependent origination.
Wouldn't an atheist also realize that there is change and Composition of parts. For example a chemist knows that matter is composed of smaller pieces. Most people know that their mood changes. And that they have different chapters of their life and never return exactly to the same spot.
So if the self is a relative self, then how is this different from atheism. Strictly from the perspective of the view of what a self is betwixt the two. That is I realize the atheist may not follow the five precepts and so forth, but just strictly on the view of relative self and dependent origination.
Wouldn't an atheist also realize that there is change and Composition of parts. For example a chemist knows that matter is composed of smaller pieces. Most people know that their mood changes. And that they have different chapters of their life and never return exactly to the same spot.
0
Comments
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
However is that the real "self"? I don't think so.
To me, the universe has feelings. Even if it is only our feelings as individuals. (That may be leaning slightly towards Bramanism, but without Shiva and Brahma, lol)
I'm not sure what we would call a universal consciousness in the process of self realisation but I have a funny feeling that is precisely what we are. That's why I called myself ourself, haha.
This is why I cannot rightly call myself an atheistic Buddhist.
Perhaps agnostic?
Always have to have room to grow, right?
--------------
Call me by my true names
Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope,
the rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing
on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes,
arrives in time to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily
in the clear water of a pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who,
approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant,
selling deadly weapons to Uganda.
I am the twelve year old girl,
refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean
after being raped by a sea pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable
of seeing and loving.
I am a member of the politburo,
with plenty of power in my hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his
"debt of blood" to my people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm
it makes flowers bloom in all walks of life.
My pain is like a river of tears, so full
it fills up the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and my laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.
Thich Nhat Hanh
-----------------------
That is the closest thing to God I can rightly believe in.
@taiyaki, what stood out to me was that (1) you could believe you were 5 skhandas and be depressed and miserable.
The difference is the liberation. Totally must be true.
But since the liberation isn't dependent the condition (1) of believing 5 skhandas that means that that view is not the onlly cause of liberation. Otherwise the miserable person would also be liberated.
I put the (1) to explain that the first miserable person believes in 5 skhandas but is not liberated.
Here We have a pilled collection of Flesh, blood, Bones. one their own we could not point at them and say this is myself this is me, Even together how could we point at this collection as being self when they are a collection of objects that have no self. Likewise with mental factors.
But No, because realization is not the same as knowledge.
It is when we internalize the teachings that the difference may become apparent. Because it is in meditation that we can know the body and mind as they really are, by being really silent when we look at them, not by tought. Than we can start to see "the self" is not inside and not outside the kandhas. It simply is nowhere, it doesn't exist. As we often find in the suttas "This is not mine, this is not who I am, this is not my self".
Even realizations that just touch the surface of this are on a quite different level compared to just having an idea about it. That's why the Buddha called it wisdom instead of knowledge. And as that inner wisdom progresses, labels like Buddhist and Atheist also don't mean so much anymore.
With metta,
Sabre
Eternalists believe that the "self" is indestructible and eternal and survives the death of the body.
The Buddha describes the 5 aggregates as dependently originated and thus impermanent, dukkha, and not-self. The 5 aggregates are the processes that give rise to the illusion of an abiding self. Can you define any other processes that give rise to the illusion of self that are not part of the 5 aggregates?
Sorry @Jeffrey not picking on you it just sounds funny out of context.
To answer your question and excuse me my ignorance but does not the atheists believe they have a self? Eternal or not?
Whereas Buddhism only points at the illusory nature of self?
/Victor
Buddhist (some) - aggregates = self
atheist - impermanent mind/body
same thing
@Gui, I was analyzing an atheist versus a buddhist who believes the self is aggregates. The topic is not existential buddhist. I am not talking about an existentialist. I am asking if some atheists believe in an impermanent mind/body complex which is the same thing as saying the aggregates are the self isn't it?
Buddhist = no self exists.
atheist = impermanent self
Atheists are quite capable of believing there is an essential spirit or atman or ghost inside us, whatever defines "you", that continues on after death. Since there's no God judging and assigning these spirits to a created reward or punishment, those atheists tend to believe in reincarnation of some form so the spirit has an eventual destination. There's just no God directing this. It's the universe itself, using some ill-defined natural laws. Also, it's very possible to believe in a creator God and believe he created people the same as animals, without an eternal soul.
Buddhists who talk about no-self, at least the way I do, are not trying to say people don't exist. That would be nonsense. Of course I exist. I'm sitting here typing this. And, all this back and forth between "I'm not this...then...am I this? No, that doesn't make sense. What am I, then?" is exactly what happens when you sit down to meditate on "What am I?" Every time you drill down into what your self actually is, you come up empty.
So if we're not the skandhas, fine, start from there. What are you, then?
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
It works for me.
@Andyrobyn;
That makes perfect sense too!
/Victor
More here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html