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.
Okay... there are some caveats to posting on this.
This is for Buddhism 101 - nobody is going for their doctorate thesis on Pali, sanskrit or anything else like that. I find this thread going that way and I'm gonna have to kick some ass.
Self
Part of this was touched upon during our discussion of the Three Dharma Seals. The Three Dharma Seals deal with Impermanence, Non-Self (atman) and Nirvana. "Self" is discussed in regards to the "Three Marks".
We've already discussed Impermance and Nirvana (and Suffering) on various threads - and we've beaten the dead horse of "self" to death quite a bit. But I thought it needed to be addressed for us newbies in terms that it can be assimilated into our daily thinking and life.
What is self? Do the five aggregates come into play regarding self?
Your job for this exercise is to post, from Buddhas teachings, some examples of what and how he described "self". You can either post as an advocate for "non-self" or "self" depending on how you interpret Buddha's teachings.
Nothing over 1000 words - for those that are going to cut and paste us to death
Answers on Friday! You're going to have to do some digging because I'm wanting to know what YOU think - not what link you can direct us all to.
-bf
Well, given Federica's warnings, I must say I am a little confused as to what is allowed here and what isn't allowed. He did say our job was to "post, from Buddhas teachings, some examples of what and how he described "self"." But he also said he wanted to know what we think. I'm not going to go counting words one by one, I don't know how to use (if there is one) a browser word-counter, so sorry if this is too long.
I guess I'll take another stab at boiling it down into some of my own thoughts, expressed as simply as I can think of, maybe best to start from a total beginners (non-buddhist) point of view and then introducing the basic teachings of Buddhism as a thought process.
Who am I and what do I want for myself? I am me, and I want to be happy, I want well-being. Well, what's me and how can I achieve well-being? I assume that I am my body and my mind, and I'm not really clear on the difference between the two. So I guess I can achieve well-being by making the body and mind as comfortable as I can. But, there will always be things that inhibit my ability to make the body and mind so totally comfortable that my well-being is unshakeable. Even if I am rich, healthy, and can get whatever I want in life, I still have to put up with pain, disease, things in the world I don't like, and eventually the most horrible thing I can think of: death. In other words, my well-being in life is always mixed with its opposite; I can never achieve, as body and mind, total, pure well-being. I guess that's life.
The Buddha says "yes, that's life. That's the first Noble truth seen by the wise: the unavoidability of suffering for the existing being."
So, is there anything I can do about it?
The Buddha might say "you are getting ahead of the matter. You should have asked, 'why do I suffer'?"
So why do I suffer?
"you suffer," The Buddha says, "because through blind craving for existence, the body and mind has come to be, and what has come to be is subject to suffering; especially pain, disease, old age, and death. This happens over and over gain with new births, as craving for existence goes on and on."
So what you are saying is that I am screwed, I'm going to suffer no matter what, always.
"I am not saying that. Bear in mind that what has come to be can also cease. Suffering and the craving for existence that is its cause have come to be, and so they can also cease. This utter cessation of the causes for your suffering is the highest happiness and well-being, the utmost peace now to be known as Nibbana (nirvana)."
How could I stop suffering if what I am, my body and mind, is inevitably subject to suffering? Are you saying the only way to end suffering is to destroy myself?
"That's your mistake, your blind craving to be body and mind. You assume you are the body and mind and crave for happiness as body and mind, and thus you identify, clinging, to very suffering itself. Yet you aspire to total well-being, so you hope that suffering is inadequate to you. You should see what is impermanent and suffering as not adequate to you, as not yourself, because of this basic aspiration to well-being for yourself. Therefore, you should see that the body and mind are not yourself because they are all bound up with suffering and are inadequate to one who wants himself to be happy. Thus ridding yourself of what is inadequate to you, you are most completely self-adequate, you are well, you are peaceful, you have achieved Nibbana of your true self by casting away your false self, everything you formerly thought you were that caused you suffering through uncountable ages. That is total well-being for you, it is not a destruction of yourself."
I think I see that total well-being could be possible. But how?
"By endeavoring on the following path I have laid out, the Noble Eightfold Path..."
I'd like to think we could strive to approach these ideals too, though it is fairly clear it is difficult to have even a basic-level discussion on "self" in the Buddha's teaching without touching on issues with which the beginner may or may not be familiar (but what a great opportunity to expose them to these issues, and for them to ask pointedly for clarifications). Thanks for your thoughts, I agree.
in friendliness,
V.
My point with these "quizzes"(sp?) is to bring more of Buddha's teachings into our lives. There are a lot of people that I know who
1) Know of a dude named Buddha
2) He had some teachings.
3) People meditate and set themselves on fire because this guy.
4) He had Eight folds or something like that.
5) etc.
My point is to get people thinking about the teachings of Buddha. That they do some digging. That maybe we'll analyze ourselves in the process of learning the teachings of Buddha.
"Self" or "not-self" is one of those teachings. While Buddha may have left many of the questions directed towards him unanswered - a lot of his teaching dwelt on what is self - or the lack thereof.
This isn't meant to postulize one way or the other. Just to see how people view "self" or "non-self" in their own lives - and does that agree with Buddha's teachings.
I can stop these if people think that I'm raising too many irrelevant questions.
"That's your mistake, your blind craving to be body and mind. You assume you are the body and mind and crave for happiness as body and mind, and thus you identify, clinging, to very suffering itself. Yet you aspire to total well-being, so you hope that suffering is inadequate to you. You should see what is impermanent and suffering as not adequate to you, as not yourself, because of this basic aspiration to well-being for yourself. Therefore, you should see that the body and mind are not yourself because they are all bound up with suffering and are inadequate to one who wants himself to be happy. Thus ridding yourself of what is inadequate to you, you are most completely self-adequate, you are well, you are peaceful, you have achieved Nibbana of your true self by casting away your false self, everything you formerly thought you were that caused you suffering through uncountable ages. That is total well-being for you, it is not a destruction of yourself."
I think I see that total well-being could be possible. But how?
"By endeavoring on the following path I have laid out, the Noble Eightfold Path..."
So is the "true self" within our perception, or outside of perception and the mind? If it exists outside our perception, how can our mind gain knowledge of it, if the mind is limited to perception? Further, how does the Buddha's mind know of that which is beyond perception?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2006
Good question, Frangible....there are some things which, to the unenlightened Mind, remain a mystery.
I might almost be tempted to add the question you raise - !!
Self and Not-Self are difficult to understand, and to put into words...
I have posted a response in the 'The heart of the Buddha's teachings' Thread, here (Post 287....) This was the simplest way in which I managed to arrive at a conclusion....But I do not claim to be Right....
Good question, Frangible....there are some things which, to the unenlightened Mind, remain a mystery.
Thanks for the reply. I guess that settles the Buddha's position on Intelligent Design vs. evolution He doesn't seem to mention self / not self etc there, though.
I might almost be tempted to add the question you raise - !!
Self and Not-Self are difficult to understand, and to put into words...
I have posted a response in the 'The heart of the Buddha's teachings' Thread, here (Post 287....) This was the simplest way in which I managed to arrive at a conclusion....But I do not claim to be Right....
But it's the best I can do.....
It is interesting you should say it that way in the other thread. I have been reading lately about the quantum theories of the brain. Scientists have never understood where the brain stores memory, and the latest theories suggest neural cells use a structure called "microtubules" to create and access quantum strings in a quantum field -- which is how scientists are trying to develop quantum computers.
Anyway, quantum fields are quickly collapsed by gravity, so the brain has to quickly refresh the contents of the quantum field, which some scientists theorize is what the EEG frequencies represent.
The part that connects to your posts is how this maps to conciousness; in addition to memory it is also theorized that this may be where human conciousness rests, in this quantum field, as in a quantum reality objects can have multiple states simultaneously-- such as the well-known example of Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead at the same time. The normal atomic and molecular physics do not allow for this, and thus are entirely deterministic and prohibit free will.
As one medical journal article states: (OR = "objective reality" created when the quantum field collapses from gravity)
Sequences of OR events give rise to a "stream" of consciousness. Microtubule-associated proteins can "tune" the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or "orchestrated" ("Orch OR"). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signaling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own spacetime geometries. These geometries are also superposed, and in some way "separated," but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of spacetime geometries becomes significantly unstable and reduces to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the limits of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of spacetime geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying spacetime structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the difficult problems of consciousness.
So perhaps each of these states... such as Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead... within the quantum field might represent the "non-self", and the actual choice of state which is "non-computable" represents the influence of the "self".
Or maybe I'm horribly wrong and trying to integrate things that can't be integrated with a poor understanding of both, but it seems fun
So is the "true self" within our perception, or outside of perception and the mind? If it exists outside our perception, how can our mind gain knowledge of it, if the mind is limited to perception? Further, how does the Buddha's mind know of that which is beyond perception?
Frangible,
With your questions, we're starting to get into theoretical territory the terrain of which I find unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. We're also getting into the area where we have to start defining terms pretty carefully, studying discourses, and all the stuff I'm pretty sure will be considered 202 material and thus inappropriate to the 101 forum. So, I'm not going to answer your question, other than to say where I said "body and mind" I meant nothing other than the five aggregates or the body with bodily consciousness. It is questionable how "mind" or "citta" relates to all this, since it is the mind which is basically the functional actor in the eightfold path (the culmination of which is citta-vimutti or liberation of the mind).
I think the basic thrust, the approximate message I was trying to get across is that self could be defined as total well-being. As such you gain knowledge of self not by looking outside of yourself but by refining your awareness of what is not self, drawing nearer and nearer to the peace that is the only possible self-knowledge. It could be compared in simile, crudely, to a sick man seeking health. He does not find health objectively per se, does not know "health" in itself outside of sickness as something apart. But he knows that health is the state that is adequate to him, and sickness is foreign and inadequate to him though it afflict him internally. So, he knows health not directly, but knows it as the waning away of his illness. Does that make any sense?
With your questions, we're starting to get into theoretical territory the terrain of which I find unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. We're also getting into the area where we have to start defining terms pretty carefully, studying discourses, and all the stuff I'm pretty sure will be considered 202 material and thus inappropriate to the 101 forum. So, I'm not going to answer your question, other than to say where I said "body and mind" I meant nothing other than the five aggregates or the body with bodily consciousness. It is questionable how "mind" or "citta" relates to all this, since it is the mind which is basically the functional actor in the eightfold path (the culmination of which is citta-vimutti or liberation of the mind).
I think the basic thrust, the approximate message I was trying to get across is that self could be defined as total well-being. As such you gain knowledge of self not by looking outside of yourself but by refining your awareness of what is not self, drawing nearer and nearer to the peace that is the only possible self-knowledge. It could be compared in simile, crudely, to a sick man seeking health. He does not find health objectively per se, does not know "health" in itself outside of sickness as something apart. But he knows that health is the state that is adequate to him, and sickness is foreign and inadequate to him though it afflict him internally. So, he knows health not directly, but knows it as the waning away of his illness. Does that make any sense?
in friendliness,
V.
Interesting... so in that context the self is defined by the absence of external perception?
federica
from your previous post:
Sunyatta then comes along, and knocks me for six...
"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.... "
So are they one and the same? Are they different? are they different and the same? is it our friend Semantics and mis-translation getting in the way again?"
yes
there is another line to this.
form is(also) form,emptiness is(also) emptiness
(brackets mine.)
you would have to use the expression"same but different"
dependant and independant
Frangible
"Interesting... so in that context the self is defined by the absence of external perception?"
do you mean SELF ? the problem is that the self(ego,intellect) cannot define this SELF.
this is the purpose of koans in zen, its intention to show the limitations of intellect.
ironically,the koan is solved when "I" gives up.
theres nothing wrong with the intellect,its just not its function.
do you mean SELF ? the problem is that the self(ego,intellect) cannot define this SELF.
If it is undefinable and exists outside perception as I wondered in my first post, then how did the Buddha perceive and define it? Unless it is what Federica suggests and is that which is not external.
Hi Frangible
Buddha didnt define it.
i dont know how Buddha percieved it,but he suggests four noble truths,eightfold path for us.Buddhas only point the way.
using external/internal is intellect (dualistic mind)
"If it is undefinable and exists outside perception"
outside/inside perception doesnt apply here.however,look within,know thyself does.
It is ok to discuss such matters,however,it is like discussing a menu.
but menus dont fill hungry stomachs.
Well, given Federica's warnings, I must say I am a little confused as to what is allowed here and what isn't allowed. He did say our job was to "post, from Buddhas teachings, some examples of what and how he described "self"." But he also said he wanted to know what we think. I'm not going to go counting words one by one, I don't know how to use (if there is one) a browser word-counter, so sorry if this is too long.
in friendliness,
V.
Vaccha, I'm sorry, I have been a bit preoccupied with myself (my Self', geddit - ?!? Oh, never mind....! ) and have not had the opportunity to return to this thread... just to say that your post (#52 ) is lovely and clear and just the ticket..
Thank you....
Fede
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Comments
Well, given Federica's warnings, I must say I am a little confused as to what is allowed here and what isn't allowed. He did say our job was to "post, from Buddhas teachings, some examples of what and how he described "self"." But he also said he wanted to know what we think. I'm not going to go counting words one by one, I don't know how to use (if there is one) a browser word-counter, so sorry if this is too long.
I guess I'll take another stab at boiling it down into some of my own thoughts, expressed as simply as I can think of, maybe best to start from a total beginners (non-buddhist) point of view and then introducing the basic teachings of Buddhism as a thought process.
Who am I and what do I want for myself? I am me, and I want to be happy, I want well-being. Well, what's me and how can I achieve well-being? I assume that I am my body and my mind, and I'm not really clear on the difference between the two. So I guess I can achieve well-being by making the body and mind as comfortable as I can. But, there will always be things that inhibit my ability to make the body and mind so totally comfortable that my well-being is unshakeable. Even if I am rich, healthy, and can get whatever I want in life, I still have to put up with pain, disease, things in the world I don't like, and eventually the most horrible thing I can think of: death. In other words, my well-being in life is always mixed with its opposite; I can never achieve, as body and mind, total, pure well-being. I guess that's life.
The Buddha says "yes, that's life. That's the first Noble truth seen by the wise: the unavoidability of suffering for the existing being."
So, is there anything I can do about it?
The Buddha might say "you are getting ahead of the matter. You should have asked, 'why do I suffer'?"
So why do I suffer?
"you suffer," The Buddha says, "because through blind craving for existence, the body and mind has come to be, and what has come to be is subject to suffering; especially pain, disease, old age, and death. This happens over and over gain with new births, as craving for existence goes on and on."
So what you are saying is that I am screwed, I'm going to suffer no matter what, always.
"I am not saying that. Bear in mind that what has come to be can also cease. Suffering and the craving for existence that is its cause have come to be, and so they can also cease. This utter cessation of the causes for your suffering is the highest happiness and well-being, the utmost peace now to be known as Nibbana (nirvana)."
How could I stop suffering if what I am, my body and mind, is inevitably subject to suffering? Are you saying the only way to end suffering is to destroy myself?
"That's your mistake, your blind craving to be body and mind. You assume you are the body and mind and crave for happiness as body and mind, and thus you identify, clinging, to very suffering itself. Yet you aspire to total well-being, so you hope that suffering is inadequate to you. You should see what is impermanent and suffering as not adequate to you, as not yourself, because of this basic aspiration to well-being for yourself. Therefore, you should see that the body and mind are not yourself because they are all bound up with suffering and are inadequate to one who wants himself to be happy. Thus ridding yourself of what is inadequate to you, you are most completely self-adequate, you are well, you are peaceful, you have achieved Nibbana of your true self by casting away your false self, everything you formerly thought you were that caused you suffering through uncountable ages. That is total well-being for you, it is not a destruction of yourself."
I think I see that total well-being could be possible. But how?
"By endeavoring on the following path I have laid out, the Noble Eightfold Path..."
in friendliness,
V.
I'd like to think we could strive to approach these ideals too, though it is fairly clear it is difficult to have even a basic-level discussion on "self" in the Buddha's teaching without touching on issues with which the beginner may or may not be familiar (but what a great opportunity to expose them to these issues, and for them to ask pointedly for clarifications). Thanks for your thoughts, I agree.
in friendliness,
V.
My point with these "quizzes"(sp?) is to bring more of Buddha's teachings into our lives. There are a lot of people that I know who
1) Know of a dude named Buddha
2) He had some teachings.
3) People meditate and set themselves on fire because this guy.
4) He had Eight folds or something like that.
5) etc.
My point is to get people thinking about the teachings of Buddha. That they do some digging. That maybe we'll analyze ourselves in the process of learning the teachings of Buddha.
"Self" or "not-self" is one of those teachings. While Buddha may have left many of the questions directed towards him unanswered - a lot of his teaching dwelt on what is self - or the lack thereof.
This isn't meant to postulize one way or the other. Just to see how people view "self" or "non-self" in their own lives - and does that agree with Buddha's teachings.
I can stop these if people think that I'm raising too many irrelevant questions.
-bf
So is the "true self" within our perception, or outside of perception and the mind? If it exists outside our perception, how can our mind gain knowledge of it, if the mind is limited to perception? Further, how does the Buddha's mind know of that which is beyond perception?
I might almost be tempted to add the question you raise - !!
Self and Not-Self are difficult to understand, and to put into words...
I have posted a response in the 'The heart of the Buddha's teachings' Thread, here (Post 287....) This was the simplest way in which I managed to arrive at a conclusion....But I do not claim to be Right....
But it's the best I can do.....
Thanks for the reply. I guess that settles the Buddha's position on Intelligent Design vs. evolution
It is interesting you should say it that way in the other thread. I have been reading lately about the quantum theories of the brain. Scientists have never understood where the brain stores memory, and the latest theories suggest neural cells use a structure called "microtubules" to create and access quantum strings in a quantum field -- which is how scientists are trying to develop quantum computers.
Anyway, quantum fields are quickly collapsed by gravity, so the brain has to quickly refresh the contents of the quantum field, which some scientists theorize is what the EEG frequencies represent.
The part that connects to your posts is how this maps to conciousness; in addition to memory it is also theorized that this may be where human conciousness rests, in this quantum field, as in a quantum reality objects can have multiple states simultaneously-- such as the well-known example of Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead at the same time. The normal atomic and molecular physics do not allow for this, and thus are entirely deterministic and prohibit free will.
As one medical journal article states: (OR = "objective reality" created when the quantum field collapses from gravity)
Source
So perhaps each of these states... such as Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead... within the quantum field might represent the "non-self", and the actual choice of state which is "non-computable" represents the influence of the "self".
Or maybe I'm horribly wrong and trying to integrate things that can't be integrated with a poor understanding of both, but it seems fun
Frangible,
With your questions, we're starting to get into theoretical territory the terrain of which I find unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. We're also getting into the area where we have to start defining terms pretty carefully, studying discourses, and all the stuff I'm pretty sure will be considered 202 material and thus inappropriate to the 101 forum. So, I'm not going to answer your question, other than to say where I said "body and mind" I meant nothing other than the five aggregates or the body with bodily consciousness. It is questionable how "mind" or "citta" relates to all this, since it is the mind which is basically the functional actor in the eightfold path (the culmination of which is citta-vimutti or liberation of the mind).
I think the basic thrust, the approximate message I was trying to get across is that self could be defined as total well-being. As such you gain knowledge of self not by looking outside of yourself but by refining your awareness of what is not self, drawing nearer and nearer to the peace that is the only possible self-knowledge. It could be compared in simile, crudely, to a sick man seeking health. He does not find health objectively per se, does not know "health" in itself outside of sickness as something apart. But he knows that health is the state that is adequate to him, and sickness is foreign and inadequate to him though it afflict him internally. So, he knows health not directly, but knows it as the waning away of his illness. Does that make any sense?
in friendliness,
V.
Interesting... so in that context the self is defined by the absence of external perception?
from your previous post:
Sunyatta then comes along, and knocks me for six...
"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.... "
So are they one and the same? Are they different? are they different and the same? is it our friend Semantics and mis-translation getting in the way again?"
yes
there is another line to this.
form is(also) form,emptiness is(also) emptiness
(brackets mine.)
you would have to use the expression"same but different"
dependant and independant
Frangible
"Interesting... so in that context the self is defined by the absence of external perception?"
do you mean SELF ? the problem is that the self(ego,intellect) cannot define this SELF.
this is the purpose of koans in zen, its intention to show the limitations of intellect.
ironically,the koan is solved when "I" gives up.
theres nothing wrong with the intellect,its just not its function.
I could be wrong though
If it is undefinable and exists outside perception as I wondered in my first post, then how did the Buddha perceive and define it? Unless it is what Federica suggests and is that which is not external.
Buddha didnt define it.
i dont know how Buddha percieved it,but he suggests four noble truths,eightfold path for us.Buddhas only point the way.
using external/internal is intellect (dualistic mind)
"If it is undefinable and exists outside perception"
outside/inside perception doesnt apply here.however,look within,know thyself does.
It is ok to discuss such matters,however,it is like discussing a menu.
but menus dont fill hungry stomachs.
just my 2pence worth
Vaccha, I'm sorry, I have been a bit preoccupied with myself (my Self', geddit - ?!? Oh, never mind....!
Thank you....
Fede
Hello Daharmagirl!! Welcome!!
he has problems with joined up writing....
But he's a bright spark!!
Nice to have you with us!