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.
Character traits and the anatta doctrine
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
In another thread there was a discussion of Myers Briggs type tests, and how people often get consistent results, suggesting clear personality traits which persist over time. But then I am wondering how this relates to the anatta doctrine? It seems we do have these character traits which persist over time, these could be said to form our "personality". But do we then regard these personality traits as "not-self", and how easy is that to do in practice?
Clearly we tend to identify with these traits, which must therefore be a strong component of self-view......what do you think?
0
Comments
My few thoughts on above topic are below:
I guess these personality traits is what is called Samskaras in Sanskrit or latent tendencies, which are usually hidden, but have the potential to ripe in mind, when the conditions are ripe, leading to arousing of defilements within us.
I guess till the extinction from the cycle of Samsara does not happen, till then there will be a 'you', though on an abstract level and an account associated with it containing the various Samskaras with different levels, having potential to be increased or decreased by the supporting or eradicating conditions rising externally and also a karmic account which keeps the storehouse of our good and bad actions and their results.
We can regard these Samskaras as not-self through our thinking, but that would not help much, like just thinking that our body is not ours does not make any fundamental difference to our attitude towards this fact. When these personality traits would be realized as not-self in our hearts or deep inside us, may be that might happen when the 'us' inside us finally gets eradicated, then after that we will know that these personality traits like our body is not ours, but then there will also be no 'us' in us to know that thing. But till that happens, till 'us' inside us remains, these personality traits form a major part of who we are.
Yes, it seems the absence of ownership of these traits is important, not identifying with them as me or mine - but that's much easier said than done! I wonder if the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth is useful here?
Good question.
As someone who aspires to less personality than a cushion, I am however very well aware of my character/persona/karmic traits etc.
It is perfectly true that 'The Buddha Nature' has no characteristics BUT can and does manifest through the dharmakaya.
Initially therefore we have to align with our own higher ideals:
(oh I can never remember the 8 folding path origami but it is contained in there . . .)
So I would differentiate between Self, selflessness and limited self life.
In the 'not self' there is a vajra jewel flashing facets of wisdom and compassion. Depends not on light but the extent of the darkness . . .
Own the dark, shine the light.
maybe Sith Academy is open for the Jedi trained?
We emerge in this lifetime with a given set of physical and mental skandhas.
Through the development of insight or lack thereof, we tend to indulge in certain skillful or unskillful behaviours, which get reinforced over time through the repetition again and again of that same behaviour.
I don't see the relationship between the persistance of character traits to prove the existence of a self.
Rather, it proves that clinging to a notion of self can be due to an apparent consistency in our behavioural patterns.
Any given day, you could have a leap of wisdom that makes you view life otherwise, and completely reset the way you view and react in the world.
@DhammaDragon said: Rather, it proves that clinging to a notion of self can be due to an apparent consistency in our behavioural patterns.
I'm not sure what you mean by "apparent" here. Do you mean we don't really have character traits which persist over time?
Or do you mean that we think of ourselves as having a certain set of personality traits and then cling to these, perpetuating them because they give us a sense of security?
We think of ourselves as having certain personality traits when in fact there is a perpetuation of patterns of behaviour, through repetition when the same triggering situation presents itself.
Not quite because they give us a sense of security.
What they do, is give us a false impression of permanence.
Our bodies persist over time to some extent. Does that disprove anatta? I would have to say that the personality isn't a monolith just you keep within the personality but it doesn't mean it is a monolith. If you have asthma you have it all your life. If you have a stroke your personality type might change. I scored in T thinking before being schizoaffective but that changed to very strongly F feeling. I used to be strongly P perceptive but now I am marginal between J judgmental.
So I think first off the Myer Briggs do change for many people. Secondly many physical things change over time. Finally in the end it's all just mental labels though there is something really there a universe that we act in that we feel whomever that may be and whatever qualities there is appearance emptiness.
I thought a character trait was a perpetuation of patterns of behaviour? Like a habitual way of responding. Or is that just a Buddhist way of thinking about it?
Interesting. Just to be clear I wasn't attempting to argue that character traits disprove anatta, my question was really about how we think about these traits in view of the anatta doctrine. It seems to be that these traits form the basis for self-view.
When you say "Character trait," it sounds more permanent than simply saying "perpetuation of patterns of behaviour."
The former hardens the notion of a self. The latter is more flexible, less ego-perpetuating, and opens up to the possibility of a change.
Yes, I see what you mean. I think a lot of people do think of character traits in that permanent way, they think of personality as being basically fixed ( that's what I meant by giving a sense of security ). I suppose Buddhist practice challenges that notion.
My personal take is, if you describe your habitual behaviour and responses to situations as "character traits," not only are you clinging to a false notion of a permanent self, you are immobilizing yourself (that is, the convention you consider as "yourself") under a given label.
If you dettach any idea of self-reference from the way you act and react in the world, it's much easier to consider the idea of changing, ideally evolving or improving yourself.
Yes, I agree. What I notice is that people like to put other people into boxes in these terms, I think there is a sense of security in thinking you know what somebody's personality is like, it makes them seem more predictable. And people can get quite upset when that person then acts "out of character"!
Something somebody said up there on this thread, made me think of astrology and what the Buddha's views were on that because I didn't recall anything specific in my favorite book (OPWC) about it, so I googled and found a thread here at NB with a discussion, and you can see the same sort of mind set here and there, and how we put ourselves in a position to believe our traits are died in the wool, but I don't think it's dangerous per se, especially if we're lucky enough to live as long as I have. ;-)
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/17172/is-there-a-place-for-astrology-in-buddhism
Yes, people tend to feel secure when they think they have figured someone out, and also feel secure when they do personality tests and feel they have figured themselves out.
Like you said above, Buddhism sort of pulls out the rug from under that false sense of security.
To be absolutely, completely honest, I really truly believe I have never, to date, ever managed to figure anyone, I've known, out. Even members of my own family are a constant surprise to me....
And sometimes, when people think they know me, I know for a fact, they damn well don't....
It's not that dangerous, but believing our traits are died in the wool can be harmful when this belief stifles your growth, or if you think you cannot be different from the way you are now because you were "born" a certain way and are therefore prone to die that way.
"Character traits and the anatta doctrine"
"Clearly we tend to identify with these traits, which must therefore be a strong component of self-view......what do you think?"
From what "I" gather.....We are but bundles of fluctuating karmic habit patterns and to develop awareness of this psycho-physical phenomenon(through meditation-familiarising one 'self') can help to direct this continuous flow towards a more wholesome directional pattern...
An oldie but a goodie
I always thought it funny when my mom or someone else would say "Why would you do/say that? That's not YOU!" Well, who is it then? Because I'm the same person I was (generally speaking) 5 minutes ago and clearly I did do/say that!
I think people, even those who insist they are good with change, like to use supposedly unchanging characteristics about themselves to dig their heels in. People use "getting to know themselves" as a way to attempt to force other people into acting or reacting a particular way that goes in their favor. "Well, I'm sorry, but I'm an introvert and I'm not going to go to your stupid, huge family dinner!" Being an introvert doesn't excuse you from behaving yourself. It just means "oh, hm, I noticed this about myself so what do I need to do to take care of myself now that I realize that?" but most people use it as an excuse to behave badly and either try to force others to accept their bad behavior, or to force others to change their behavior. For example, instead of accepting responsibility for one's introverted-ness, they refuse to go to family events and blame it on their introversion, or, expect the event host to change things to suit that person's introvertion. I use introversion as an example because we have talked about it a lot lately, and because I realized not long ago that that is exactly how I behaved. I made one of my traits everyone else's problem.
Exactly...but I didn't mean 'dangerous' except within the context of this thread's discussion - to be clear.
Yes, I've noticed that. A trivial example I've heard quite a lot is people saying they're no good at maths, and actually sounding proud about it.
Well here's tonight's news: I have a lot of difficulty with anything other than the basic maths, and it bugs me to high heaven.
When people have health disasters I have observed loved ones say 'they are not themselves'. For me this happened to me when I was mentally ill. From my side of things how could I be anyone other than myself? But what they were saying also had truth from their side. Same happened with a friend who was proud and self-reliant and then had a horrible stroke that left her immobile and in severe pain. Same for a family friend with Alzheimers disease. I think that the connection with that person becomes non-manifest but that person's being or Buddha nature is still there even if it has experience loss (versus gain).
@karasti depends what you mean. I am an introvert and have no desire to go to my high school reunion. I am however not obligated to go. If I go to a wedding and have a panic attack I am not wrong for leaving in the middle even if it is awkward. Or even not go to the wedding if I am having a trigger for PTSD thinking about it. All in all a person's presence is a gift and as it is a gift it should not be taken for granted.
Actually, the Myers Briggs test has been thoroughly debunked for some time now.
Here's a good article that explains more.
This is the way it seems to me at the moment.
The personality traits that you we are born with or accrue in life are equal to everything else in their emptiness. And like everything else, we buy into them as inherently real, until the realization of emptiness is complete and consistent. I'm not sure if I have ever met someone like that, but I believe it can be achieved. Likely not by me.
In the meantime, surely we must claim these traits as our own if we ever expect to purify them, so that realization can occur. Living in the world with a goal of attainment means working with our experience including the weird stuff.
It might not help to short circuit the process by viewing the personality as not self, before ensuring that it can be cut loose and trusted not cause to more problems
-My take is personality is not self, nor are the associated traits self. It seems to me personality is not the experiential subject but rather a reflection of nature and nurture.
For me the experiential subject (read: Self) is the space of the mind.
If one's 'temperament' and some character traits are hereditary, and our bodies are a mix of the genetic material of our parents, then somehow genetics are 'responsible' in some way FOR these traits.
The traits are built into the body through which the Mind emerges and expresses. I still look like 'me' almost 50 years in a row now, so the unseen parts of me (my innards, brain structure) is still 'following' the directions for a set pattern of traits.
I don't know myself if our mind is an emergent property of the 'orchestra' happening in the brain, or if the mind is 'separate' and partially inhabits the brain/body, thus being filtered through it. Either way, if you wear a certain pair of glasses forever, what you see will be consistently filtered by those lenses. Maybe our 'body' is a lens, and because it essentially retains similar traits, this causes us to perceive our 'self' as enduring over time.
Yes, the way we perceive things is also habitual, including traits like optimism and pessimism. What's that old saying about wearing rose-coloured spectacles?
Again this is something that Buddhist practice challenges and "loosens up."
I think @DhammaDragon made an important distinction earlier, that between character traits and ( habitual ) patterns of behaviour. So nothing fixed. Which is why practice works of course.
. . . lens or foci through the body is a good analogy. @robot said it well too. We have traits through the body, being, situation etc.
Things we can change. Things we can not. The wisdom to know the difference.
. . . wait . . . isn't that from A. A.
I iz cliche.
I sometimes reflect that all I am is a bundle of habits and memories. Good and bad.
Personality traits are not yours. If they were, you would be able to make yourself kind and brave instead of fearful and angry. They are part of nature, not you or yours. Why would you want to be or own something that never belonged to you. If you look closely anatta shows itself everywhere.
Yes.
that is the little self we all have . . . even the Shakyamuni . . .
Let us for a change from the Heart Sutra look at the Diamond Sutra - yeah that's what I'm talking 'bout
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page5.html
The focus or being as spiny, crusty or shakyabooty is not the Real Self/awakened component. That is why it is described as illusion, though we have a sense of being real and indeed in a way are.
Also we are Awake
It is like a fist opening and closing around Nothing. A lotus blossoming. A flower rising . . .
We knows it. We grows it.
“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life flows.”
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Out of curiosity I checked the definition for "trait".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trait
It doesn't seem consistent with the Buddhist view. Which is really what we've been saying.
So what is meant here by "true Buddha nature"? Does it mean our true nature is characterised by conditionality ( anatta / sunyata ), or is it pointing to an unconditioned state beyond conditionality?
I always imagined 'True Buddha Nature' to be Emptiness.
In the suttas Nibbana is said to be unconditioned, though I'm not sure how that is interpreted in the various schools. I suppose freedom from our conditioning is what we're aiming for?
I think freedom from.... pretty much 'everything' really.....
I took this test when I was 20 years old, and found it VERY illuminating (being an INFP, and 'rare' was pleasing to my young struggling ego
). I was still searching for identity, what am I? who am I? and to a great degree, it lined up and explained me to me in a helpful way.
But yeah, it is not a scientific tool or based on anything but Carl Jung's extremely imaginative speculations about the psyche. I'm disappointed to learn it doesn't hold much water, though
Oh well. That it has lately become rather hyped up and a money spinner, alas, that doesn't surprise me. But knowing it isn't very useful for people in general AND continues to be bought and used by corporations for the development of their staff, that is a let down.
I used to have some involvement in team development, and worked with a guy from Human Resources who idolised Myers-Briggs and similar methods. The problem was he seemed to think you could define a person by their results, so for example you could reliably employ somebody for a particular job or team based on their results....but of course people are much more complicated than that! So on paper a new person might be the perfect fit to work in a particular team, based on results from them and the existing team members, but in practice it's all about chemistry, sometimes the face just doesn't fit, there could be all sorts of reasons for that.
Exactly an unconditioned state beyond conditionality
The Buddha nature does not have qualities, it is qualified by buying expressed through the conditional.
In other words one can experience enlightenment but one can not be enlightened. To put it another way, 'The Word is made flesh' . . . which might be an empty statement without the right logos . . .