Non-Self and Self in layman's terms

federica

@Carlita said: I never studied Buddhism. I felt that was defeating the point of practice.

I have to say, this is probably the most contrary thing I have read in a while...!

I only started studying when I came into the Nichiren sect where study, faith, and practice are the key tenants.

To my mind, this is not a Tradition of Buddhism that has upheld or reflected the original nature and teaching of the Buddha himself. I am of the opinion there is too much embellishment, variation and personal influence (from the founder) here for me to consider it authentic or reliable....
( and it's 'tenets' just to be of help.... )

I just dont know if many people on this forum take the Lotus seriously as they would the Pali Canon.

It's not that I don't take it seriously. I actually don't take it at all.

Authenticity debates mess everything up.

No, they don't. They do to you, because they mess with what may possibly be your entrenched beliefs.
Authenticity debates can clear the fog and deal with the nitty-gritty... Authenticity debates clean the wheat from the chaff...

"Don't keep searching for the truth; just let go of your opinions"....

I am open to anything that resonates with me, and fits in with my practice.

If it works for me, I adopt it and practice it.

If it doesn't, I leave it to those who might prefer it. My choice; their choice.

If I am at odds and cannot decide, I leave it aside, and let it simmer on a back-burner until such a time as the pot gets stirred again. Then I sample the flavour to see how it's coming along.....

Carlita

@lobster said:

I never studied Buddhism. I felt that was defeating the point of practice.

Ay curumba. You really are a chair.
How can I put this kindly without laughing hysterically ....

Oṃ A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhīḥ
OK Manjushri get your sword, kill the ignorance. Thanks Buddha Wisdom Dude.

http://www.wildmind.org/mantras/figures/manjushri

... and now back to undefeated ignorance ...

Seriously Dude?

I only started studying when I came into the Nichiren sect where study, faith, and practice are the key tenants. Now I cross reference the suttas that I have from with the Lotus and go from there. Its a heavy read and almost finished. I just dont know if many people on this forum take the Lotus seriously as they would the Pali Canon. Authenticity debates mess everything up.

-
Please read the full post. Depending on the physical Dharma is an attachment. The point of the Dharma is to practice it not study it. You get nowhere by studying at a desk without applying your knowledge.

Ignorance is bliss sometimes. Gives you a clear mine without labels and attachments even to the physical Dharma. Its not a "god".

/shakes her head/

Carlita

@federica said:

@Carlita said: I never studied Buddhism. I felt that was defeating the point of practice.

I have to say, this is probably the most contrary thing I have read in a while...!

I only started studying when I came into the Nichiren sect where study, faith, and practice are the key tenants.

To my mind, this is not a Tradition of Buddhism that has upheld or reflected the original nature and teaching of the Buddha himself. I am of the opinion there is too much embellishment, variation and personal influence (from the founder) here for me to consider it authentic or reliable....
( and it's 'tenets' just to be of help.... )

I just dont know if many people on this forum take the Lotus seriously as they would the Pali Canon.

It's not that I don't take it seriously. I actually don't take it at all.

Authenticity debates mess everything up.

No, they don't. They do to you, because they mess with what may possibly be your entrenched beliefs.
Authenticity debates can clear the fog and deal with the nitty-gritty... Authenticity debates clean the wheat from the chaff...

"Don't keep searching for the truth; just let go of your opinions"....

I am open to anything that resonates with me, and fits in with my practice.

If it works for me, I adopt it and practice it.

If it doesn't, I leave it to those who might prefer it. My choice; their choice.

If I am at odds and cannot decide, I leave it aside, and let it simmer on a back-burner until such a time as the pot gets stirred again. Then I sample the flavour to see how it's coming along.....

Please dont insult me. My last post above address this briefly. The point of reading the Dharma (which I do both Pali and non Pali) is to practice. Anyone can study Dharma. Nichiren Buddhist have many sects. SGI doesnt study Dharma at all. Shoshu twists it making Nichiren the original Buddha. Shu (which I would have been part of if it werent so far from me. They study both Pali and Mahayana sutras. In the Pali it says not to put down other sects. I read it a couple of days ago.

Nichiren practice just says "I devote myself to the sacred Dharma of causality". Nichiren Buddhist chant this to the Dharma itself. "They" (Shoshu and SGI) feel that if you just chant this to the summary of the Pali you will be enlightened. I do not believe this. I practice with them because I Do devote myself to the sacred law of the Dharma. I do practice. I do study.

Dont insult me based on who I practice with. Nichiren Buddhism has been belittled for years. I doubt anyone who belittles it translates what they chant to into English (or native language) and understand what Daimoku and Gohonzon means in English. Nichiren just explained his own way of meditative practice. Only Nichiren Shu from what I know of the three actually study what you study.

You cannot go by face value. SGI and Shoshu doesnt resognate with me eithee And I dont put it down in authenticity because of how the church and organizations present its doctrine. Its not about the church and organization. Read up on what the Dharma means and you will find three differences from (rather) Theravada

1. We say that the summary of all Pali and Mahayana teachings are in the Lotus (law of causality)

2. Study of the Dharma leads to knowledge of whats being chanted (hence why we have studying SGI and sermons in Shoshu)

3. Take the three jewels every morning as in Nichiren Shu

4. Follow All Buddha's teachings by devoting youself/practicing the Dharma.

federica

Read again.
I have not insulted you either deliberately or otherwise.
I merely don't subscribe to Nichiren Buddhism, it doesn't resonate with me at all, and I explained why.
I also stated -

I am open to anything that resonates with me, and fits in with my practice.

If it works for me, I adopt it and practice it.

If it doesn't, I leave it to those who might prefer it. My choice; their choice.

Whatever you practice, that's fine by you.
I am merely telling you it doesn't sit well with me.
I think there's little more to be said on that.
If it floats your raft, I'm happy for you.
But I'm just keen on a different boat.
I'm sure with diligence and the 8Fold path, we'll eventually reach the other shore, sooner or later....

We walk the same path. We've just got different boots on.

Carlita

Wrap up @federica and @lobster

1. Please dont insult me. I do study Dharma. The point is to practice it

2. Nichiren Buddhism (the teachings not the sect interpretations) just says "I devote myself/practice the sacred law of the Dharma. The Lotus, accorsing to Tentai and like sects, believe the Lotus (law of cause/effect) is the central teaching of all Buddhist teachings. Chanting that we devote our life to the Dharma is not wrong.

3. People have belittled Nichiren for years. Study what the religion is not what the sects say it is. Start with the Pali Dharma.

4. Nichiren Buddhism doesnt work for everyone. I like to practice zazen. I used to practice zen. No one is telling anyone what they should practice. The Buddha says respect others in other schools.

5. In my practice, the only thing that I differ with Theravada in that I believe we all have a true nature. Everything else I believe it all.

Dont insult me.

lobster

@Carlita said:
1. Please dont insult me. I do study Dharma.

My Apologies, when you said you don't study dharma, I thought you meant you don't study dharma. Now that I know you meant you do study dharma, I see where my mistake is.

Sorry for the insulting confusion

Carlita

@lobster said:

@Carlita said:
1. Please dont insult me. I do study Dharma.

My Apologies, when you said you don't study dharma, I thought you meant you don't study dharma. Now that I know you meant you do study dharma, I see where my mistake is.

Sorry for the insulting confusion

Thank you. Sometimes I cant articulate myself well.

David

If the law of causation is a law then it has always been going on and is as close to permanence as we get.

If it is subject to death and decay like David and Carlita are then it is not self.

In my view these are tools of self expression and unique aspects of causation.

federica

I would appreciate it, @Carlita, if you kept a civil tone.
Nobody here has deliberately or willfully insulted you, but your tone is positively hostile and really not acceptable....
Please do not take commentary on personal preference, with regard to tradition, as a personal slight. I for one, am not insulted if someone considers Theravada to not be their cup of tea...

Carlita

@federica said:
I would appreciate it, @Carlita, if you kept a civil tone.
Nobody here has deliberately or willfully insulted you, but your tone is positively hostile and really not acceptable....
Please do not take commentary on personal preference, with regard to tradition, as a personal slight. I for one, am not insulted if someone considers Theravada to not be their cup of tea...

It is the way your posts are said, not the content. It's also trying to articulate what I am saying so I understand where you (and others) are coming from and respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, this is not just an online problem that I have but its in real life. If there is no patience for general understanding and the conversation is cut off, I get fustrated. One because I am confused over the disagreement and two, by medical brain conditions, it takes me longer to process things.

I have read everyone's in full. After trying to figure out your position, I understand it now. I cant remember, Id have to look up, but another member said it better than I can about oour natures. This has nothing to do with what we both believe.

I just dont like being confused and the other party thinks Im being hostle. Other party meaning; friends,co-workers, family. At least in person, we talk it out. Online there is no tone of voice, It natually takes longer to explain things. At least for me. I mean, my own doctor tells me every physical symptom I have is all in my head. Have to change doctors. Anyway. Iit has nothing to do with Theravada and Mahayana. I finally understand. I just need some patience given thenature of online convesation.

Carlita

@David said:
If the law of causation is a law then it has always been going on and is as close to permanence as we get.

If it is subject to death and decay like David and Carlita are then it is not self.

In my view these are tools of self expression and unique aspects of causation.

I think the Buddha means that everything is suffering..aging, sickness, death. Decaying. We continue through cause and affect through by our karma until we reach enlightenment--complete understanding of the nature of life. I honestly dont understand the usage of the terms self and Self. I just say attachments vs true nature. It means the same just I understand it easier.

I dont know if what we said is self or not because I dont understand that term. If it is rephrased, maybe I have a better understanding of what you mean?

Carlita

@Walker said:
I think you're misunderstanding what we're trying to say @Carlita We aren't arguing that there are no individuals. Of course I can't become you, and you can't become me. Think of two waves in a body of water. They're separate from each other in any given moment in time. But they're both connected to, and part of, the greater whole. Just as we humans are individuals that are part of the greater ecosystem. And they constantly change, a wave starts to form from external forces that are acting upon it. It builds in size, and eventually crashes, and returns to the environment that it came from.
At any point in time, you can identify a wave. But a second later it's not in the same place in space, and it's not the same shape. Time and motion have the same effect on us.

I missed this in the confusion. I thought most of you were saing you all change as in turn into a different person (literally) like what one sees on the movies. I guess I wouldnt use the word change. We develop to different stages of life (moving wave) but we are still waves (our nature).

That is really what Im trying to say. Im not saying we dont flucuate (as I think some think Im saying) or grow (or change, I guess) just Im thinking yall saying we change to completely different people (like my beccoming you).

Thank you for explaining that. Some explanations I understand others I dont. It takes me awhile.

Carlita

Im just hoping everyone undestands what Im saying even if we disagree. I get fustrated when I feel no one understands me. It gets exhausting.

Shoshin

@Carlita if you have an hour to spare, then check out this link "Anatta From a Scientific Perspective" .... Bro. Billy Tan

However, in the long run, the only way to really understand anatta is through experiential understanding/knowledge and via meditation seems to be the way....

Enjoy the journey of non self discovery

Also you might find this one of interest too...The Dalai lama's take on Non Self

Carlita

@Shoshin said:
@Carlita if you have an hour to spare, then check out this link "Anatta From a Scientific Perspective" .... Bro. Billy Tan

However, in the long run, the only way to really understand anatta is through experiential understanding/knowledge and via meditation seems to be the way....

Enjoy the journey of non self discovery

Also you might find this one of interest too...The Dalai lama's take on Non Self

Thank you. Id have to watch it later today. its 4:17am and I should be sleeping.

grackle

@Carlita. Is it worth getting frustrated over when you feel others don't understand what you are trying to convey? Don't lose your peace over this. You can put your ideas in storage for awhile. Then dust them off and try again.

Carlita

@grackle said:
@Carlita. Is it worth getting frustrated over when you feel others don't understand what you are trying to convey? Don't lose your peace over this. You can put your ideas in storage for awhile. Then dust them off and try again.

Thank you. Im used to another general religious forum where challenging discussions or talking about different viewpoints are the norm. This is a light atmosphere. Definitely more peaceful. I am dealing with a lot so Im thinking of staying with this forum.

Sometimes I dont see its lack of understanding until far in the conversation. Most the time people think Im trying to change their opinions.

federica

Well, to be fair, I think we all do that, either with good intention, or unconsciously. I know I certainly do; I exchange ideas and opinions with people, in the hope it might occasionally either change their mind, or even at least add something new to the mix, for them to think about.

I think anybody's motive, in discussion, is to put their side forward, in the hope of either educating or re-forming the PoVs of others.

It's a natural part of discussion or debate, and nothing that should be considered wrong.

I know I sometimes need to observe my insistence, and examine whether it is 'healthy' (or one could say "Right Insistence"!) or whether I am merely wanting to be 'right' because - well, I just want to be 'right'!

I think I'm improving in this aspect. At least, I hope I am. I just know I used to be a whole lot more stubborn than I am now....
Maybe it's old age creeping in!

Carlita

@federica said:
Well, to be fair, I think we all do that, either with good intention, or unconsciously. I know I certainly do; I exchange ideas and opinions with people, in the hope it might occasionally either change their mind, or even at least add something new to the mix, for them to think about.

I think anybody's motive, in discussion, is to put their side forward, in the hope of either educating or re-forming the PoVs of others.

It's a natural part of discussion or debate, and nothing that should be considered wrong.

I know I sometimes need to observe my insistence, and examine whether it is 'healthy' (or one could say "Right Insistence"!) or whether I am merely wanting to be 'right' because - well, I just want to be 'right'!

I think I'm improving in this aspect. At least, I hope I am. I just know I used to be a whole lot more stubborn than I am now....
Maybe it's old age creeping in!

Old age? Ha..maybe not. I live with elders 70 and older and they are more opinionated than the regular joe smo. Its good you are aware of what you need to improve on. I live in a senior/disability residence. They are three times my age so generation can play a part too.

David

@Carlita said:

@David said:
If the law of causation is a law then it has always been going on and is as close to permanence as we get.

If it is subject to death and decay like David and Carlita are then it is not self.

In my view these are tools of self expression and unique aspects of causation.

I think the Buddha means that everything is suffering..aging, sickness, death. Decaying. We continue through cause and affect through by our karma until we reach enlightenment--complete understanding of the nature of life.

Suffering but also joy. Aging but also gaining experience. Sickness but also well being. Death and also birth. Decay but also growth.

Yes, it is all conventional and in a sense an illusion but it is not negative without having a positive side. Just as it cannot be positive without having a negative side. Good will always call up bad until we see beyond all opposition.

There are no opposites when we see beyond convention. Just different aspects of the same thing/process.

Cause may be said to be the opposite of effect but what effect is not also a cause and what possible cause is not an effect of prior cause?

The only thing that stays the same is the fact that all things change.

I honestly dont understand the usage of the terms self and Self. I just say attachments vs true nature. It means the same just I understand it easier.

For myself, I just say self when speaking of the individual self these days. Sure, it's just convention but it is a tool of exploration.

Without the illusion of separation there would be no exploration and no waking up to our true nature.

I dont know if what we said is self or not because I dont understand that term. If it is rephrased, maybe I have a better understanding of what you mean?

Little s self is the individual. The big S is said to be that which can never change and has no cause.

I don't really use the big S word much because it is too constricting. It seems to me like too much of a proper noun which in itself implies borders.

Borders are convention. All of them.

The Two Truths teaching explains this nicely. To avoid any other confusion though, if you come across the word "absolute" switch it for "objective".

Objective truth is the whole picture which keeps growing to account for an infinite amount of subjective views.

Daozen

Just saw this article, and thought of this thread ...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/the-self-in-east-and-west/

sova

Somebody mentioned:
Change to me means, you we one thing and you turned into something completely different. (like turning from human to frog)

There are grosser and subtler/ more refined levels of change. Consider an ice cube in your drink. It changes from a cube of cold water to a liquid room-temperature water. No one disagrees that it is still water, but it would be foolish to say that it did not undergo any change.

Change can be gross or big, like the change of a castle into a dune of sand, or it can be subtle and refined, like the position of your finger on the keyboard.

If you take a frame-by-frame look at the perceptual "film strip" of your experience, like the sounds being heard, the sights seen, the tastes tasted, the bodily sensations felt, they are changing both grossly and subtly from moment to moment. This is precisely change. To say "yeah well it didn't change too much so it's still the same" is using labels in a conventional sense, in a relative sense. Yes, my finger is still not the keyboard, my car is still not my driveway, but if we zoom in on any of these distinctions, these separations of phenomena, the line that divides them just gets blurrier and blurrier until we realize that it is not the phenomena that are distinct -- it is our naming and labeling which makes them so.

Thus, in developing ones practice and ones understanding, we must go back and forth, we must rely on the means that can help us break free of the notions of never-changing-forever-existing phenomena. We must also avoid the extremes. To say something is always changing and dissolving and re-appearing moment-by-moment doesn't mean that things dissolve to nothing. We are uncovering a deeper nature. Once we label it something, we are back in the realm of notions, and notions can be used to untie themselves, but the gift within the wrapping paper has no name.

Is simple awareness without labels or dualistic fixation the same as Buddha-awareness? Nope. The mind of a buddha is saturated with compassion. What this thread is talking about is wisdom -- knowing reality as it is -- but we can only come to a complete understanding with a mind that is completely suffused with compassion for all sentient beings -- as all beings undergo suffering in samsara. Even those in godly realms must undergo the loss of body and status, not even to speak of those undergoing hellish experiences. So first, before sharpening ones wisdom too swiftly, consider that there are two wings to perfect enlightenment: compassion (suffering with and wishing to alleviate the pains and tribulations of fellow beings in the same boat) and wisdom (realizing emptiness). With only one wing, how ever shall we fly?

Jeffrey

There is no one to attain non-self or self.

This is to correct the misunderstanding that non-self will be attained/realized by a self.

"We can formulate the following logical reasoning: Karmic actions and results are mere appearances devoid of true existence, because no self, no actor, exists to perform them. This is a valid way to put things because if the self of the individual does not exist, there cannot be any action, and therefore there cannot be any result of any action either."
Khenpo Tsulstrim Gyamtso

"Someone might ask, “Isn’t it nihilistic to think that karmic actions and their results do not exist?” In fact, this is not a nihilistic view because there exists no self to have any nihilistic view. There can be a nihilistic view only if there is someone to hold it, but since there is no one to have any view, then there can be no nihilism. Furthermore, since the thought of nihilism neither arises nor abides nor ceases, there can be no nihilism in genuine reality. Genuine reality transcends the conceptual fabrications of realism and nihilism. It transcends karmic actions and results, and the absence of karmic actions and results as well. If karmic actions and their results do not exist in the abiding nature of reality, then what is the quality of their appearance?

Nagarjuna describes this in the chapter’s thirty-third verse:

Mental afflictions, actions, and bodies, as well as actors and results, are like cities of imaginary beings, like mirages, and like dreams."

Khenpo Tsulstrim Gyatso

"Some people might argue, “There are yogis and yoginis who realize selflessness, and this proves that the self really does exist after all, or else who would be the ones who possessed this realization?”

Nagarjuna answers this claim in the third verse:
"The ones who do not cling to “me” or “mine” Do not exist either. Those who do not cling to “me” or “mine” see accurately, So they do not see a self."

Khenpo Tsulstrim

person

I didn't follow this thread at all so maybe everything is answered for you but I happened on this TED talk that I think explains it in an understandable way.

https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you

Daozen

And here's another relevant link ...

https://aeon.co/videos/if-as-shakespeare-suggested-all-the-world-s-a-stage-do-we-have-a-true-self

I really like this one. It's about our "performed selves" -- basically, we are constantly performing various roles, wearing "masks", but ... there is no true self underneath, just more masks.

Shoshin

"Be careful how you broach the subject of self-for you could end up losing the plot-
In the conventional sense there ‘is’ a self- but in the ultimate [non] sense there’s not !"

Carlita

@person said:
I didn't follow this thread at all so maybe everything is answered for you but I happened on this TED talk that I think explains it in an understandable way.

https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you

Thats a good ted talk. It goes in line with Truth Self thinking but expressed through language of change rather than self discovery.