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.
According to the Buddha's teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion 'I have no self'(which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion 'I have self' (which is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of any opinions or views, but to try to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I', or 'being', is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.
I have no problem with the idea of the self as an ever-changing collection of aggregates. I can accept that it is not eternal. But it doesn't seem correct to say that it does not exist.
I have heard a lama describe the bit of conciousness that carries over after rebirth as 'most subtle mind.' Would such a thing continue onward after enlightenment, or would it too cease after a cessation of self?
Self seems to be a driver of suffering. If the notion of self ceases, so too suffering ends. But why would I want to end myself, even if it means an end to suffering? This seems quite nihilistic to me. In the immortal words of Private Hudson, "Game over, man!" All we have left is oblivion. Nirvana is a lot of hard work, but atheism offers me oblivion for free. Of course, I may be sucked back into samsara anyway...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
My understanding of the Tibetan view of mind is that it divides it into gross, subtle and very subtle. The gross mind are the senses, I'm not fully sure the dividing line of the subtle but I think it generally has to do with our thoughts and feelings. Its the very subtle mind that they say carries on from life to life and carries the karmic seeds. They differentiate it from the Hindu concept of atman by saying it isn't eternal or permanent, that it arises anew each moment from the previous moment.
There is a branch of Theravada that does believe that nirvana equals oblivion but its only one sect and the rest of both Theravada and Mahayana disagree thinking that there is the unborn, the unconditioned.
@nakazcid said:> Self seems to be a driver of suffering. If the notion of self ceases, so too suffering ends. But why would I want to end myself, even if it means an end to suffering?
Self-view feels like a burden to me most of the time, something it would be nice to let go of.
@nakazcid said:
Is there a particular form of meditation useful for exploring anatta?
One particular type of meditation that might be useful in this aspect is "meditation on the 32 body parts". As you explore the 32 body parts, see them for what they are, impermanent, subject to aging and decay, stressful, can be the source of pain and suffering, and not-self, we cannot make it so that it does not cause suffering.
@SpinyNorman said:
Self-view feels like a burden to me most of the time, something it would be nice to let go of.
Let me frame it a little differently. How is ending the self different from the atheist's conception of suicide? Both put a permanent end to suffering.
@SpinyNorman said:
Self-view feels like a burden to me most of the time, something it would be nice to let go of.
Let me frame it a little differently. How is ending the self different from the atheist's conception of suicide? Both put a permanent end to suffering.
But first it would be a good idea to understand the difference between "Samatha & Vipassana" meditation...Samatha=Using the breath to calm the mind then Vipassana=To see things as they 'really' are.....
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the mind-
The mind is the root from which all things grow-
If you can understand the mind...Everything is included! "
@nakazcid said:
How is ending the self different from the atheist's conception of suicide? Both put a permanent end to suffering.
My sister who suffers from depression does not kill herself because it would cause a great deal of suffering to others. Suicide is destructive and selfish, though without medication or hope, understandable.
Enlightenment improves the situation for the individual, ones immediate circle of influence and potentially wider ripples.
Essentially, the speaker contends that the principal of Anatta is in direct opposition to a specific Indian concept of Self or Soul. Nowhere in the suttas does Buddha specifically say there is no self, at least in the conventional sense. When directly asked, he declines to answer. I find this reassuring, but I'm not sure it's an "orthodox" interpretation. Does anyone have a different take on anatta?
We assume there is a self or thing that is "changeless". So there is a soul that is conceived, turned into an embryo, becomes a newborn baby, a child, and so on until either that thing dies which is nihilism or is reborn in heaven with God or reincarnated which is eternalism. Any notion of selfhood leads to either nihilism(self dies) or eternalism(self persists).
A useful way to look is the example of a tadpole that turns into a frog.Where did the tadpole come from and where did it go to? Where is the essence if change is the constant?
@SpinyNorman said:
Self-view feels like a burden to me most of the time, something it would be nice to let go of.
Let me frame it a little differently. How is ending the self different from the atheist's conception of suicide? Both put a permanent end to suffering.
I am talking about the cessation of self-view, not the obliteration of "self". There is a world or difference.
Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
@nakazcid said:> Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
Yes, the language is difficult, and this is really something to be understood through practice. You can get an initial sense of it with breathing meditation - when the mind has calmed you can have the sense of there just being the breath, so there is just breathing, not you breathing.
@nakazcid said:
Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
Not at all
The question comes up a lot. It is important in Dharma.
You can learn experientially how the self is not separate from the experiential process with a guide, here: http://liberationunleashed.com
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@nakazcid said:
Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
I'll link it again, emergence says complex systems don't need a conductor in charge for actions and decisions to be made.
@person I did watch it, and it is helpful. I've been studying an online course, 'Buddhism and Modern Psychology', in which the professor discusses a 'modular theory of mind.' His theory is that there is no director of the mind, but rather that different cooperating 'modules' (of which we are not consciously aware) are really running things.
But what's so hard to shake is the intuitive notion that SELF and EGO are really responsible for getting things done and running the show. This is reinforced by hundreds of years of western philosophy (damn thou, Descartes!), and I'm finding it really, really hard to dislodge that notion.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited June 2016
@nakazcid said:
Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
You're not wrong exactly though which is why I think once you "get it" in your own way you will laugh.
For me, the individual self and/or ego is an illusory tool. Once we finally see it as such we don't throw it away but use it skillfully.
Buddha didn't keep rotting under that tree when he woke up in Sidhartha, he used that dharma body towards a new purpose.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@nakazcid said: @person I did watch it, and it is helpful. I've been studying an online course, 'Buddhism and Modern Psychology', in which the professor discusses a 'modular theory of mind.' His theory is that there is no director of the mind, but rather that different cooperating 'modules' (of which we are not consciously aware) are really running things.
But what's so hard to shake is the intuitive notion that SELF and EGO are really responsible for getting things done and running the show. This is reinforced by hundreds of years of western philosophy (damn thou, Descartes!), and I'm finding it really, really hard to dislodge that notion.
Ok, I see, you understand the arguments but the belief hasn't been dislodged. That's the way pretty much all of philosophy is, it generally takes repeated reflection and learning.
You could try an analytical meditation approach, its similar to how you might do a metta meditation practice where you reflect on the kindness of others or wish them well so that a feeling of warmth would arise in you then you concentrate on and strengthen that feeling until it declines then you go back to the intellectual process of generating the feeling. The same can be done with more philosophical topics too, you'd sit and think about the logic and reasoning involved with emptiness until hopefully an aha moment occurs where there is a feeling of conviction regarding the topic, you then concentrate on that feeling for a few seconds or minutes until it fades, then go back to the thinking, and continue alternating like that.
Getting aha moments or special feelings of warmth or understanding in our normal lives happens to us, the difference here is the intentional cultivation of them and the subsequent concentration to allow the feeling to soak into our minds so that it would eventually take over as our default, instinctual view.
Inevitably you'll encounter resistance as you are now to the ideas, all I know to recommend is to try to not get caught up in the emotion of it and to try to think through the arguments.
upon second reading, i find myself unsatisfied with the explanation, as well. but I guess my point was to show that our concept of self depends on our concept of everything else. i.e. if the universe is altogether different than what we perceive it to be, then what is stopping our "self" or "non-self" from following the same logic? It also depends on your definition of "exist." Do we exist in reality of being this person we visually and tangibly know, or is this all just an illusion? We're all just sparks from the same candle, fragments of the same shattered mirror.... perhaps?
Feel free to argue back... I love a good debate to reboot my way of thinking. Makes me feel like I'm still capable of learning new things!
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
I know it may on the face of it sound a little daft, but this puts things into perspective for me:
Apparently, we are none of us the same people we were 10 years ago.
Quite literally.
Virtually every single cell in our bodies has died and regenerated itself, and we are a totally different body to the one we were a decade ago. Nothing of our old Self remains. It's all gone.
The only parts which appear to not undergo cellular renewal are the Brain and the eyes...
Which seems apt...
We have to actively work at changing our minds ourselves, or we become stagnant and stuck in fixed ideas.... our minds are malleable for us to work magic with...
Our eyes are the window through which we immediately perceive the outside world; our eyes see the transformation of our existence, throughout the seasons, as things lie dormant, awaken flourish and subside, in turn, time after time, year after year, perceiving the evidence of impermanence of everything, and witnessing the truth of the Transitory Nature of every phenomenon....
Who are you now?
I have to say, I haven't been feeling myself, today....
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
upon second reading, i find myself unsatisfied with the explanation, as well. but I guess my point was to show that our concept of self depends on our concept of everything else. i.e. if the universe is altogether different than what we perceive it to be, then what is stopping our "self" or "non-self" from following the same logic?
Nothing. However, I'd guess that perceiving the self as anything other than what we are doing right now gives a false label. It isn't that our individual self does not exist, it's that it cannot be defined or nailed down because it is action and not a noun in the way we are taught about nouns.
If we refuse to give ourself a definition, there is no worries about what the self is.
It's rather like looking through the microscope to find the microscope or trying to hammer the hammer with no other hammer.
It also depends on your definition of "exist." Do we exist in reality of being this person we visually and tangibly know, or is this all just an illusion? We're all just sparks from the same candle, fragments of the same shattered mirror.... perhaps?
That would just be existing differently but not non-existence. It's like calling that which we have no way of detecting "nothing".
I feel we are each an unique aspect of the very same thing (or rather process). If two heads are better than one when it comes to figuring something out then we've hit the jack-pot.
We take for granted this gift and somehow believe we come from and/or are going to "somewhere else". The universe is a place we live and we have to reluctantly share it with "others" that are not our own.
Us and them is the worst disease to afflict sentience. Duality is our tool but until we can plainly see that, it works as if it were the other way around.
We are each an expression of the universe born full of wonder. Each with our own way of seeing the universe which we are an expression of.
It may not be intentional on behalf of the universe but we are a way the universe explores itself.
Comments
@SpinyNorman From the same book:
I have no problem with the idea of the self as an ever-changing collection of aggregates. I can accept that it is not eternal. But it doesn't seem correct to say that it does not exist.
I have heard a lama describe the bit of conciousness that carries over after rebirth as 'most subtle mind.' Would such a thing continue onward after enlightenment, or would it too cease after a cessation of self?
Self seems to be a driver of suffering. If the notion of self ceases, so too suffering ends. But why would I want to end myself, even if it means an end to suffering? This seems quite nihilistic to me. In the immortal words of Private Hudson, "Game over, man!" All we have left is oblivion. Nirvana is a lot of hard work, but atheism offers me oblivion for free. Of course, I may be sucked back into samsara anyway...
My understanding of the Tibetan view of mind is that it divides it into gross, subtle and very subtle. The gross mind are the senses, I'm not fully sure the dividing line of the subtle but I think it generally has to do with our thoughts and feelings. Its the very subtle mind that they say carries on from life to life and carries the karmic seeds. They differentiate it from the Hindu concept of atman by saying it isn't eternal or permanent, that it arises anew each moment from the previous moment.
There is a branch of Theravada that does believe that nirvana equals oblivion but its only one sect and the rest of both Theravada and Mahayana disagree thinking that there is the unborn, the unconditioned.
Self-view feels like a burden to me most of the time, something it would be nice to let go of.
One particular type of meditation that might be useful in this aspect is "meditation on the 32 body parts". As you explore the 32 body parts, see them for what they are, impermanent, subject to aging and decay, stressful, can be the source of pain and suffering, and not-self, we cannot make it so that it does not cause suffering.
http://www.arrowriver.ca/dhamma/body.html
Let me frame it a little differently. How is ending the self different from the atheist's conception of suicide? Both put a permanent end to suffering.
One thing for certain is 'uncertainty'...
@nakazcid
It would pay to study the "mind"
But first it would be a good idea to understand the difference between "Samatha & Vipassana" meditation...Samatha=Using the breath to calm the mind then Vipassana=To see things as they 'really' are.....
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is to behold the mind-
The mind is the root from which all things grow-
If you can understand the mind...Everything is included! "
~Nagarjuna~
My sister who suffers from depression does not kill herself because it would cause a great deal of suffering to others. Suicide is destructive and selfish, though without medication or hope, understandable.
Enlightenment improves the situation for the individual, ones immediate circle of influence and potentially wider ripples.
You know that. They are very different.
We assume there is a self or thing that is "changeless". So there is a soul that is conceived, turned into an embryo, becomes a newborn baby, a child, and so on until either that thing dies which is nihilism or is reborn in heaven with God or reincarnated which is eternalism. Any notion of selfhood leads to either nihilism(self dies) or eternalism(self persists).
A useful way to look is the example of a tadpole that turns into a frog.Where did the tadpole come from and where did it go to? Where is the essence if change is the constant?
I am talking about the cessation of self-view, not the obliteration of "self". There is a world or difference.
Sorry to be so stubborn, guys and gals. I just can't seem to let go of this notion of self as driver. It just seems so intuitively right. No self, no driver, zombie time. I'll go try some of the suggested meditations...
Yes, the language is difficult, and this is really something to be understood through practice. You can get an initial sense of it with breathing meditation - when the mind has calmed you can have the sense of there just being the breath, so there is just breathing, not you breathing.
Not at all
The question comes up a lot. It is important in Dharma.
You can learn experientially how the self is not separate from the experiential process with a guide, here:
http://liberationunleashed.com
I'll link it again, emergence says complex systems don't need a conductor in charge for actions and decisions to be made.
@person I did watch it, and it is helpful. I've been studying an online course, 'Buddhism and Modern Psychology', in which the professor discusses a 'modular theory of mind.' His theory is that there is no director of the mind, but rather that different cooperating 'modules' (of which we are not consciously aware) are really running things.
But what's so hard to shake is the intuitive notion that SELF and EGO are really responsible for getting things done and running the show. This is reinforced by hundreds of years of western philosophy (damn thou, Descartes!), and I'm finding it really, really hard to dislodge that notion.
You're not wrong exactly though which is why I think once you "get it" in your own way you will laugh.
For me, the individual self and/or ego is an illusory tool. Once we finally see it as such we don't throw it away but use it skillfully.
Buddha didn't keep rotting under that tree when he woke up in Sidhartha, he used that dharma body towards a new purpose.
Ok, I see, you understand the arguments but the belief hasn't been dislodged. That's the way pretty much all of philosophy is, it generally takes repeated reflection and learning.
You could try an analytical meditation approach, its similar to how you might do a metta meditation practice where you reflect on the kindness of others or wish them well so that a feeling of warmth would arise in you then you concentrate on and strengthen that feeling until it declines then you go back to the intellectual process of generating the feeling. The same can be done with more philosophical topics too, you'd sit and think about the logic and reasoning involved with emptiness until hopefully an aha moment occurs where there is a feeling of conviction regarding the topic, you then concentrate on that feeling for a few seconds or minutes until it fades, then go back to the thinking, and continue alternating like that.
Getting aha moments or special feelings of warmth or understanding in our normal lives happens to us, the difference here is the intentional cultivation of them and the subsequent concentration to allow the feeling to soak into our minds so that it would eventually take over as our default, instinctual view.
Inevitably you'll encounter resistance as you are now to the ideas, all I know to recommend is to try to not get caught up in the emotion of it and to try to think through the arguments.
here's that article I was mentioning. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/universe-hologram/
upon second reading, i find myself unsatisfied with the explanation, as well.
but I guess my point was to show that our concept of self depends on our concept of everything else. i.e. if the universe is altogether different than what we perceive it to be, then what is stopping our "self" or "non-self" from following the same logic? It also depends on your definition of "exist." Do we exist in reality of being this person we visually and tangibly know, or is this all just an illusion? We're all just sparks from the same candle, fragments of the same shattered mirror.... perhaps?
Feel free to argue back... I love a good debate to reboot my way of thinking. Makes me feel like I'm still capable of learning new things!
I know it may on the face of it sound a little daft, but this puts things into perspective for me:
Apparently, we are none of us the same people we were 10 years ago.
Quite literally.
Virtually every single cell in our bodies has died and regenerated itself, and we are a totally different body to the one we were a decade ago. Nothing of our old Self remains. It's all gone.
The only parts which appear to not undergo cellular renewal are the Brain and the eyes...
Which seems apt...
We have to actively work at changing our minds ourselves, or we become stagnant and stuck in fixed ideas.... our minds are malleable for us to work magic with...
Our eyes are the window through which we immediately perceive the outside world; our eyes see the transformation of our existence, throughout the seasons, as things lie dormant, awaken flourish and subside, in turn, time after time, year after year, perceiving the evidence of impermanence of everything, and witnessing the truth of the Transitory Nature of every phenomenon....
Who are you now?
I have to say, I haven't been feeling myself, today....
Here is a no-zombie article I came across. Hope it is helpful
http://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/
Nothing. However, I'd guess that perceiving the self as anything other than what we are doing right now gives a false label. It isn't that our individual self does not exist, it's that it cannot be defined or nailed down because it is action and not a noun in the way we are taught about nouns.
If we refuse to give ourself a definition, there is no worries about what the self is.
It's rather like looking through the microscope to find the microscope or trying to hammer the hammer with no other hammer.
That would just be existing differently but not non-existence. It's like calling that which we have no way of detecting "nothing".
I feel we are each an unique aspect of the very same thing (or rather process). If two heads are better than one when it comes to figuring something out then we've hit the jack-pot.
We take for granted this gift and somehow believe we come from and/or are going to "somewhere else". The universe is a place we live and we have to reluctantly share it with "others" that are not our own.
Us and them is the worst disease to afflict sentience. Duality is our tool but until we can plainly see that, it works as if it were the other way around.
We are each an expression of the universe born full of wonder. Each with our own way of seeing the universe which we are an expression of.
It may not be intentional on behalf of the universe but we are a way the universe explores itself.
Jmo
@David well... yes! Exactly!
I love this forum! 