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.
Do I have a self?
I have been reading about the self or "Atman" [Ātman (Sanskrit: आत्मन्) or Atta (Pāli)] and am confused.
First, what is the self? What is the agreed upon definition in Buddhism? Is the self the same thing as a soul?
I feel that to deny my self would be to deny my existence as a sentient being. If I don't hav self, then what am I?
First, what is the self? What is the agreed upon definition in Buddhism? Is the self the same thing as a soul?
I feel that to deny my self would be to deny my existence as a sentient being. If I don't hav self, then what am I?
0
Comments
of course you do.
But you have a not-self as well.
Don't worry, this is dual thinking.
Everybody has it.
Once you manage to merge the two and understand - and realise - that the two are exactly the same, and as such, irrelevant, you'll be fine.
:crazy:
'Self' is a mental construct or thought. It is a way of interpreting. Buddha advised it is false interpretation plus more importantly the root of suffering.
For example, if my lover died, I would suffer but you would not suffer. This is because my lover is "my" lover and not "your" lover.
Some people have a larger sense of self than others. The more emotional a human being is the greater their sense of self. Self is born in the mind from emotion.
Example, the body is hungry and the mind thinks: "I am hungry". The mind has sexual lust and the mind thinks: "I love you". The mind feels fear and threat and the mind thinks: "I hate you".
Buddha said about the arising of self-view or self-belief:
If you wish to learn correctly the Buddhist view on self, I would recommend the following essay at this link:
Kind regards
DDhatu
Our sense of self, the ephemeral "I," on the other hand, is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of "I-making and my-making."
In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is impermanent is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event in the mind.
That doesn't mean, however, that I believe the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person (puggala) doesn't exist. Instead, they merely breaks down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various phenomena that comprise the conventional person (SN 22.59).
So it's clear to me that the teachings on not-self, when looked at closely, aren't merely assertions that we have no self: they're a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that gives rise to suffering.
In addition, I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "The Problem Of Egolessness."
In the general view of Theravada Buddhism there seems to be no self. This is also true in Mahayana Buddhism where no-self is established.
This self refers to the worldy self, which is nonexistent in terms of reality.
However, the further view of Mahayana Buddhism is the existence of the self of Buddha nature inherent in every sentient being, which is also describe in terms of self.
So this is the distinction, in my view, to be drawn in the Buddhist understanding of self.
Your point is mostly dogmatic & intellectual. In other words, in your own experience, have you or your mind never felt, believed or assumed you are a 'self' or acted from a basis of 'self'?
Kind regards
DD
How can this be?
....one practitioners view. Others may honestly see thing otherwise.
Buddha nature is the basis of all minds and is pure of good and evil and naturally radiates the forms of all good acts in the universe and all the characteristics of all Buddhas and sentient beings.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by lalavajra
This self refers to the worldy self, which is nonexistent in terms of reality.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It's not a contradiction, because the worldy is not considered to be reality. Reality in the Mahayana is the transcendental state of bliss of all Buddhas, which encompasses the worldly.
And I have also felt those things in my mind while dreaming, or being intoxicated on alcohol or drugs, or while in the state of infancy, babbling and so on. Yet none of those things are my self.
If the self that experiences and believes and assumes its own selfhood is really self, when does it begin, at birth or at conception? Or five years after birth?
In which case where is the self before conception or before feotal development? If the self is in heaven or some other middle existence between rebirths then this is true, in which case it cannot be a worldly self, it must have a transcendent faculty as well.
For some Mahayana practitioners. But nor does it for practitioners of many other schools or faiths. The important thing is not the faith of the practitioner, it is their views and beliefs. The view and belief of people of particular faith doesn't alter the views and beliefs held in common by the actual Dharma and the tradition of emanations of buddhas and holy beings.
In the Theravada sutras the Buddha severally admits to the Brahma nature, in which there a self of sorts of arhatship. The Mahayana view builds on this and establishes the Buddha nature which transcends even that of the gods, in that it is eternal, bliss, pure and does not change and is the oneness of all state of being. It is not the same as the worldly self or the self of heaven.
Any idea which ones those might be? I've yet to come across one of those.
The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says "The Self spoken of in Buddhism is the Buddha-nature." And also, "Noble son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-nature]."
Aside from the Nirvana Sutra, I'm not much more familiar with the Tathagatagarbha literature than you are, but my understanding is that you'll find similar statements in other sutras and commentary.
Today I was reading the Cleary brothers' translation of the letters of Yuanwu. He uses the term "True self" a lot, and in a way that seems to be equivalent to "Buddha-nature".
My understanding of self seems to be similar to yours, but we have to be careful about assuming that our views represent all of Mahayana. Zen was strongly influenced by the Nirvana Sutra, and the whole "original face" spiel derives from this equivalence of self and Buddha-nature. There are also some Tibetan teachers who have things to say about self that may surprise you.
Sounds very nice. So what is it?
It's the five primary elements and the five skandhas, the sense fields and sense realms.
It's the totality of samsara and nirvana.
The only "self" found is the provisional social/psychological pattern called Richard with it's various traits. This is a natural part of the bodymind/world interface. In fact this pattern becomes more internally integrated and autonomous as a result of the realization of anatta.
The assumption of a self entity at the subjective pole is like a point of tension or resistence in the stream of experience., a kind of frozeness of ownership. Once the insight of Anatta is realized this stream of experience is liberated from ownership to spontaneously arise. Thoughts belong to thoughts, feelings belong to feelings, sounds belong to sounds, etc.
Speaking directly from ones practice is interesting in the context of a forum, because although this is the indisputable truth of my experience, I can in no way claim to speak for the truth of your experience. So you may have a very different and equally legitimate perspective on practice. It isn't a matter of I'm right and your wrong, it isn't a zero sum game.
OK, but why is it a useful concept?
..... It would be an really interesting debate to have and listen to.
That last note may be the point of contention. I will not affirm an ontological entity called Buddha Nature, others will.
It's a concept only in as much as it is indicated with words and letters; it's use, conceptually, is arbitrary, but the actual reality indicated by the word is nonconceptual by nature. But the meaning of the concept as such actually transcends mind, and it is furthermore useful because the inconceivable Buddha nature manifests in an unthinkable way as the pure enlightened characteristics of Buddhas, all the emanations, their mandala displays and retinues and all good teachings of the Dharma to all the assemblies of livings beings. If saying "the Buddha nature is the same as the essence of samsara and nirvana" is the same as saying "x is the same as y", then why didn't I just put "x is the same as y"? So you can see that recuding every assertion down to x = y is not sound.
Also ..do you affirm Buddha Nature as an absolute Self? or is Buddha Nature also empty of inherent being?
How do these things transcend mind?
What does this have to do with the five elements, etc.?
Sorry, I don't understand; can you elaborate, please?
No because tautology is when you describe something in terms which are already evident, however making comparisons to the absolute nature is not that because you already indicating just that.
All things are empty of inherent being.
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I like it.
"All things are empty of inherent being". Right , No inherent being, no Self. ...or do you mean something else.
No I mean that. The inherent lack of self is the Buddha nature.
Google "brahmayana" right now the first hit says Buddhism: oneness with Brahman; atman and suggests Sn5.4 as the reference.
I'm aware of various suttas that mention the "path to Brahma" (brahmayana) or "union with Brahma" (brahmasahabyata) such as DN 13, DN 19, etc., but as far as I'm aware, none of them seem to include a passage where the Buddha "admits to the Brahma nature, in which there a self of sorts of arhatship."
For instance, while the discourse given to the brahmins in DN 13 concludes with the Buddha declaring that the four brahmaviharas will lead to a "union with Brahma," it's the only sutta in the first 13 of that collection which fails to lead to the attainment of arahantship. Not only that, but I think it's imperative we don't forget another passage found later in the Digha Nikaya where the Buddha's converses with the gandhabba Pancasikha:
'However, Pancasikha, that holy life does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to superknowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana, but only to birth in the Brahma-world, whereas my holy life leads unfailingly to to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to superknowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is the Noble Eightfold Path, namely Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.
Therefore, it's my understanding that what the Buddha calls "union with Brahma" isn't the goal of the holy life that he teaches because it's made clear that the brahmaviharas themselves don't lead to nibbana—only the noble eightfold path, namely right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, is said to lead to nibbana.
As for Sn 5.4, I don't see where it suggests anything like that either.
And for anyone who's interested, I thought I'd included a few notes concerning brahmas and brahmins. In the introduction to his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses the Brahmanasamyutta, where the Buddha's conversations with various brahmins are recorded. In particular he writes:
He also addresses the Brahmasamyutta, and in one paragraph he writes:
Generally, babies do not have a sense of 'self'. Modern psychology has studied this well. 'Self' starts to form as the child gets older.
What does this have to do with the sense of 'self' people feel or believe here & now?
Rebirths? Heavens? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the topic?
Very clearly explained.
The Chinese Taoist Master Chuang-Tzu, born 369 BC, wrote:
“The knowledge of the ancients was perfect. How perfect? At first, they did not know that there were things. This is the most perfect knowledge; nothing can be added. Next, they knew there were things, but did not yet make distinctions between them. Next, they made distinctions between them, but they did not yet pass judgment upon them. When judgments were passed, Tao was destroyed.”
He saw directly into the way the mind works and how it separates us from our real being, the Tao, or Life Itself.
“At first, they did not know that there were things.”
This was where we were before the development of the minds capacity to differentiate between objects. We saw directly what was before us, but there was no us. We were simply aware of what was taking place. Without the mind telling us what something was, there was just the suchness of what presented itself. Life was in perfect balance. We were whole and complete as Life Itself.
“Next, they knew there were things, but did not yet make distinctions between them.”
The brain was evolving. We were beginning to be able to abstract objects from the wholeness, which was needed for the further evolution of our specie. Things are just names, symbols for objects, etc.
Something Master Chuang-Tzu did not point out is that this was also the beginning of the idea of “me”, which was just another thought turned into an object, the beginning of the ego dream. It takes an object to objectify things apart from itself. But this was still at the stage of the innocent.
The steps from the state of direct Being into the ego process took thousands of years to refine. It was so subtle that few knew it was happening and now accept it as reality.
“Next, they made distinctions between them, but they did not yet pass judgment upon them.”
We could name objects, processes, feelings, and along with memory we could know the past and project thoughts into the future. Which are always just ideas and concepts. Yet we did not judge what was seen or thought. That would come with the deepening of the idea of ego.
A tree is a tree. A human is a human. Just as animals do today, we just saw and responded in whatever way was needed. No need for judgment.
“When judgments were passed, Tao was destroyed.”
In time we became so lost in the idea of being a separate ego we saw so subtly that we could make judgments as to whether something was good or bad, not realizing it was only an idea.
Master Chuang-Tzu would have been more helpful if he had also pointed out that with the development of ego came insecurity. Our judgments are mostly based in support of the ego dream and the need to feel secure within ourselves. We have not lost sight of what we truly are, but we are not conscious of it. The ego is fearful of anything that points to the fact that it really does not exist. Judgments are just another way for the ego to protect itself. The ego will identify with anything that makes if feel real. If we make a judgment about another person, etc., it makes us feel a little more secure; thinking we are the one making judgment.
The Tao, as wholeness, completeness, balance, purity of being is lost the moment we think we are something separate. But in Reality the Tao is never destroyed, nor can it be. We are the Tao. All the ego is is passing thoughts, which form beliefs, concepts, and judgments, which bring about the feeling of a separate being in opposition to the wholeness of that which Is. Tao is Life. Ego is dream. Ego cannot know the completeness of Life; no matter how hard it tries or how long it is on one path or another in search of what already is the fact.
There are many seekers and teachers who say that nothing is real. They have read or heard people before them say that there are no things. They take that as meaning there is nothing. But that is not what is meant by saying there are no things. Things are thoughts. We name some un-nameable and it becomes a thing. We, as ego, from then on only see the name, not the reality from which it came. This planet is real, it is not nothing, only thoughts are nothing.
As the brain evolved, it became mind, created by the thinking process, but it was still a needed tool to survive on this planet. If we know that a certain pool of water is poison we won’t drink form it. This is not judgment, it is intelligence. For us to seemingly judge what is going on in the world as insanity leading to death, that is not being judgmental, it is intelligence.
It is only the ego that fears ending, which is its insecurity. Without that insecurity, one knows themselves to be the wholeness of Life, the Tao and nothing can be lost.
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
Ud 1.10 PTS: Ud 6
Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya
The concept of no-self (non-self is perhaps a better way of looking at it) is a very interesting one and can be viewed on various levels. I would also really look into the concept of nonduality. For me they go hand-in-hand.
For example, we might understand that there is not only no-self because we are ever-changing but because we are one with everything else in the Universe. Look at the Butterfly Effect. Our actions affect everyone and everything and everyone else's actions affect us. And thus if I hurt someone else, I am also hurting myself, and all those I love. When we TRULY understand this, not just on a hypothetical level, it inspires infinite compassion within us for all beings.
Indeed, what are you? The only suiting word is "impermanent." "Non-self" is not meant to mean you don't exist. It's a concept that humbles us. We're really just the same as everyone else.
Sogyal Rinpoche wrote: "Most people take the word 'reincarnation' to imply there is some "thing" that reincarnates, which travels from life to life. But in Buddhism we do not believe in an independent and unchanging entity like a soul or ego that survives the death of the body. What provides the continuity between lives is not an entity, we believe, but the ultimately subtlest level of counsciousness.
The Buddhist sage Nagasena explained it to King Milinda......
The King asked Nagasena: "When someone is reborn, is he the same as the one who just died, or is he different?"
Nagasena replied: "He is neither the same nor different... Tell me, if a man were to light a lamp, could it provide light the whole night long?"
"Yes."
"Is the flame then which burns in the first watch of the night the same as the one that burns in the second... or the last?"
"No."
"Does that mean there is one lamp in the first watch of the night, another in the second, and another in the third?"
"No, it's because of that one lamp that the light shines all night.""
(There is more - you can find the whole passage in a Google search).
Some people consider our "soul" or "self" in Buddhism to be our "Karmic stream."
Do you agree that you are ever-changing? Even down to your very cells: various cells that were in your body when you were born no longer exist, they were replaced by new ones. Every moment parts of what you call the "self" are dying and being replaced with something new.
So could I not ask: "How is your karma from your life up to now then transferred the rest of your life from this point on?"
There is also still a "self" in a practical, everyday sense. It's just that it's every-changing. "You" are a different "you" from one moment to the next, yet still the same "you." The story Sogyal Rinpoche quoted attempts to explain this.
Agreed.
In terms of the illusory nature of self which develops in the sentient being.
If the self in this life is a real, true actual self does it start when you are 5 or has it always been there? If it only starts at age 3, 4, 5 or 6 then it cannot be real and true because it arises out of a combination of causes and conditions and Buddha always says that that which rises out of causes and conditions is not really real. He does say that.
On the other hand, if there is this self of the being which continues through rebirths, in heaven and so on, then this view of self is somewhat different and this transcendent self may have more validity than the secular self which last 50 or 60 or 100 years here on the surface of the earth. Sorry for
Self is an assumption around which we order our reality. This assumed "I" is the agent, captain, or controller of bodymind. The seer, hearer, feeler and so forth. The self is the intender of intention. It is usually viewed as a temporary entity that will dissolve with the bodymind, or on a more subtle level, the the pure timeless no-thing at the subjective pole of awareness.
Through the practice of “Not I, Not I” the bodymind becomes an object of awareness in a progressive fashion, starting at the gross end of the objective pole and retreating back along the axis of “I” toward the subtle end of subjective pole. When all the elements of bodymind (internal, external. subtle and gross) that were previously assumed to have the nature of "Me" become clear objects of awareness, the subjective pole is been clarified. It is at this point that one must be careful not to grasp the subtle notion of Self as the pure receptive absence at the subjective pole. Having begun in Advaita Vedanta I had reified this timeless equilibrium as the un-manifest Self or Godhead, so I was an Eternalist. It was only once the very nature of this “Self” became ,in turn, an object of awareness (A profoundly peaceful, clear, and edgless “body” pervading the field of reality) that the last vestige of “the transcendent experiencer” dissolved.
There can still be a contraction around a sense of a solid “I” when certain karmic buttons get pushed, so practice goes on. But the default mode is no longer the sense of being an experiencer of life. It is now the sense of a stream of experiencing that includes the arising of intentions. There are still the subjective and objective poles, but these are now just the extensive and receptive sides of a single groundless occasion. Bodymind and world are an ownerless continuum of spontaneous arising. Interestingly this resulted in a more integrated and autonomous social identity.
That in a nutshell is where things are at. There is much left out and I apologize if the language is unfamiliar to anyone. It is honest language. If this description is of value to you, good, if not that's also fine.