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.
What is meant by the illusory nature of the self?
I think I had a little "ah-ha!" moment that I don't want to take too seriously, but I'd like to run it by experienced Buddhists and see their opinion on the issue. I am a first year biology/physics student at my college so these ideas seem very interesting to me. I don't have very much knowledge of Buddhist texts, so if this is totally obvious please forgive me.
It is true that we are all interconnected from every sub-atomic particle that links out atoms, to the atoms that links our molecules, to the molecules that make our organelles, which make up our cells, our cells for tissues, and organs, systems, and organisms, but it doesn't stop there. The organisms require nutrients which is usually obtained from vegetables which are just different types of organisms, sometimes the nutrients come from more complex organisms.
But it's not simply the obtaining of nutrients that defines the interconnections. The wind, which has oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide (other essential nutrients for most living things); the sunlight, which excites electrons when in contact with organic material; water, which provides a suitable environment for all our cells to thrive. All of these organic and inorganic processes go into making just one organism. No organism is a closed system or simple object, but rather an ever changing dynamic process. Let's just focus on humans.
We as humans have other levels of interconnectedness that apparently go beyond our base needs of survival. Namely socialization, culture, economics, and that mysterious thing called love.
Any human being is in a state of flux, so that when you meet someone they are the sum total of all their life experiences: nutritional intake, amount of exercise, how much meditation they've done, the books they read, the people they met, how much sunlight they receive (you'll notice a marked difference in kindness between someone from where I live, Upstate New York, and someone from a much sunnier area), what they watch on TV, basically: the overall choices they made, combined with the things that are out of their control.
All a human is is a vessal, but it's just a snapshot of time that is constantly changing, from the smallest biological processes to keep the machines of the body alive, to the external stimuli that leave an unknowable imprint on one's mind.
So when we have this concept of the "self" what do we refer to? Is it our mind? but our mind is constantly being bombarded by things that alter its focus and change its thought process, if ever so slightly.
Is it our personality traits? But our personality traits are just the derivatives of our thought processes, so if the mind isn't "what we are," then our personality traits certainly aren't.
Is it our body? Our body, too, is constantly in a state of flux.
Is it the choices we make? The things we do? The people we associate with? The things we eat? The places we go?
Or is it some combination of all these things and more? Or is it a non-existent concept?
Having read some books by the Dalai Lama and some other Zen masters, I would be inclined to agree with them when they say our concept of the self is illusory.
But is this all they are referring to? Or is there more to the story?
This is where people who've been meditating on this longer than me come in!
It is true that we are all interconnected from every sub-atomic particle that links out atoms, to the atoms that links our molecules, to the molecules that make our organelles, which make up our cells, our cells for tissues, and organs, systems, and organisms, but it doesn't stop there. The organisms require nutrients which is usually obtained from vegetables which are just different types of organisms, sometimes the nutrients come from more complex organisms.
But it's not simply the obtaining of nutrients that defines the interconnections. The wind, which has oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide (other essential nutrients for most living things); the sunlight, which excites electrons when in contact with organic material; water, which provides a suitable environment for all our cells to thrive. All of these organic and inorganic processes go into making just one organism. No organism is a closed system or simple object, but rather an ever changing dynamic process. Let's just focus on humans.
We as humans have other levels of interconnectedness that apparently go beyond our base needs of survival. Namely socialization, culture, economics, and that mysterious thing called love.
Any human being is in a state of flux, so that when you meet someone they are the sum total of all their life experiences: nutritional intake, amount of exercise, how much meditation they've done, the books they read, the people they met, how much sunlight they receive (you'll notice a marked difference in kindness between someone from where I live, Upstate New York, and someone from a much sunnier area), what they watch on TV, basically: the overall choices they made, combined with the things that are out of their control.
All a human is is a vessal, but it's just a snapshot of time that is constantly changing, from the smallest biological processes to keep the machines of the body alive, to the external stimuli that leave an unknowable imprint on one's mind.
So when we have this concept of the "self" what do we refer to? Is it our mind? but our mind is constantly being bombarded by things that alter its focus and change its thought process, if ever so slightly.
Is it our personality traits? But our personality traits are just the derivatives of our thought processes, so if the mind isn't "what we are," then our personality traits certainly aren't.
Is it our body? Our body, too, is constantly in a state of flux.
Is it the choices we make? The things we do? The people we associate with? The things we eat? The places we go?
Or is it some combination of all these things and more? Or is it a non-existent concept?
Having read some books by the Dalai Lama and some other Zen masters, I would be inclined to agree with them when they say our concept of the self is illusory.
But is this all they are referring to? Or is there more to the story?
This is where people who've been meditating on this longer than me come in!
0
Comments
I think all of this 'I' is just a layer of thinking. Like I can mentally label (based on my attachment and familiarity) that MY dog is MY dog but I think I am actually meaning more than just 'the dog I feed and play with'. Even though thats what we mean sometimes. For example we might feel prideful of our dog and become angry when someone criticizes its beauty (even though the dog does not care in the slightest).
The Buddha taught that all things are impermanent (anicca) and thus, when clung to, lead to dukkha. As such, there is nothing fit to be clung to as I/self/mine (all things are anatta, not-self). The doctrine extends to anything which we include in our overall self-concept, which indeed includes all of the things you mentioned.
The importance of this doctrine comes through pure realization rather than intellectual understanding. When clinging no longer arises, dukkha no longer arises.
I strongly suggest reading the following sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html
Well said o0M-V-D! :cool:
.
Yes thats a rather good analysis, There is also the illusory No-self of everything else as well