Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

self

questionfulquestionful
edited February 2010 in Buddhism Basics
There IS a self. It's just nothing like what we naturally believe it to be. Right?
"The watcher", the space in which perception happens. That could be called a self. The problem is that it is not to be conjectured about. So there IS a self, it's just stupid to worry about its specifics.

Is this how it is?

Comments

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited February 2010
    What do you 'naturally believe it to be'?

    Let's start from your perception and go from there....It's easier than generalising!
  • questionfulquestionful
    edited February 2010
    a human body with a personality.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited February 2010
    The Buddha taught there is nothing fit to be clung to as self because all things are anicca, anatta, and dukkha. Or is the body and personality permanent and not dukkha when clung to as self?
  • questionfulquestionful
    edited February 2010
    the body and personality are not permanent, so they are not a "self", i was just saying that is what i used to believe was my self, and what i think most people see as the self.

    and i agree with buddha that there is nothing fit to be clung to. but not because there is nothing there. but because due to the nature of what is there, we cannot have an idea of it. but there is something there! there is a self!

    at least that's my current opinion.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited February 2010
    He never taught that there is "nothing there." he taught that everything there is conditioned and subject to the Three Marks. His teachings encompass the overall self-concept -that is, not just self, but I and mine as well. The self-concept is no problem so long as it's seen for what it is and not clung to.

    What does what you're speculating about have to do with dukkha?
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited February 2010
    questionful wrote: »
    the body and personality are not permanent, so they are not a "self", i was just saying that is what i used to believe was my self, and what i think most people see as the self.

    and i agree with buddha that there is nothing fit to be clung to. but not because there is nothing there. but because due to the nature of what is there, we cannot have an idea of it. but there is something there! there is a self!

    at least that's my current opinion.


    If the body is self you could tell it to stop becoming old, sick or ugly but you can't even if you try. Aging, sickness and death is just nature. Breathing occurs by itself and will eventually stop with or without your permission.

    Thoughts and feelings are not yours either. Anger, fear, love, likes and dislikes arise on their own. You have no control over them.

    Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and body sensations arise due to contact with your sense organs without your consent.

    You are not the owner of these things. In reality "you" own nothing.
  • questionfulquestionful
    edited February 2010
    i agree^^
    o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »
    He never taught that there is "nothing there." he taught that everything there is conditioned and subject to the Three Marks. His teachings encompass the overall self-concept -that is, not just self, but I and mine as well. The self-concept is no problem so long as it's seen for what it is and not clung to.

    What does what you're speculating about have to do with dukkha?
    that makes sense.
    to answer your question; uuum, idk. i guess the concept of self is involved in a lot of problems of suffering. why do you ask?
  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited February 2010
    I imagine that not knowing the true nature of 'self' leads to suffering. I imagine reading in your post an indication of that knowing.

    Do you imagine the 'self' as arising due to circumstances?

    if so, I imagine you get it! :D

    So, why so many 'imagines'? cuz that's all we can really talk about!! what we imagine!! :D
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited February 2010
    What do you mean by 'self' to begin with? 'Self' is a concept created by the mind and is ultimately just a word. When it comes down to it, how necessary are such words? Now, I'm not saying that we should avoid concepts and not utilize them. They are very helpful. Let's just not replace the primacy of direct experience with terminology.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2010
    questionful wrote: »
    There IS a self. It's just nothing like what we naturally believe it to be. Right?
    "The watcher", the space in which perception happens. That could be called a self. The problem is that it is not to be conjectured about. So there IS a self, it's just stupid to worry about its specifics.

    Is this how it is?

    The idea of pointing is so you can look, and know for yourself intimately what is pointed at, to, not for you to cast another belief system over it -- yes or no, these may both be too premature.

    Meditation is a very good tool for this questionful but it takes persistence, patience and a lot of determination.

    Best wishes,

    Abu
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited February 2010
    *waves to Abu*

    (AllinOne here)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    questionful wrote: »
    There IS a self. It's just nothing like what we naturally believe it to be. Right?
    "The watcher", the space in which perception happens. That could be called a self. The problem is that it is not to be conjectured about. So there IS a self, it's just stupid to worry about its specifics.

    Is this how it is?

    That watcher is the illusion of self, not self. In a sense, that is the whole point:)
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2010
    The watcher (as I've heard it described) can be a problem if you very solidly believe in that identity as the watcher. The reason is that the watcher is just a passing thought in the spaces of awareness. And is no more solid and real than other passing thoughts one might have.

    When I first started meditation I had a strong sense of the watcher. When I got actual training one of the things my contact student (experienced person in the sangha) wondered about my meditation was this strong sense of identity I had as the watcher in meditation. I think its kind of a subtle point, but the way I feel when I meditate you could say is a bit different at this point. I am not saying I am 'better' now, just saying that I have changed over the years and with the influence of my contact person and sangha.
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited February 2010
    The "watcher" is just as impermanent as any phenomena. The thing is, the "watcher" can in an instant become the "watched". ;)

    Say, in meditation, you suddenly realize that you have drifted from the object of mindfulness (say in-out-breaths) and thinking about icecream. The previous "watcher" (the one watching the icecream) has now become the "watched" by a new "watcher" who discovered this distraction. All these "watchers" are simply momentary passing thoughts.

    I think it would be more appropriate to think of the "self" as an illusion created by the seamless working together of the component parts of the five aggregates (khandhas) than thinking of it in terms of the "watcher" or "knower" ... :)
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    edited February 2010
    questionful wrote: »
    There IS a self. It's just nothing like what we naturally believe it to be. Right? "The watcher", the space in which perception happens.

    I am told that with further practice this division between watcher and watched is seen to be an illusion and disappears. In dzogchen they talk about rigpa -- awareness -- but you should not misunderstand what this means.
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Rather than saying there is a watcher, I prefer to say there is watching.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    not1not2 wrote: »
    Rather than saying there is a watcher, I prefer to say there is watching.

    I like that!

    Are these the same?

    There is no thinker only thoughts.
    There is is no watcher only watching.

    Mat
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    I like that!

    Are these the same?

    There is no thinker only thoughts.
    There is is no watcher only watching.

    Mat

    Pretty much. I prefer thinking to thoughts as 'thinking' suggests more of a dynamic process and 'thoughts' suggest more of solid actual things. 'Thinking' is also more inclusive of the subject-object relationship.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2010
    not1not2 wrote: »
    *waves to Abu*

    (AllinOne here)

    I know ;) I recognised your avatar !!

    Hello AllInOne :grin: Blessings. _/\_
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited February 2010
    long time. Hope you are doing well :)

    _/\_
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Thankyou, and likewise, not1not2 _/\_ :)
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    I think its kind of a subtle point, but the way I feel when I meditate you could say is a bit different at this point. I am not saying I am 'better' now, just saying that I have changed over the years and with the influence of my contact person and sangha.

    Thanks Jeffrey. Fair to say that continued practice is always required. Things can change and enable genuine flowering -- but this is usually via the route of practice, and not just belief (even if this belief is "There is a watcher or no watcher or The watcher is the watched" and its other variations.)
  • questionfulquestionful
    edited February 2010
    thanks for your input everyone, it is interesting. i will keep meditating. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.