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.
The (semi) permanent self
Daozen
Veteran
Hi forum! First post.
OK. Buddha says the self is impermanent.
BUT you can't deny that, throughout your whole life, there is a consistent awareness of selfhood that fundamentally does not change. What i see in the mirror may get more wrinkles, but it's still 'me'.
How does this square with Buddhist philosophy & practice?
Namaste
OK. Buddha says the self is impermanent.
BUT you can't deny that, throughout your whole life, there is a consistent awareness of selfhood that fundamentally does not change. What i see in the mirror may get more wrinkles, but it's still 'me'.
How does this square with Buddhist philosophy & practice?
Namaste
0
Comments
On the macro scale.
"Frontal lobe damage" common accident in car crashes. Often after a mild manned person become very bad tempered. Which person is the real you?
On the micro scale
You and you partner have a really bad argument. She's seen you've been checking out some dodgey sites on the internet. You lose your temper. So what's the real you? The person checking out the porn? The person helping a friend, the furious person arguing with their partner?
There are very deep philosophical arguments behind no-self, which is the very heart of Buddhism, to do with basically on one side no ego, and on the other nothing having inherent existence. But there are some wise people here how can explain that much better. I'm just trying to show it in practice.
And what is this 'you'? Are you telling me that this 'you' hasn't changed its opinions, perceptions, evaluations and ideas?
Are the ideas you had as a, say, 16-year-old, the same ones you hold today? (if you're 16, I've just shot myself in the foot, but you get the gist.....)
This 'you' is NOT a constant.
This you folds, weaves and shapes itself according to every single bit of information, perception, experience that comes your way.
Tell me what of this YOU has remained completely unchanged since 'you' were eight years old.....;)
Palzang
Just because your mind believes it's still 'me', it does not mean it is clear insight.
Brother.
:buck:
Do you want to identify with the body that ages, wrinkle and die?
How about the nails, skin flakes and sweat etc? It is yours too but why don't you want to keep them?
If the body is yours you should be able to stop aging but the point is you have less control over your body that you think.
I find that inner "me " is never the same "me" from one day to the next just as outer "me" isn't either.
.
That self is a delusion and llusion, it is an expected product of the perspective of experience (that's the core dharmic sense), but also language, culture and social-identity all add to the illusion.
When you see things as they are this illusion becomes extinguised, though even then, she is a seductive master;)
mat
Too add I find the outer me more permanent from day to day.:D
’It builds itself from 1 cell into 100 trillion cells in 9 months. It rebuilds 98% of itself in 3 months!
That's right- 98% of the atoms that comprise your body right now will
not be in your body 3 - 6 months from now. They will have been
replaced by atoms that you accumulate from your environment, mostly in
the form of food."’
So, what? if anything, can you attribute to a self?
There is no self in your body, and your thoughts similarly come and go.
So where is the "me" which you talk about? it's just an illusion, like the individual frames that make up the illusion of a movie.
Like our body might be "more stable in it's appearance" for a period of time.
PS: Anyone ever watched the masterpiece animated movie Akira?
This last sentence reminds me of Akira's body expanding and changing rapidly...
You can observe this one change
PS. The concept of interpenetration implies that a change in the environment's "perception" of the subject reflects changes in the self-nature of the subject itself. The phenomenon of perception, the result of interbeing between the "subject" and the "object" seems to be the first principle of Buddhist metaphysics. This isn't problematic in my opinion. Quantum mechanics tells us that if a tree falls in a lonely forest, there was a sound only if that sound left some kind of physical record behind which can, in principle, be rediscovered through scientific detective work. Here, inanimate physical record plays the role of "perception" or "observation", but RNA molecules in the human brain serve as just as well as any other kind of physical record. This is not pseudoscience. Ask in a physics forum if you don't believe me, or read up on the Mach-Zehnder interferometer.
Either it is, it isn't, both or neither.
But if one of us told you one of those things, how would it help your practice? What would it do for you?
Apologies in advance if any of my paraphrasing is incorrect.
“You are always changing your behaviour, opinions, perceptions, evaluations and ideas – even your physical body replaces itself over time. You are just an 'ever-changing conglomeration of phenomenon'. So, which 'you' is the real you?” (Tony 67, Federica, Dazzle, nlighten, kurra)
This seems to be by far the most common argument raised against any kind of permanent or semi-permanent self (the kind i am asserting dies when i die). Buddha's 'chariot analogy' is in the same vein.
However, this argument is reductionistic, whereas the 'self' is in fact a wholistic, emergent phenomenon. Kurra mentioned the notion that our atoms are interchanging all the time. Yes, but so what? If you slowly over time replace every single part of your car, it is still recognisably the same car. Objects persist, even if their atoms 'swap-out' constantly. This is like what I mean by 'semi-permanent' self – we are more than the sum of the parts, we are the ongoing 'holding pattern' as it were, at a psychological level. I change, but I am still me, and I am not others. If you want to put fancy words on it, I might call it my “ground of being”, or “naked awareness”. It remains present even in meditation.
Frankly, if we did not have this sense of self, how could we function? We would get hit by a bus. Or in fact, we probably couldn't even move out of bed or function at all in any normal sense. We would be developmentally like the young babies who have not developed any self-awareness at all. Thus, it seems like an utterly necessary survival mechanism to me. Seriously, doesn't everyone share this feeling? You 'know' who 'you' are, right?
“The idea of permanent self is a delusion, a 'habit not based on reality'” (Palzang, Dhamma Dhatu, MatSalted)
Sure i am probably deluded
“What help would it be to know one way of the other?” (Karma Dondrup Tashi)
Now that's a very good question. I'm not sure, just curious, but also, it comes up a lot with Buddhism so it seems important.
Namaste
Read this
No-self or Not-self?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
You might also like to read this :
Continued :
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
.
Without giving to others in an awakened fashion as distinguished from business as usual I would suggest there is no meaningful self. Sorry I'm tired of this merry go round.
Dazzle - thank you, haven't had time to read yours yet, but will
Jeffrey - not sure what u mean ... a meaningful self comes with giving to others?
Namaste
But when the chariot is seen via direct insight, it is normal & ordinary.
This ordinariness is called 'suchness' or 'thusness' (dhammata, tathata).
How could it be any other way?
This is contradictory. There is no "me" in naked awareness nor individuality. Everything is the same, just "phenomena".
Best to stop reading all of those books that stir up the imagination.
Via wisdom, which makes it more easy & more efficient.
The body has a nervous system. With mind, it knows what to do. When a baby that has no developed self concept touches a flame, its nervous system with feeling & mind knows to withdraw from the flame.
To end, you have misunderstood the chariot metaphor. The chariot is not just physical. The chariot has mind and mental qualities like wisdom & compassion.
For me this is the core of Buddhism, it is the natural extension of impermanence. And is what makes Buddhism different from all / most other world religions. They believe that there is a core to you, that is unmoving and eternal. Your soul, spirit, Atman and half a dozen other terms.
You can either see there is something eternal and unchanging in the universe, God, the Tao and that he has either given you an eternal element, or you are an extension of his / its "Soul".
Or the universe is impermanent and in constant flux. Everything is churning and changing driven by karma and suffering.
It's a simple idea, but I think very hard to grasp, it's taken me 20 years
Anicca vata sankhara
Impermanent, alas, are all conditions
Uppada-vaya-dhammino
Arising and passing away
Uppajjitva nirujjhanti
Having been born they all must cease
Tesam upasamo sukho
The calming of conditions is true happiness
Note that this is a matter of view, not fact.
I agree, but emergent phenomena ("appearances") are not-truly-self-existent abstractions in Buddhist metaphysics. That is, the Buddhist definition of "existent" is the same one as in classical Indian ontology and that of Kant's "noumena": it can't be conditioned by other phenomena, but must possess a solid core of thing-in-itself "realness" that's transcendental, independent and absolute. It can't merely be a convenient label or a short-hand notation to describe the behavior of interdependent phenomena. Buddhism teaches that the self is not a self-existent noumenon, but a temporary, many-layered construction that's always coming to an end, beginning anew, etc in many big and small ways.
If change and atomism is the fundamental nature of existence, then absolute realness and absolute unrealness are both incomplete views that fail to capture the subtleties involved in the true nature of the interaction of phenomena. However, a new self-nature does indeed arise at every moment in the sense of relative truth, even though there is no absolute self to be found. IMO, you don't need faith in an afterlife to agree with this much Buddhist philosophy.
Now, you can certainly create a metaphysical system where abstractions like the relative self are defined as "truly self-existent", but that wouldn't change anything, would it? It would be nothing more than a different set of words for discussing the same ideas, although it may be more comforting to some, to know that they "exist".
No, I'm afraid it's "recognizably the same car" only because of your view. There's no Absolute Law of Reality that dictates it's the "same" car. For example, from a process-based mindstream-ish view, I could say that the car-image arising on my retina is one causal result of the same car-continuum, while the tire tracks on the road are others. It's a car-continuum because even if you change the tires, the chassis and the engine one by one, it's still the same continuum, (like a mindstream) but a whole new car from another POV! Every scratch received by the car changes it's self-nature in the Buddhist view; moreover, it's but one causal fruit of the old car. This may seem counter-intuitive partly because of your cultural conditioning, partly because of English grammar, and partly because of the natural idealism humans evolved on our long journey to rationality. I strongly recommend this article by Prof. Dawkins on the fallacies human beings fall into when we try thinking "naturally": http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm
Similarly, you must also think differently about self-nature when you're analyzing it from the Buddhist perspective. Sorry, but that's all I have time for, actually.
_/\_
I will post my reflections on them tomorrow.
Namaste.
BTW, different languages are based on different forms of idealism since there's no "perfect" way to do this either.
That's not very skillful IMO, especially in an age when we know how delusional ideas repeatedly sneak in under emotionally appealing disguises. In fact, this is exactly what Vedantists say when you ask them about the absolute Self. You can experience it in meditation. First you experience selflessness, and then you come across the absolute Self, which nothing can budge. Buddhists say just the opposite: At a "lower" level, you experience Self, which then dissolves into selflessness emptiness. (in many different ways, yes)
This only goes to show that people often experience whatever they expect during meditation, hence I think meditation should initially remain grounded in intellectual understanding as tradition recommends, and that Buddhists ought to subject ideas to the test for logical consistency. Moreover, don't you think being able to explain it intellectually when asked is better than saying just meditate and you'll see it? Additional benefits include consistency of view and a lack of that adharmic insecurity, or conversely, fanatical disregard for rational argument you see in so many Buddhists these days.
I am not talking about the general sense of selflessness, compassion and the general idea we get about not-self by reading Buddhist texts and contemplating on that. I am talking about the ground level defilement that a person has on the self delusion. That cannot be eradicated by mere rationalizations. We need to get into meditation.
Let me say straight up I am not supporting the idea of atman – an eternal, essential, transcendental self.
I am saying there is something we could call a semi-permanent self, or perhaps more accurately (since semi-permanent in the final analysis equals impermanent) a persistent self. That is, a sense of self that continues over a period of time (our lifetime), despite continual ongoing internal change. I also previously called it a “holding pattern”.
I believe that having such a sense of persistent self, and correspondingly, a sense of persistent others, is a necessary fact of life for humans. It is a physical function of our consciousness, it is implicit in our language. We are hardwired to think in terms of 'I', 'me', 'my', etc.
Indeed I am indeed certain that every single person on this forum has this sense of self, despite wordy metaphysical speculations to the contrary. Just ponder for a moment and I am sure you will see that this is true for yourself.
IMO it is incorrect to confuse what Buddha presented as absolute truth (impermanence, no-self etc) with the realm of everyday, conventional relativity that we actually inhabit. This is a realm of objects that persist, perhaps not permanently, but for extended periods of time, and this includes our selves as human beings. This phenomenon is not explained away by reductionistically examining the changing components of a structure whilst ignoring the elephant in the room – the fact that there IS a higher-level structure in the first place.
Namaste
And that's exactly what it is, a "sense", and nothing more. In Buddhism, we're told to recognize it for what it is.
PS. Sorry I wasn't clear. Abstract relative selves form a continuum, but the sense of a persistent self is just a "sense".
Language is wrong. Look at what I said about human evolution. Higher-level consciousness can bypass our primal presumptions. Language can be fixed with a few creative contortions too.
You mean none of us are enlightened, or what? Quit rubbing it in. Or are you saying that we CAN'T think of ourselves except as a atomic, therefore it's true, therefore we shouldn't bother questioning these assumptions, or what..? I don't get it, but I disagree with what I think you're saying. Read about Edmund Husserl's phenomenology to learn the mechanism of how we humans use our evolved idealism for cognizance. Are you saying that I can't use a shorthand notation without believing it to be the alpha and omega of everything True and Holy?
Okay, where has the Buddha denied the existence of "higher-level structures"? Isn't this a strawman?
Yes, the Two Truths: relative & absolute.
Go look in a mirror. Recognise yourself? Now do it again. Still recognise yourself? That's persistence, and it will work your whole life, despite incessant internal & external evolution.
It's more than "just a sense". The sun still shines, even when it is behind clouds, & whether i choose to believe it or not.
Namaste
Look, there's no need to get self-righteous over this. I try to think more accurately: this is one result conditioned by the past "human" conglomeration called kurra. My internal shortcuts arrive at results much faster, but less accurately, so I double-check those calculations when I can afford to.
Not only can it fully bypass your gut reactions, but you can even develop a more rational set of low-level reactions to replace your natural one. You have to let the old one go first, but everyone trains and changes it piece by piece anyway. Your choice.
This "me"or "I" or "self" is merely a creation of your mind. There is no abiding permanent self. Please show me this "self". You do not exist in and of yourself but you are a result of conditions, your parts and your thinking. Of course you have a body, you occupy space and create effects and you have your mind, but there is no "I".
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
I'm a Buddhist and a Taoist like you too, but I think Taoism is definitely mistaken on this topic.
Mundane truth concerns itself with self and supramundane truth with not-self (anatta, sunnata).
For example, in the Dhammapada there is the Attavagga. Here, the Buddha speaks in the language of conventional or relative truth.
Some Buddhists hold the state of having no views and no conceptuality is absolute truth. Some Buddhists hold the state of having no views and no concepts is Nirvana. But the Buddha did not hold such an understanding.
In the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta, the Buddha advised states of no views and no conceptuality were conditioned states or fabricated states. These states are worthy of development but they are states of concentration.
For example, the Heart Sutra teaches there are no things. It teaches non-existence or no existence. In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha advised both the views of existence & non-existence were not right view. Here, the Buddha advised the views of dependent arising & ceasing and impermanence are right view. Many Buddhist mistake non-existence or non-conceptuality with emptiness. They think non-conceptuality is emptiness. They think the mind empty of thought is emptiness. They think non-conceptuality is absolute truth.
But in reality, non-conceptuality is mundane or relative truth. Non-conceptuality is not absolute truth. It is just a form of concentration.
In the correct Buddhist understanding, conceptuality or concepts are also empty.
It the correct Buddhist understanding, all things whatsoever without exception are empty. This is absolute truth.
BTW, since you brought up the issue of language, did you know that some languages make the abstraction-free experiential event primary, unlike English, which splits it up into categories and analyzes it in terms of nouns and verbs? I think you should learn at least one non-Indo-European language (one with relatively few isolating features; make it a polysynthetic language or an agglutinative one, like Finnish) before trying to abjudicate the behavior of our species as a whole. See this, for instance: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=105794 I'm afraid human thought has far wider boundaries than you let yourself imagine.
I thought he was being witty. He wasn't.
The self, the ego is as real as anything else. What isn't real is our relationship to it.
Now take your ego or "I" and slam a car door on it.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!
Actually, medically speaking, the pain isn't "real" either. It's simply a bunch of electrical impulses in your brain. Attach a certain molecule to those particular receptor sites in your brain and there is no pain. So pain isn't any more real than any other perception.
Mtns
Ah...
'Conventionally' speaking. Oh well, yes. 'Conventionally' speaking of course, everything is real. 'Buddhistically' speaking - they ain't.
They don't reperesent them, they're figments of them...
'Imagination-nature'.... Don't remember that term in any of the suttas....Do you mean they are not real?
I was always told that the thought everything is not real was incorrect, unskillful and is the fist step toward nihilism.
Our mental constructs and memories of people / things are unreal and delusion.
But there is reality around us. If the sun goes supernova try telling everyone it's delusion as you fry.