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 this "self"?
buddhafoot
Veteran
What is this "self"?
Hopefully, I've raised your curiosity in regards to this subject.
There are many teachings of "self" and how to deal or not deal with it.
But, for many people new to Buddhism - this topic seems so far out of the way that one could sometimes get lost "staring at the finger instead of the moon." (which a Buddhist saying - most especially a Zen Buddhist saying - maybe someone will teach us that lesson too!)
How important is it when someone is beginning on the path to Buddhism to worry about all the philosophical questions regarding self? There are the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the whole business with the "monkey-mind" when it comes to your first meditation sessions. Isn't that enough to work on?
I'm thinking that everything to do with Pali and canons and "this" method of Buddhism and "that" method of Buddhism is like sending your child to Sunday school and pounding 40 pages of "who begat who" in the Old Testament.
Now is your time for all our more learn-ed members to help the rest of us.
-bf
Hopefully, I've raised your curiosity in regards to this subject.
There are many teachings of "self" and how to deal or not deal with it.
But, for many people new to Buddhism - this topic seems so far out of the way that one could sometimes get lost "staring at the finger instead of the moon." (which a Buddhist saying - most especially a Zen Buddhist saying - maybe someone will teach us that lesson too!)
How important is it when someone is beginning on the path to Buddhism to worry about all the philosophical questions regarding self? There are the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the whole business with the "monkey-mind" when it comes to your first meditation sessions. Isn't that enough to work on?
I'm thinking that everything to do with Pali and canons and "this" method of Buddhism and "that" method of Buddhism is like sending your child to Sunday school and pounding 40 pages of "who begat who" in the Old Testament.
Now is your time for all our more learn-ed members to help the rest of us.
-bf
0
Comments
That is a very interesting comparison.
Buddhism is quite simple though. It is people and their never ending curiosity which makes these things a bit more complicated. The mind always craves and thirsts for more...
For example, the Buddha taught that all things were not-self ("Sabbe dhamma anatta"). Anatta is very simple and straight forward. However, people then wanted to know, "Why?". The Buddha explained that nothing is permanent or ultimately satisfactory because everything is subject to change, even our minds and bodies. People in turn asked, "Well what am "I" then?". The Buddha went on to describe the five aggregates that make up a sentient being - form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. Even this did not satisfy people's curiosity and questions. The Abhidhamma, which goes into even more detail, breaks down existence into its rudimentary constituents - but I will spare you the details as it would take up at least a few pages, and I don't feel like typing that much
This endless Q & A seemingly gives us most of the Pali Canon. The majority of it appears to be the Buddha compassionately sitting through endless meetings answering questions, and explaining concepts of Dhamma to be put into practice. The point is, the Truth is still the Truth regardless of the words in which you use to point to it. Whether your explanation is simple (i.e. simply "not-self") or complex (i.e. the complete Abhidhamma break down of existence) the 'mind' is still consumed by tahna because of avijja. There can be no real understanding until this 'barrier' of defilements is removed.
It is an extraordinary difficult task to teach such simple and yet profound ideas. If you put it too simply, people will ask an infinite amount of questions. If you put it too abstrusely, people will get painfully confused and walk away. The Buddha was a superb teacher in that respect, mainly because he taught just the way certain people needed to be taught.
Unfortunately, now we must figure out for ourselves which way of learning is right for us. Hence, the "Path to Awakening" (where 'Path' signifies the journey we must undertake in order to gain these profound insights characterized by 'Awakening'). Whether that Path is short or long, near or far, simple or complex, gradual or sudden, Pali or Sanskrit - only you can decide that for yourself.
I hope that this explanation proves to be right in the middle, and not in the WTF category.
Jason
Like I said in another post, I think sometimes we blow "awakening" up into something to big that we might even miss it if it were to happen.
But, Buddhism can't be that easy because it's been escaping people for many, many centuries.
I wonder what Buddha thought sitting under the Bohdi tree when it happened. If we recall, he spent many years doing many different techniques trying to find the Truth.
Then, in the course of one evening, after giving up on all the other paths he had chosen, it happened.
I think sometimes, "awakening" is such a simple thing. So easy if we throw away the years of transcripts, arguments, canons, and interpretations.
Did Siddartha have to contend with all of this (and I might step on some toes here) historical babble? Did he spend an entire life repeating the mantra "Life is suffering, life is suffering..."? No.
Just as with the teachings of Jesus - he would talk to the Sadducees and Pharisees and they were astounded at his logic. Even with all their teachings and education - because they had taken their God and blown it up into something that wasn't even possible to follow anymore. Jesus' way was simple, peaceful, kind and understanding.
I don't even know if I've said anything of importance at this point - so I'll stop.
-bf
I believe that the Buddha understood well the difficulties that he would face in attempting to teach his Realization to the world. It is said that after his Awakening he thought to himself:
"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."
Today we suffer those very same difficulties, if not more. The Buddha spent the next 45 years wandering and teaching to all those willing to learn. Even some of his own disciples misunderstood his teachings from time to time. I'm sure that the Buddha was weary of continuously clarifying the same points over and over again. (I know I would be at least, I don't think I've had the same job for more than two years!) While it can be said that the Buddha did not need such doctrines and teachers as we have today, we are not the Buddha, nor do we have his personal guidance. His spiritual advancement was said to have been developed over countless lifetimes. He was out walking this Path long before we even became aware of it. That is probably why he was the teacher, and we are his students - we are like fledglings under his wings of guidance.
Awakening is both simple and hard to achieve. It is simple because it is already there, it is a part of us. The Buddha taught that looking for it outside of oneself was completely pointless, and he advised that we should instead look within. However, it is hard because it is obscured from our 'eyes'. Ignorance, the state of not-knowing, covers it with a thick cloud of unquenchable craving and thirst. Whenever we come near to this Unconditional experience we get caught inside that dark cloud, becoming lost and entangled in greed, hatred, and delusion. Only when we are able to remove this veil of defilements that is wrapped before our proverbial eyes can we truly 'see' what the Buddha was pointing at.
What you're saying has a lot of truth in it. We as practitioners can tend to blow Awakening into something beyond what it is, not that we even know what it is to begin with. We take this idea of Nibbana and speculate, imagine, plan, doubt, theorize, analyze, fantasize, up and down, left to right, inside and out until we have lost ourselves even further to our anusaya (underlying tendecies/obsessions which are: sensual passion, resistance, views, uncertainty, conceit, passion for becoming, and ignorance). Our defilements are like the mythological Siren's song, drawing us forever to our repeated 'deaths' in the ocean of samsara with the lure of sensual desires.
It's almost like a catch 22 really, so simple and yet so hard. If you rely too much on the baggage of teachings then you are no better off than if you threw them away, but if you threw them away how would you know where to begin? Can you trust you own experiences, thought, and ideas completely? How so if they are continually obscured by greed, hatred, and delusion? That is why I believe we need some basis for our practice.
There is definitely work to be done. It may not be the kind of work we might imagine, but it is work nonetheless. That is why in the Suttas, after an arahant finally achieved this knowledge, this release he/she discerned:
"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.
You have said something very important buddhafoot, you just need to figure out what it was.
Jason
Everything falls away - you are just Complete and Empty, at one and the same moment, for a brief instant.... then, "you" come rushing back, into your "self".....
The trick is (ha ha ha, the trick....!) The trick is, to prolong the Moment. to remain Empty and Complete. To sit in Tranquillity and Inner Silence. To be united with everything, yet uniquely separate.
I tried describing this to Nick some time ago. How to separate from the 'Self'. I asked him to describe himself. He went through the physique, and the character.... and I then asked him, (aside from the immediate mental and physical trauma) would losing his arm fundamentally change who he 'is'? He admitted it wouldn't.
In moments of stress and sadness, I try to find a quiet moment to just sit and disconnect from the Suffering.... To observe the Pain, Sadness, Stress, Anguish and Fear.... to just sit and feel what it is "I" am feeling....and to distance 'MySelf' from it.... and to distance 'My' Self and to distance Self and to just Be....
If I am mindful, I do this in moments of happiness and Gladness too. Just to come within, and Be Still.
Am I right? Or Not?
Who is the 'I' that may be Right - or not?
^gassho^
But the real path is always individual. This is why so many texts lay such stress on the importance of the teacher. Only when we can share what is going on for us, on our own journey, and, the place being understood, move on, can we experience any sort of process.
It is just too easy to say "there is no 'I'" or "there is no journey". This is not what is experienced. And what is experienced is within the (apparent) isolation of the (apparent) individual. The teacher, having walked a similar path, can help the seeker and mitigate the loneliness.
Until a person is ready for such a challenging notion (to Westerners) as that which says there is no solid self, it is more likely to confuse them and put them off. Indeed, it may be necessary for the teacher to help the seeker to build ego boundaries first, before it is possible to dismantle them.
In response to this, the buddha broke things down into the 5 aggregates (skandhas) of form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. One by one, he demonstrated that each of them could not be construed as self, as they were impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self (anatta) or not existing independently and without fundamental existence. Then he demonstrated that there was nothing that can be identified which does not fit into to one of these 5 categories. So, this entity we regard as the self, only exists provisionally due to the interplay and co-mingling of the skandhas.
Additionally, he was pointing out that this experience we label self, is also always fluctuating and changing. At times we have absolutely no sense of self at all. According to logic, because even the sense of selfhood is not a constant experience, it too is just the interplay of the skandhas, appearing to be solid and fixed only under certain conditions. We can see this in our own experience. We have all had moments where we don't feel like this "I" any more (ie-getting lost in a book or a song or a dream). However, the mind's natural tendency is to make patterns and connect similar feelings, discarding that which does not fit into the desired category. So, the mind discards and ignores experiences which do not fit this sense of 'self' or expands this mental category of 'self' to include all experience. The latter is basically what the Brahmans were doing (which is better than the former). The thing is, a concept is just a concept, and does not have any intrinsic existence. The buddha basically said that the concept of 'self' is secondary and an abstraction without any fundamental reality. He basically said that both the view of 'self' and view of 'no-self' were misleading as they point the mind away from the moment to moment nature of reality, that cannot be pinned down by any mental abstraction.
It is also very important to realize that anatta applies to EVERYTHING, not just to the person, though it is not a strict denial of phenomenal existence. It does not imply void where there are obviously things happening. It simply points out the true nature of phenomena. All things exist in relation to all other things and are inextricably linked. And all conditioned objects are dependent open prerequisite conditions to arise.
Another interesting note is that the buddha says:
"All conditioned dharmas (objects) are anicca (impermanent).
All conditioned dharmas are dukkha (unsatisfactory).
All dharmas are anatta (without self-essence).
Notice that the last statement applies to all objects, not just all conditioned dharmas. This is a sweeping statement that goes beyond the statement that each skandha is not-self. This is important as it solidifies the buddhas positions, that not only are all conditioned dharmas are without self essence, but that all dharmas are without self-essence. In other words, the ever illusive self is never to be found outside of its apparent provisional existence.
Hope this isn't too confusing, I'm still just beginning to understand this idea and its implications. And even then, I've only had very vague, brief glimpses at its reality.
take care
_/\_
metta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-059-tb0.html
which states of the five aggregates (our "sakkaya" or bodily existence)
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
This is a very real teaching on developing our intuitive orientation (ditthi) toward the khandhas as "This is not mine, this is not my self, this is not what I am." Whatever I am, if "I" am to find ease, I cannot do so while clinging to that which is stressful. Fully released from the stressful, "I" am most truly "myself".