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.
Why can't mind-body be self?
I'm reading "How to see yourself as you really are" by the dalai lama and there's one part of the book, and buddhist philosophy in general, that I can't wrap my head around. Why can't mind-body be self?
Now I understand that all things exist only in terms of their dependent origination and that all things are empty. But I feel like in my understanding of those things i've sort of skipped over a middle step, namely why can't mind-body be self.
Here are the points HHDL makes on this issue.
1. "I" and mind-body would have to be utterly and in all ways one. - ok, that makes sense.
2. In that case, asserting an "I" would be pointless. - I don't understand what is meant here.
3. It would be impossible to think of "my body" or "my head" or "my mind." - again, I don't understand what he means here. "My head" simply means a part of me. I feel like what he's saying is simply a play on words.
4. When mind and body no longer exist, the self would not exist. -True, but this is what many people believe.
4. Since mind and body are plural, a person's selves also would be plural - I get this.
5. Since the "I" is just one, mind and body also would be one - I get this.
6. Just as mind and body are produced and disintegrate, so it would have to be asserted that the "I" is inherently produced and inherently disintegrates. In this case, neither the pleasurable effects of virtuous actions nor the painful effects of non-virtuous actions would bear fruit for us, or we would be experiencing the effects of actions we ourselves did not commit. - why? why couldn't you just go through the effects in the period beore disintegration?
Now I understand that all things exist only in terms of their dependent origination and that all things are empty. But I feel like in my understanding of those things i've sort of skipped over a middle step, namely why can't mind-body be self.
Here are the points HHDL makes on this issue.
1. "I" and mind-body would have to be utterly and in all ways one. - ok, that makes sense.
2. In that case, asserting an "I" would be pointless. - I don't understand what is meant here.
3. It would be impossible to think of "my body" or "my head" or "my mind." - again, I don't understand what he means here. "My head" simply means a part of me. I feel like what he's saying is simply a play on words.
4. When mind and body no longer exist, the self would not exist. -True, but this is what many people believe.
4. Since mind and body are plural, a person's selves also would be plural - I get this.
5. Since the "I" is just one, mind and body also would be one - I get this.
6. Just as mind and body are produced and disintegrate, so it would have to be asserted that the "I" is inherently produced and inherently disintegrates. In this case, neither the pleasurable effects of virtuous actions nor the painful effects of non-virtuous actions would bear fruit for us, or we would be experiencing the effects of actions we ourselves did not commit. - why? why couldn't you just go through the effects in the period beore disintegration?
0
Comments
But I invite other definitions of "self" in order to proceed here. I submit that "mind" does not inherently exist, that it's just a concept, and that "body" does not inherently exist, because it's composed of constituent parts and those constituent parts can be reduced to their smallest subatomic constituent parts.
Are you the same "self" that you were 20 years ago? If so, you would not have "changed" at all.
And I love logic and philosophy. It is logic that brought me to buddhism. This is why not understanding the logic of a certain aspect is bothering me.
Which in turn can be reduced to even smaller parts.
So yeah, I agree that self is just a concept. Just like a chair is a concept. No human concept "exists". We interpret reality in terms of concepts.
Think of no-self only as there not being any abiding/permanent or separate self and don't worry about trying to defining what is really there; that's what enlightenment shows you.
I suppose mind-body can be self: that is, if self is defined as a label for the ever changing and impermanent mind-body complex. But, as a label, the 'self' cannot have an inherent existence of its own.
Some teachers say that 'not-self' can only be experienced through 'direct insights' in meditation practice. I'm not sure how many of us will be able to actually experience 'direct insights' in this life. Let's remain hopeful, though....
Plus, think about it. If I cut off my hand, the hand instantaneously goes from being "me" to "not me", an inanimate object that used to be my hand but is now just dead meat. "I" remain, yet my body is fundamentally different. Same with the mind, if you get amnesia and forget who you are your personality will undergo a dramatic shift as your consiousness lacks a historical framework through which to interpret the world - the old you was afraid of dogs thanks to a dog attack when you were 11, the new you is not afraid of dogs because there was no attack from the new perspective.
Now, I'm not saying that we aren't distinct entities, to declare such is foolishness. But if the mind-body can be altered, or completely re-created, that demonstrates the fact that self is more a convention to distinguish the POV of one mind-body from another than it is an inherent property of the mind-body.
Me too. I get excited and sit down to study some Buddhist writer, whose thinking is supposed to be based on logic and reason, and it disappoints and makes no sense.
I look up definitions of B. terms and study those, go back to the writing, apply them and still it's impossible to fully understand in a western-philosophy sense.
Finally I wake up and I remember the Wittgenstein I read in college which proved all western philosophy is "the systematic abuse of language specially designed for that purpose," and everything equals out. :winkc: Language is a slippery device, in terms of metaphysics it doesn't really say much. For me, this now applies to all philosophical investigations no matter which cuture's language I'm are considering.
I share the frustration of not everything having a logic explanation at times (or people just not being able to explain it in logical terms that is).
But when it comes to anatta, I think I'm at peace now as to what I should take or not take from it. There is no permanent self completely independent of the outside world. It's that simple really. And not that big of a realization for someone who thinks in terms of philosophy and science and likes to explore reality.
Now what you take from it, is quite a different story.
Yes. Talking or writing about it is very troublesome. I remember my college days of being extremely careful with language and not wanting to get mired down in philosophical nonsense. I did not want to all-of-a-sudden realize I was making no sense. Fast forward 15 years later and I had the same anxiety when talking with someone about B. at a retreat.
The only way to talk about it is with simple well-placed gestures, suggestions, metaphors, analogies; there's only a POETIC logic to it.
It's like visiting somewhere incredible like Florence Italy, being overwhelmed by it, then becoming determined to "explain" Florence to someone when you get home.
Yes. I agree for sure. I'm glad you make that point. There's a pervading and much-appreciated logic and practicality to it. Much of it makes perfect sense on many levels and broadly.
Then there was that conversation I was having at the B. retreat a while ago where I realized whatever we were talking about suddenly was not making any sense. I wish I could remember what it was we were trying to discuss.
The question is, What is "I" (or self)? Where is "I"? Where is "The Journey"? Is it your head? That's just a head. Is it your body? Is it your awareness, or your thoughts? Your thoughts come and go, they change. Your body is always changing cells, too; sloughing off cells and growing new ones. Is "The Journey" your experiences and memories? "I", or in your case, "The Journey" would be the sum total of all of the above, plus your name. That makes up the concept we know as "The Journey". But this is always changing, it's never static. So it's a bit of a moving target. There is no fixed "I", although we agree, in order to live in this conventionally-agreed-upon reality, on a general "I", or self, concept.
Does that help? No? Oh well. Nobody said Buddhism was easy.
As for #6: well, maybe we can have a class w/HHDL, and get his commentaries. If he explains it later on, please let us know.
That's almost funny