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.
True Self
I'm in the process of writing my book. Let me show you guys a paragraph from it that I thought may interest you, or lead to an interesting discussion.
Hindu thought prior to the Buddha claimed that there was a true, lasting self, which merged with Brahma, or God. The Buddha rejected that claim, and said that there was no lasting self, just impermanence and not self. Here’s the trick to understanding. Your true self IS the impermanence and not self. That is who you truly are. But who you truly are has no one lasting nature. When you get into ultimate truth, words lose their meaning. This is just another example of that. Is there a true self? No words can describe the answer to this. Yes, there kind of is a true self; but that true self has no lasting nature, and there is nothing which you can say is that self. Yet everything is that self, but just an expression of it, and no given thing can be found which is the true lasting self.
You are the process of impermanence and not self. All things are not self and impermanence. That is who you are. You are the process of life. You are all things. But "all things" has no set meaning, for it is in flux.
These ideas transcend words. But I am trying my best. It's a learning process, trying to word these things.
Hindu thought prior to the Buddha claimed that there was a true, lasting self, which merged with Brahma, or God. The Buddha rejected that claim, and said that there was no lasting self, just impermanence and not self. Here’s the trick to understanding. Your true self IS the impermanence and not self. That is who you truly are. But who you truly are has no one lasting nature. When you get into ultimate truth, words lose their meaning. This is just another example of that. Is there a true self? No words can describe the answer to this. Yes, there kind of is a true self; but that true self has no lasting nature, and there is nothing which you can say is that self. Yet everything is that self, but just an expression of it, and no given thing can be found which is the true lasting self.
You are the process of impermanence and not self. All things are not self and impermanence. That is who you are. You are the process of life. You are all things. But "all things" has no set meaning, for it is in flux.
These ideas transcend words. But I am trying my best. It's a learning process, trying to word these things.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
a couple of sentences there with odd phrasing, but more broadly you seem to explain it a bit strangely.
"Is there a true self? No words can describe the answer to this." that's a yes or no question, maybe what you meant to say is "what is the true self?"
also "yes there kind of is a true self" awkward phrasing and it is also not explained further and when you just state it, it contradicts with your other arguments.
what you seem to be going for is that there is no true self but then you say there kind of is a true self, I don't see that there is, but if you want to argue that there is explain what it is, the "everything is that self, but just an expression of it" doesn't seem to make sense.
this perhaps explains a bit better. It's difficult to word these things, as it transcends words.
"Your true self IS the impermanence and not self. That is who you truly are. But who you truly are has no one lasting nature,"
I find myself scratching my head because I'm not clear what you are referring to when you use..., say..., for example, "True self."
Perhaps you could say, "Your true self, [which is the self that etc etc etc] is the impermanence and not self [which is the self that etc etc etc]... ." IOW, fill in the "etc" with some definitions or examples.
I do resonate with the belief that language is a seductive formulaic misleading narrow straw which we nevertheless try to drink up and communicate profound experiences through. Sometimes using poetry does a good job/better job.
Good luck! Language is a slippery little sukkr! Gotta nail it down. :thumbsup:
Right then, maybe wait for an answer first
Ok, ok....no one likes a smartypants
Again, I'm with you until you said all things. I am not all things. I would define myself as a piece of matter, and in five seconds I would define myself as a different piece of matter. I am not all things, in no way could I put in my definition of self the wood making up a tree in Australia.
I would define the "true self" as the physical matter making up my body at the current moment and the mental state I am in at the current moment. As for a self existing separate from time, that self doesn't exist at all.
The self isn't impermanent, there is no self. The closest thing to self is your physical body and experience confined to an instant in time.
I think we probably mean the same thing and are phrasing it differently, that doesn't make it ineffable though, just hard to say.
And I really only like discussing with like minded people anymore, to be honest. I don't care whatsoever if people disagree or don't like what I have to say, I just get bored with continued conversation with them because it invariably at least appears to turn into a debate or trying to convince one another that they're right. And that bores me. Because I don't care if anyone thinks i'm right. There is no real reason to talk about this stuff. The only reason I do is cuz I enjoy discussing with like-minded people.
edit: actually the more I look at it the more our difference disappears. We are both trying to point to something indefinable, it can't be defined because it is never the same from one instant to another.
Defining something requires it to be something that exists over time as the same thing. The self doesn't fit this so it is undefinable. I'm pointing towards what it is by taking out the element of time, defining it within an infinitesimal span of time, and you are defining it taking out the element of it being the same thing, saying it does exist over time but not as the same thing.
We are both right, just taking two different approaches on defining that which can't be defined.
So to point to it you have to take away one of the elements of definability. You can either take away the time element and describe it within an infinitesimal instant, or you can take away the same thing element and describe it over time as something changing.
Both of those definitions are right, and wrong.
Siddhārtha Gautama was an adherent of Vedic Brahmanism before he became an Enlightened Buddha. A lot of his beliefs before Enlightenment bore significant resemblance to modern Hinduism, but he radically changed many of his views once he became Buddha and began teaching the Dharma.
Wikipedia is actually quite good on this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
However there another Buddha who taught the Dhamma on this planet apaprently.
The buddha himself taught that he couldn't teach about the ultimate nature of reality. He could only say what it was not.
"In the world of the dharmadhatu, the father lies inside the child and the child is inside the father. We're in the buddha, the buddha is inside us. Garbage is inside the flower, and the flower is in the garbage.
...any element, no matter how small, contains within itself the totality of its universe. Every element contains the mind, and the mind contains every element."
However, on the conventional level, "who" we are is those causes & conditions that have made us, such as our mother, father, teachers, education, experiences, etc.
The Buddha taught right view on two levels, mundane & supramundane (ultimate).
Mundane right view is "there is gift, offering, sacrifice, mother & father". What this means is our life is the result of what has been given to us by our benefactors. But this is mundane right view rather than ultimate truth. Buddha said this mundane right view sides with merit (goodness) but is tainted by asava (mental impurity) and attachment (self-view). Buddha said this mundane right does not in itself lead to liberation.
This is why on the level of ultimate truth, the Buddha advised in the Dhammapada "to kill one's mother & father".
But right now, instead of killing our mother & father, we have blind sheep followers of thich nhat hanh, attempting to create their own religious cult, who are advising us to kill the Buddha.
The Buddha provided us with the correct understanding. The Buddha said to kill our mother & father rather than to create a "true self" from them.
But on the level of conventional truth, sure, visit our mother & father at Xmas and thank them for their contributions & sacrifices.
All the best
DD
:eek2:
TheJourney says "Your true self IS the impermanence and not self."
This is basically saying that what you are is empty/emptiness.
Dhamma Dhatu says (the Buddha said) "all things whatsover without exception are not-self".
This is basically saying the same thing; you're not any "thing", because you are empty.
Namaste
The Buddha did not point to the moon.
The Buddha pointed to the nature of natural reality.
The word the Buddha used for not-knowing 'not-self' was ignorance (avicca).
"The truth is like the moon, and all of my teachings are like the finger pointing to the moon. The finger is only to point to the moon."
Learn before talking. It's helpful. For being such a fundamentalist buddhist who claims to know everything you don't even know one of his most famous lines. It's laughable. Your ignorance and arrogance is astounding. Now leave my thread.
Buddha said the five aggregrates & the elements are empty.
Buddha did not say "you" are empty.
How can "you" be "empty" when emptiness is empty of "you"?
Buddha said the terms "you", "me", "mine", "I" are merely worldly conventions for communication.
That is all.
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
(KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
:rant: :banghead: :bawl: :eek2:
Thanks
:clap:
Are you sure Buddha said it or just a Zen dude?
There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html
:wave:
:om:
Woo, I didn't realise threads were owned by members here!
.