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.
A. the superficial day-to-day tormented/lustful/responsible/tragic/comic etc self.
B. the "subtle" self, that part which gets transferred into other lifetimes over and over.
Obviously B is extremely difficult to detect.
A can be bombastic and do crazy things if left to it's own devices (due to past good/bad Kharma). It's got to be purified through all that Buddhist practice stuff (trying to be funny).
Seems just perfect that the overblown, bombastic self would be a disturbance, an illusion, would lack substance. Especially in a human-created world where lots of people are out of control! Basically because we're now biological; we're the types of animals which feed on other animals.
Two selves.
One full of illusory BS (probably because the genes are messing with us and don't care about us- biology is complicated!).
The other extremely subtle, enduring, barely personally and privately knowable while probably impossible to communicate anything about it to others.
Nah, I'm just imagining. Who knows? Though I do remember reading for about an hour this AM.
Sorry dude but B does absolutely fall into one of the catogories that the Buddha classified as false view of the self in the sutta in the beginning of this thread...
The notion of a 'self' is one of the most complex and challenging concepts to understand within the dharma in my opinion. We are so so SO conditioned with our ego and the way we have been brought up that we have a self. I myself do not have a firm understanding on antaman, (I do not even know if I have spelled it correctly lol).
Of course you exist, but you are not separate from everything else, everything is one. Or at least this is what I have come to hear from nuns and monks... Somebody jump in with profound wisdom please ^.^
Aah but is it really wise to construct a concept of a most complex and challenging concept of self, to understand, before we grapple it...
Imagine if I were to say "all sense experiences are illusions." What do I mean by this? Let's take vision for example. The fundamental units of vision are color. Let's take the additive color palette (red, blue, yellow) as the "base" and from there all other colors are made. Well what is "red"? What is "yellow"? What is "blue"? They are mental impression used to represent light of a specific wave length. Is the mental impression of red the light itself? Is it even close to a literal model of what you are perceiving? No, its an illusion the mind manifests so that we can interpret visual stimuli.
Now, because you know red is not a literal model of the light perceived, do you no longer see?
In much the same way seeing through the mental impression of association (the process that creates identification with mental phenomena) cause it to stop all together? (Answer: Only if "you" know how to turn it off, and even then it's a long arduous path to tame the process.)
Also, besides being a fundamental, distinct, and ongoing mental impression the self is also a concept vital to operating in the world. To say there is "no self" is to deny the process and concept outright, to say there is a "self" without true understanding of it's components is delusion.
I agree with you totally on this.
If one stops and thinks a moment on the color example. What happens in the brain when it sees red is that some neurons fire in a one pattern and when you see green some other or same cluster of neurons fire in another pattern...That is our perception o the world. In each head a different pattern never ever the same.
The same goes for shape and smell and hearing etc.
So when you look at the screen all that happens is that neurons fire in some pattern you are not aware of, sending currents and chemical substances flying all over the place and you see words... you perceive a world out of that!!! Crazy to believe that picture is "true" but undeniabliy we do perceive the world and ourselfs.
Sorry dude but B does absolutely fall into one of the catogories that the Buddha classified as false view of the self in the sutta in the beginning of this thread...
I'm thinking by errantly going to the extreme of nihilism you can conclude that no self exists at all. I think Buddha meant to for us to meditate on emptiness but did not want to encourage us going into nihilism. I will have to ask my teacher. Thanks for the challenge. makes a good question.
Nagarjuna taught emptiness as “no own-being” and explained it as the unity of the Two Truths, Temporary Existence and Non-substantiality. Tientai too taught emptiness as the Two Truths but realized that emptiness failed to fully explain the true nature of reality. He observed that phenomena, although possessing characteristics of both Temporary Existence and Non-Substantiality, also possessed an unchanging quality that persists throughout time and space. This quality he termed The Truth of the Middle Way or the Third Truth. Nichiren taught no own-being [emptiness] as being one with the Eternal Universal Buddha Shakyamuni that is accessed only through faith.
Why did neither Nagarjuna nor Tientai teach that we are one with the Original Eternal Buddha? The people of their day would have failed to believe that they themselves are Shakyamuni Buddha. They would have slandered the Law. Thus, the time wasn’t right. Nagarjuna’s exposition of conventional versus ultimate truth also was developed in the context of the time and the capacity of the people of his day and it was based on the provisional teachings of the Buddha which shunned the aggregates as defiled.
As far as the dharmas being empty, Nichiren explained this as the futility of attatchment to a particular dharma [such as shoju and shakabuku or emptiness and suchness]. Both Nagarjuna’s and Tientai’s teachings were mostly but not completely in accord with the entirety of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. Nichiren was more interested in the salvation of the people, in Buddhist praxis, than in Buddhist theory and metaphysical speculation. Having faith that we ourselves are one with the Eternal Buddha gives us great hope and joy.
Let me give you an example of the Three Truths:
CH was born a bubbly bouncing baby. As an infant his skin was clear and smooth and amazingly, he had a full head of brown hair and bright wide eyes. His heart was the size of a quarter and he had a thymus gland. Many thoughts came to CH infant: "Waaa,waaa, I'm hungry, wheres the breast"; "Waaa, waaaa, burp me"; "Waaa, waaa peepee burns my tush" etc. Then, as a teen, he was a handsome, muscular young man, his heart weighing about a pound, no thymus gland and every cell in his body has died and been replaced by others two times (except for his brain cells). His thoughts were to be: "If I don't study harder I may only get six a pluses."; "I'm going to master that blues guitar"; "Which cheerleader should I take to the prom"; "is there a me and you"; "is there not a me and you?"; "who cares, life is grand." Now, CH is a married middle aged gentleman, a little less hair, crows feet, a slight belly and a droopy butt. His cells have died and been replaced six times. His thoughts are as follows: "six mouths to feed and I just lost my job", "my wife is the love of my life, my better half, how did I win her heart?", "Johnny will get out of drug rehab soon.", "mom will pull through that quintuple bypass, I'm sure.", "there is no me and you, only the non-dual reality of non-substantiality, everything changes, nothing is permanent." CH then goes on to be a 96 year old nursing home patient. He can't see too well, he can't hear too well, he has no hair and his heart has shrunk to 200 grams from his three previous heart attacks. His thoughts are now quite muddled He is on a beach in the Bahamas and the 400 pound nurse is a bathing beauty. Never does he assert that there is no me and no you because he is thinking you are me and I am you.
Who would believe that this old man was that beautiful, bubbly, baby boy, even if shown a picture? Who would believe he was a straight A student who could play the blues like B.B. King? Almost every cell in his body has died and been replaced fourteen times and his body is a mere shell of it's former substance.
His mind too has drastically changed. Could there be any doubt about the impermanence of life (body and mind)? Could there be any doubt as to the non-substantial nature of life (body and mind)?
Yet, despite these drastic changes one can not say that CH infant is not CH old man. CH infant certainly is not Robin Beck old man. CH infant, despite having an almost totally different body than CH old man and a nearly totally different mind than CH old man, is in fact CH old man. This is the true nature of CH, that which is changeless and is carried over, lifetime after lifetime, through countless births and deaths and retains the causes and effects of CH's thoughts words and deeds. This aspect of CH is the eternal and unchanging life-essence which is neither physical nor spiritual but manifests itself as both. It is the true non-dual. It is Namu Myoho renge kyo.
"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.
As with any part of the Buddha's teaching, it's best to consider anatta's ramifications in terms of "suffering and the end of suffering." Whether the self exists or not is not really important. You will never experientially transcend the manifestation of self except perhaps in transitory moments of insight in meditation. But, even then, it's like an eye trying to see itself. Ideally, your understanding of anatta is an extension of self-compassion. It should emerge naturally out of the ongoing process of witnessing the unsatisfactory results of certain manifestations of identification; that is, throughout the course of your lifelong practice, you'll note that your are suffering, and note how that suffering is caused by clinging to certain not-self qualities as "me, mine, or essential to me" -- and then you "let them go" because not doing so would cause you to suffer.
Attaching too strongly to the idea that "There is a self" perpetuates a relationship with our experience that is very identified with phenomena that are impermanent/unsatisfactory/not ours, and thus continues patterns that lead to suffering. For example, the extent to which we have any right to identify with our bodies is fairly limited. But how often do we find ourselves criticizing aspects of our appearance, physical health or ill-health, manifestations of the natural aging process, etc. that we have no conscious control over? In terms of emotions, we often make unpleasant emotions last longer than they need to by not realizing that they are impermanent and will pass in their own time, and we aren't at fault for experiencing them. In this way, transitory grief can become chronic depression, a passing fear can become anxiety or even panic, a fleeting irritation can grow into full-blown rage. The Buddha has a word for this: papanca, meaning "proliferation." From a simple experience emerges an enormous, ungainly mass of association and identification which leads to painful mind-states and unskillful behavior.
On the other hand, attaching too strongly to the idea that "There is no self" often leads to a sort of self-aggression: the denial or repression of qualities that are actually there. We arrest our emotional life by pushing our feelings out of consciousness, or apprehend our natural personalities before they have the chance to articulate themselves. We become harsh with ourselves, and deny our own grief, longing, even our own happiness. This alienates us from our own hearts as well as from our fellow human beings, and can be a source of great suffering.
In Gelug Vajrayana they make the distinction between "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth". Isn't that easy enough?
Well, this is Nagarjuna at work here, so most Mahayana would follow that. Dzogchen is the only one that only see's one truth, that is not self established either, which is easy to understand experientially, but conceptually, yes, there is merely a relative but not ultimate self, and there are an endless count of relative selves, all equally empty of inherent or empty of self existence. Quite the paradox in explanation, but easily understood through Rigpa in Dzogchen or Mind Pointing in Mahamudra as merely the duality of words.
Nagarjuna taught emptiness as “no own-being” and explained it as the unity of the Two Truths, Temporary Existence and Non-substantiality. Tientai too taught emptiness as the Two Truths but realized that emptiness failed to fully explain the true nature of reality. He observed that phenomena, although possessing characteristics of both Temporary Existence and Non-Substantiality, also possessed an unchanging quality that persists throughout time and space. This quality he termed The Truth of the Middle Way or the Third Truth. Nichiren taught no own-being [emptiness] as being one with the Eternal Universal Buddha Shakyamuni that is accessed only through faith.
That's just luminosity but it must be emptied of self clinging.
is it safe to say that Shayamuni was agnostic with respect to the self? and that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering that an absolute truth (whatever that is in Buddhism)?
is it safe to say that Shayamuni was agnostic with respect to the self? and that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering that an absolute truth (whatever that is in Buddhism)?
Buddhism is free from absolute truths and that's it's absolute truth. Nagarjuna proved through Buddhas teaching that the teaching of the Buddha is all about relativity and not clinging to any sort of absolute.
is it safe to say that Shayamuni was agnostic with respect to the self? and that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering that an absolute truth (whatever that is in Buddhism)?
Buddha just brought the self along on the path of skilful means and saw a way in which the self is related to the suffering that is experienced by individuals. I would imagine that direct experience of non-self, direct experience of the truth of the aggregates, would result in a mind of renunciation which would lead to further insight, particularly realising that the individual elements/aggregates themselves are not self existing either. It does seem highly experiential to me though. Then the whole idea can be jettisoned when it is no longer necessary for self means. Expediently necessary for a while.
I think you may be right that B is imaginative formations/sensations. I think that some have called this the luminous characteristic of mind as it is said to be energetic almost flowing and fluttering like a flame. It makes me wonder whether its similar to the symbol of Shambhala books. The question then becomes- if this is a subtle self, is it also delusional? Also what is blowing the flame and what is the flame, where is the flame?
Hey guys. I went back to the books I've been reading and I can't find the reference I made above. My intention was to scan it in and post it here. Can't find it! The basic meaning I got is Buddha wanted us to understand emptiness as NEARLY selflessness but not nihilism which is totally selfless and makes no sense. Kharma DEPENDS on a..., uh..., what would you call it...? Karma depends on some kind of a "self account" in order for the whole reincarnation thing to work. I'm sure it's somewhere, we'll run across it again. I usually have a pencil and underline stuff in books I read; this time: no pencil! :banghead:
On one of these threads Vajraheart mentioned something about the "Third Way" in Tien-Tai Buddhism. I checked on it and it said something about a sort of continuum or ground that carried karma from lifetime to lifetime. The gist of it was that Tien-Tai accepts the concepts of "self" and "not-self" on the mundane level, but on a sub-mundane or supra-mundane level there is a "ground" on which all of these things take place. This is sort of like the modern German theologian Paul Tillich's idea of "The Ground of Being".
Hey guys. I went back to the books I've been reading and I can't find the reference I made above. My intention was to scan it in and post it here. Can't find it! The basic meaning I got is Buddha wanted us to understand emptiness as NEARLY selflessness but not nihilism which is totally selfless and makes no sense. Kharma DEPENDS on a..., uh..., what would you call it...? Karma depends on some kind of a "self account" in order for the whole reincarnation thing to work. I'm sure it's somewhere, we'll run across it again. I usually have a pencil and underline stuff in books I read; this time: no pencil! :banghead:
Interesting idea. This is somewhat similar to the Puggalavadin idea 'person' (puggala), which is neither the same as, nor different from, the aggregates (khandhas).
Theravada has a different understand of this process, however. Instead of positing some type of "self account" or "subtle self" that's travels from life to life, rebirth is describe in terms of moments of consciousness (vinnana) — which the commentaries consider synonymous with mind (mano) and intellect (citta) based on SN 12.61 — arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness.
From the Theravadin point of view, it's simply the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely fleeting phenomena that condition other fleeting phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
The term vinnanasota (stream of consciousness), found in DN 28, refers to this flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent ,unbroken phenomena of consciousness, i.e., moments of consciousness arising and passing away in succession simply implies that there's a type of continuity involved in conscious experience, nothing more. The same with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming) in Snp 3.12 and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness) in MN 106. For example, from Piyadassi Thera's book, Dependent Origination:
In the Aneñjasappāya Sutta, the vipāka viññaṇa is referred to as saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ, the consciousness that links on, that proceeds in one life as vipāka from the kamma in the former life.
When it is said, “the consciousness that links on,” it does not mean that this consciousness abides unchanged, continues in the same state without perishing throughout this cycle of existence. Consciousness is also conditioned, and therefore is not permanent. Consciousness also comes into being and passes away yielding place to new consciousness. Thus this perpetual stream of consciousness goes on until existence ceases. Existence in a way is consciousness. In the absence of consciousness no “being” exists in this sentient world.
But unlike the Puggalavadins, who posited a subtle self in the form of the 'person,' Theravada takes the opposite extreme and denies self outright. While I lean more towards the Theravadin understanding of anatta and rebirth, I think it goes too far, making ontological statements about something the Buddha himself remained silent on.
As such, I'm more inclined to agree with Vincenzi that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering than an absolute truth (e.g., see my blog post "not-self strategy").
Thanks for the link, but I have Attention Deficit Disorder of Old Age. Call me a punk, but trying to read the suttas like that makes my eyes glaze over. I'm definitely a secondary-source Buddhist. Can you pull me out a paragraph? Just if you have time.
It is much simpler than that actually or possibly much more complicated... the Sutta is translated to mean Right View. It is understood correctly the "third" truth about the self. It is a description of the DO plus other things. I have meditated on it for the last couple of days on and off and weighed it against the views ans ideas elaborated on this thread. I think I have learned something about my view of the self that I can not really put into words...It is not much different from how I saw it before but maybe much deeper.
Theravada has a different understand of this process, however. Instead of positing some type of "self account" or "subtle self" that's travels from life to life, rebirth is describe in terms of moments of consciousness (vinnana) — which the commentaries consider synonymous with mind (mano) and intellect (citta) based on SN 12.61 — arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness.
Can you say which commentaries describe moments of consciousness arising and ceasing in rapid succession? This isn't something I've come across in the suttas.
This is why there neither is or isn't a self at the same time.
I think it's simpler than this. There is no self, merely the illusion of one.
P
I think the Tibetan concept that the self has a relative truth value but not a ultimate truth value is helpful.
Certainly there is a self as I would not otherwise be writing this post. But that self is dependent on causes and conditions therefore has no ultimate value.
Theravada has a different understand of this process, however. Instead of positing some type of "self account" or "subtle self" that's travels from life to life, rebirth is describe in terms of moments of consciousness (vinnana) — which the commentaries consider synonymous with mind (mano) and intellect (citta) based on SN 12.61 — arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness.
Can you say which commentaries describe moments of consciousness arising and ceasing in rapid succession? This isn't something I've come across in the suttas.
It's mainly in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. It's also found in post-canonical material like the Vimuttimagga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. The general principle is extrapolated from sources like the Sakhatalakkhana Sutta:
There are, bhikkhus, these three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned. Which three? Arising is manifest. Disappearance is manifest. The changing of what persists is manifest. These, bhikkhus, are the three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned.
Life, personhood, pleasure and pain - This is all that's bound together In a single mental event - A moment that quickly takes place.
Even for the devas who endure For 84,000 thousand kalpas - Even those do not live the same For any two moments of the mind.
What ceases for one who is dead, Or for one who's still standing here, Are all just the same heaps - Gone, never to connect again.
The states which are vanishing now, And those which will vanish some day, Have characteristics no different Than those which have vanished before.
With no production there's no birth; With "becoming" present, one exists. When grasped with the highest meaning, The world is dead when the mind stops.
There's no hoarding what has vanished, No piling up for the future; Those who have been born are standing Like a seed upon a needle.
The vanishing of all these states That have become is not welcome, Though dissolving phenomena stand Uncombined through primordial time.
From the unseen, things come and go. Glimpsed only as they're passing by; Like lightning flashing in the sky - They arise and then pass away.
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
@Jason I think porpoise has a valid question here. I for one have always considered the self as series of discrete moments. But I can not argue for it now that I try. And if you read the suttas you have quoted they deal with parts of the self experience but not the entire self experience... The body is obviously left out...it is considered continuous while the mental formations are considered discrete...Hm but what does it matter really?
My understanding is that, from the Theravadin point of view, these mind-moments or moments of consciousness aren't seen as discrete entities, but conditioned phenomena, i.e., they don't arise on their own or in a vacuum. The same applies to the body.
While it may appear continuous, "standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more," the changing of what persists is manifest in all conditioned things (as per AN. i. 152), including the body composed of the four great elements and nourished by material food.
None of these things are understood to be discrete phenomena, so the idea of "the self as [a] series of discrete moments" is one that Theravada is forced to reject, and is replaced with the theory of momentariness, exchanging things for events.
Thank you for that. Yes I was getting things mixed up it is the awareness of the self or consciousness (which might be difficult to distinguish) that is a discrete experience.
My understanding is that, from the Theravadin point of view, these mind-moments or moments of consciousness aren't seen as discrete entities, but conditioned phenomena, i.e., they don't arise on their own or in a vacuum. The same applies to the body.
Yes, I agree. But the conditioned nature of arising / ceasing seems to point to continuity rather than momentariness. A process is made up of momentary events, but the smaller those moments become the closer we come to continuity.
Hi I have just read a few post on this discussion, and all I can say is that the Buddha's ANATTA teachings can be confusing,because the idea of no self does not agree very well with Buddhist teachings on Karma and rebirth, simply because If there's no self, then what experiences the results of Karma and takes rebirth. Anyway I read a fantastic discussion on this topic by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which explains it very well, for me anyways, the link is below.
My understanding is that, from the Theravadin point of view, these mind-moments or moments of consciousness aren't seen as discrete entities, but conditioned phenomena, i.e., they don't arise on their own or in a vacuum. The same applies to the body.
Yes, I agree. But the conditioned nature of arising / ceasing seems to point to continuity rather than momentariness. A process is made up of momentary events, but the smaller those moments become the closer we come to continuity.
Right, but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The theory of momentariness is simply the outcome of the Theravadin analysis of conscious experience into its constituent events, wherein one moment of consciousness arises, persists/changes and ceases in a complex causal chain, each event a result as well as a cause in that chain. It's a theory of events that allows for continuity without the need for fixed and static elements or self.
Hi I have just read a few post on this discussion, and all I can say is that the Buddha's ANATTA teachings can be confusing,because the idea of no self does not agree very well with Buddhist teachings on Karma and rebirth, simply because If there's no self, then what experiences the results of Karma and takes rebirth. Anyway I read a fantastic discussion on this topic by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which explains it very well, for me anyways, the link is below.
Thanks for the link. I have seen quite a few people who do get caught up in this very problem. Yet there are those, who from the confusion this causes, are able to discover some sort of insight. So as usual there is no categorical answer to whether this should be answered or not.
As to it not fitting into Buddhist teachings, I don't agree with this. Logically this point and its relationship to karma seems OK for me. The purpose of anatta is to achieve liberation. What prevents liberation is karmic action, karmic traces and dispositions. Karma is dependent on the self and the self causes this entrapment. Logically, if one is able to remove the destructive tendencies associated with self clinging, then one automatically is liberated from karma as well. Karmic action ceases as there is no longer any more intention to perform self centred actions.
@Daozen, I said "no one starts out", that means it isn't something that exists at birth. Sure young children and some animals eventually come to self-awareness. It comes later, through conditioning (which can include being taught it by others such as parents). Everything is conditioning. If there is ignorance in the mix, not-knowing of reality, conditioning leads to suffering. We overcome this by following the Buddha's path to condition the mind toward unbinding from our wrong views of reality (and everything that entails).
@Cloud, A sense of self is pre-wired into our DNA and exhibits itself early in life. It's true that newborns don't exhibit such a sense, but the growing brain soon develops it without prompting: it's not 'learnt' in any normal sense of the word.
I say again: it's not the idea of self as such that Buddha refuted; rather, it's the idea of a permanent self that he refuted.
Think about it: if you had NO sense of self, 'you' couldn't function and you'd soon be hit by a bus ..
I think "self" needs to be broken down into it's substituent components. 1.) Concept, which is multifaceted and varied. 2.) Process of association 3.) The deep root subconscious process that differentiates and categorizes stimuli giving rise to the distinction between "self" and other (other being physical object, sensory stimuli, or other beings)
Think about it: if you had NO sense of self, 'you' couldn't function and you'd soon be hit by a bus ..
I believe you're pointed to the third process on my list. I would say maneuvering out of speeding buses can be done without the process of association active. I also believe this process is what Zen master are referring to when they say "don't make a self".
@Daozen, Yes. The things we know of, and the things we don't, all fall under "conditioning". Cause and effect. Anything and everything can be traced back to conditionality, though we may not be able to know the conditions ourselves. Whatever conditions have lead us to seeing reality incorrectly can be undone by re-conditioning the mind, by correctly understanding the Buddha's teachings and following the Noble Eightfold Path. We always make things more complicated than we need to.
According to The Heart Sutra, all living beings are living in the same one consciousness, and this consciousness further developing into small bubbles or consciousness that attached to its deluded identity/truth. Once the consciousness is transformed into enlightenment, it becomes permanent self or emptiness, beyond life & death.
Om Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom the Lovely, the Holy !
Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and He saw that in their own-being they were empty. Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form ; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Comments
But I think that the problem here is dualism. The religious belief that if a thing is false the opposite must be true...
But in the real world there are more than two options as in this case.
Just because there is a illusion of a self it does not mean that there is a self...but neither does it imply that there is no self.
And I think I am going to leave choice A alone...
But yes when the self falls the world falls.
If one stops and thinks a moment on the color example. What happens in the brain when it sees red is that some neurons fire in a one pattern and when you see green some other or same cluster of neurons fire in another pattern...That is our perception o the world. In each head a different pattern never ever the same.
The same goes for shape and smell and hearing etc.
So when you look at the screen all that happens is that neurons fire in some pattern you are not aware of, sending currents and chemical substances flying all over the place and you see words... you perceive a world out of that!!! Crazy to believe that picture is "true" but undeniabliy we do perceive the world and ourselfs.
However - like all phenomena - 'self' is impermanent.
Why did neither Nagarjuna nor Tientai teach that we are one with the Original Eternal Buddha? The people of their day would have failed to believe that they themselves are Shakyamuni Buddha. They would have slandered the Law. Thus, the time wasn’t right. Nagarjuna’s exposition of conventional versus ultimate truth also was developed in the context of the time and the capacity of the people of his day and it was based on the provisional teachings of the Buddha which shunned the aggregates as defiled.
As far as the dharmas being empty, Nichiren explained this as the futility of attatchment to a particular dharma [such as shoju and shakabuku or emptiness and suchness]. Both Nagarjuna’s and Tientai’s teachings were mostly but not completely in accord with the entirety of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. Nichiren was more interested in the salvation of the people, in Buddhist praxis, than in Buddhist theory and metaphysical speculation. Having faith that we ourselves are one with the Eternal Buddha gives us great hope and joy.
Let me give you an example of the Three Truths:
CH was born a bubbly bouncing baby. As an infant his skin was clear and smooth and amazingly, he had a full head of brown hair and bright wide eyes. His heart was the size of a quarter and he had a thymus gland. Many thoughts came to CH infant: "Waaa,waaa, I'm hungry, wheres the breast"; "Waaa, waaaa, burp me"; "Waaa, waaa peepee burns my tush" etc. Then, as a teen, he was a handsome, muscular young man, his heart weighing about a pound, no thymus gland and every cell in his body has died and been replaced by others two times (except for his brain cells). His thoughts were to be: "If I don't study harder I may only get six a pluses."; "I'm going to master that blues guitar"; "Which cheerleader should I take to the prom"; "is there a me and you"; "is there not a me and you?"; "who cares, life is grand." Now, CH is a married middle aged gentleman, a little less hair, crows feet, a slight belly and a droopy butt. His cells have died and been replaced six times. His thoughts are as follows: "six mouths to feed and I just lost my job", "my wife is the love of my life, my better half, how did I win her heart?", "Johnny will get out of drug rehab soon.", "mom will pull through that quintuple bypass, I'm sure.", "there is no me and you, only the non-dual reality of non-substantiality, everything changes, nothing is permanent." CH then goes on to be a 96 year old nursing home patient. He can't see too well, he can't hear too well, he has no hair and his heart has shrunk to 200 grams from his three previous heart attacks. His thoughts are now quite muddled He is on a beach in the Bahamas and the 400 pound nurse is a bathing beauty. Never does he assert that there is no me and no you because he is thinking you are me and I am you.
Who would believe that this old man was that beautiful, bubbly, baby boy, even if shown a picture? Who would believe he was a straight A student who could play the blues like B.B. King? Almost every cell in his body has died and been replaced fourteen times and his body is a mere shell of it's former substance.
His mind too has drastically changed. Could there be any doubt about the impermanence of life (body and mind)? Could there be any doubt as to the non-substantial nature of life (body and mind)?
Yet, despite these drastic changes one can not say that CH infant is not CH old man. CH infant certainly is not Robin Beck old man. CH infant, despite having an almost totally different body than CH old man and a nearly totally different mind than CH old man, is in fact CH old man. This is the true nature of CH, that which is changeless and is carried over, lifetime after lifetime, through countless births and deaths and retains the causes and effects of CH's thoughts words and deeds. This aspect of CH is the eternal and unchanging life-essence which is neither physical nor spiritual but manifests itself as both. It is the true non-dual. It is Namu Myoho renge kyo.
As with any part of the Buddha's teaching, it's best to consider anatta's ramifications in terms of "suffering and the end of suffering." Whether the self exists or not is not really important. You will never experientially transcend the manifestation of self except perhaps in transitory moments of insight in meditation. But, even then, it's like an eye trying to see itself. Ideally, your understanding of anatta is an extension of self-compassion. It should emerge naturally out of the ongoing process of witnessing the unsatisfactory results of certain manifestations of identification; that is, throughout the course of your lifelong practice, you'll note that your are suffering, and note how that suffering is caused by clinging to certain not-self qualities as "me, mine, or essential to me" -- and then you "let them go" because not doing so would cause you to suffer.
Attaching too strongly to the idea that "There is a self" perpetuates a relationship with our experience that is very identified with phenomena that are impermanent/unsatisfactory/not ours, and thus continues patterns that lead to suffering. For example, the extent to which we have any right to identify with our bodies is fairly limited. But how often do we find ourselves criticizing aspects of our appearance, physical health or ill-health, manifestations of the natural aging process, etc. that we have no conscious control over? In terms of emotions, we often make unpleasant emotions last longer than they need to by not realizing that they are impermanent and will pass in their own time, and we aren't at fault for experiencing them. In this way, transitory grief can become chronic depression, a passing fear can become anxiety or even panic, a fleeting irritation can grow into full-blown rage. The Buddha has a word for this: papanca, meaning "proliferation." From a simple experience emerges an enormous, ungainly mass of association and identification which leads to painful mind-states and unskillful behavior.
On the other hand, attaching too strongly to the idea that "There is no self" often leads to a sort of self-aggression: the denial or repression of qualities that are actually there. We arrest our emotional life by pushing our feelings out of consciousness, or apprehend our natural personalities before they have the chance to articulate themselves. We become harsh with ourselves, and deny our own grief, longing, even our own happiness. This alienates us from our own hearts as well as from our fellow human beings, and can be a source of great suffering.
and that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering that an absolute truth (whatever that is in Buddhism)?
Buddha just brought the self along on the path of skilful means and saw a way in which the self is related to the suffering that is experienced by individuals. I would imagine that direct experience of non-self, direct experience of the truth of the aggregates, would result in a mind of renunciation which would lead to further insight, particularly realising that the individual elements/aggregates themselves are not self existing either. It does seem highly experiential to me though. Then the whole idea can be jettisoned when it is no longer necessary for self means. Expediently necessary for a while.
@vajraheart long live Nagarjuna and Asanga!
Where do you think this subtle self resides? And is it subject to impermanence?
P
I think you may be right that B is imaginative formations/sensations. I think that some have called this the luminous characteristic of mind as it is said to be energetic almost flowing and fluttering like a flame. It makes me wonder whether its similar to the symbol of Shambhala books. The question then becomes- if this is a subtle self, is it also delusional? Also what is blowing the flame and what is the flame, where is the flame?
Or something like that.
Theravada has a different understand of this process, however. Instead of positing some type of "self account" or "subtle self" that's travels from life to life, rebirth is describe in terms of moments of consciousness (vinnana) — which the commentaries consider synonymous with mind (mano) and intellect (citta) based on SN 12.61 — arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness.
From the Theravadin point of view, it's simply the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely fleeting phenomena that condition other fleeting phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
The term vinnanasota (stream of consciousness), found in DN 28, refers to this flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent ,unbroken phenomena of consciousness, i.e., moments of consciousness arising and passing away in succession simply implies that there's a type of continuity involved in conscious experience, nothing more. The same with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming) in Snp 3.12 and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness) in MN 106. For example, from Piyadassi Thera's book, Dependent Origination: But unlike the Puggalavadins, who posited a subtle self in the form of the 'person,' Theravada takes the opposite extreme and denies self outright. While I lean more towards the Theravadin understanding of anatta and rebirth, I think it goes too far, making ontological statements about something the Buddha himself remained silent on.
As such, I'm more inclined to agree with Vincenzi that anatta may be more a technique to be free from suffering than an absolute truth (e.g., see my blog post "not-self strategy").
The Diamond Sutra is particularly helpful.
If we say "above", we are automatically using the concept of "below".
There are so many options but we always jump to conclusions even before the questions is asked.
Nobly, the great priest
deposits his daily stool
in bleak winter fields
Buson
None of the above.
Neither all of the above nor none of the above.
Or below either.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html
Thanks for the link, but I have Attention Deficit Disorder of Old Age. Call me a punk, but trying to read the suttas like that makes my eyes glaze over. I'm definitely a secondary-source Buddhist. Can you pull me out a paragraph? Just if you have time.
Thanks.
It is much simpler than that actually or possibly much more complicated...
P
Certainly there is a self as I would not otherwise be writing this post. But that self is dependent on causes and conditions therefore has no ultimate value.
While it may appear continuous, "standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more," the changing of what persists is manifest in all conditioned things (as per AN. i. 152), including the body composed of the four great elements and nourished by material food.
None of these things are understood to be discrete phenomena, so the idea of "the self as [a] series of discrete moments" is one that Theravada is forced to reject, and is replaced with the theory of momentariness, exchanging things for events.
Yes, I agree. But the conditioned nature of arising / ceasing seems to point to continuity rather than momentariness. A process is made up of momentary events, but the smaller those moments become the closer we come to continuity.
P
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html
metta to all sentient beings
As to it not fitting into Buddhist teachings, I don't agree with this. Logically this point and its relationship to karma seems OK for me. The purpose of anatta is to achieve liberation. What prevents liberation is karmic action, karmic traces and dispositions. Karma is dependent on the self and the self causes this entrapment. Logically, if one is able to remove the destructive tendencies associated with self clinging, then one automatically is liberated from karma as well. Karmic action ceases as there is no longer any more intention to perform self centred actions.
'Self' is a very useful concept. To lose all sense of it is, arguably, to go insane.
It's not the idea of self per se which Buddhism seeks to eradicate: it's the sense of an unchanging, permanent self (ie, atman).
I say again: it's not the idea of self as such that Buddha refuted; rather, it's the idea of a permanent self that he refuted.
Think about it: if you had NO sense of self, 'you' couldn't function and you'd soon be hit by a bus ..
Maybe the way to tie our thoughts together is to say that DNA is part of conditioning?
Namaste
@Cloud
I think "self" needs to be broken down into it's substituent components.
1.) Concept, which is multifaceted and varied.
2.) Process of association
3.) The deep root subconscious process that differentiates and categorizes stimuli giving rise to the distinction between "self" and other (other being physical object, sensory stimuli, or other beings) I believe you're pointed to the third process on my list. I would say maneuvering out of speeding buses can be done without the process of association active. I also believe this process is what Zen master are referring to when they say "don't make a self".
Om Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom the Lovely, the Holy !
Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond.
He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and He saw that in their own-being they were empty.
Here, O Sariputra,
form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form ;
emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form,
the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.