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.
Self vs. Consciousness--What's the Difference, If Any? (Warning: another Rebirth thread)
compassionate_warrior
Veteran
In Buddhism it's said there is no self. Yet teachings on rebirth say "consciousness" is what transmigrates to the new life form. Is this a semantic game--is "consciousness" another word for "self"? Or are they different, and if so, how?
0
Comments
There is simply a constant recycling of the aggregates. The process of impermanence and not-self. I'm just one manifestation of that process. So are you.
To clarify; in Mahayana tradition, it's said there's no "self", but that "consciousness" or "mind" transmigrates to a new life form.
Maybe we need a Mahayana discussion category. (Mods? What do you think?)
That nothingness is aware of itself. Consciousness is aware of consciousness.
So your true nature is formless, empty, but is aware. Thus the buddha is the awakened one. He woke up to his buddha nature, which is a nothingness that is aware.
Sure thinking can process these things, but do you think to do all the time? How do you know you dream?
How do you know you are here right now?
Do you know that feeling within you. We grow older and more mature, our personalities change, our minds change, but there is that feeling of not changing within us. That feeling/whatever has been with us since forever. Since we were children, when we were teenagers, and now when we are adults.
Though words cannot describe it because it is where words cannot go. Call it the still point.
It is like a stillness/nothingness/spaciousness but these words are only symbols pointing to it.
It's nice to see what the Theravadins have to say about this, though.
Consciousness is defined as a dependently arisen phenomenon (MN 38).
Therefore, consciousness ≠ self.
the ego is thoughts, emotions, beliefs all wrapped up into memory and personality and such. we grasp onto an abstract idea called an ego and we suffer.
the true nature is our true nature. which is in fact emptiness. we are a vast nothingness. it is important not to make this nothingness into an idea or an object. it is what we are at our core.
consciousness is the same thing as true nature. just different words for the same thing. there is consciousness, which is conscious of itself.
there is not a person who is conscious. there is just consciousness, which is conscious of itself.
enlightenment is just the shift from being an ego to being consciousness, which is empty.
from the position of emptiness, life is a fullness. you are nothing and you are everything.
the nothingness forms the basis for the form. you look at form and you see the emptiness. yet it is still form.
Am I right to assume that what you call self is described by some religions as soul?
lol that sounds terrible but i am sure it happens.
Most of the terms are new to me.
Sorry, I am a novice.
:bowdown:
There are so many concepts and new words that I will need time to digest it.
I am very grateful, be patient with me.
Namasti
There is no you, there just is stuff happening and the ego clings on to it as if it is something that is unchanging, is permanent. But rebirth and life is are musical piece being played. There may be separate instruments, but is is the individual notes that make up the whole arrangement, no note keeps on going until the end of time. Nirvana is the end of the concert. After the last notes it doesn't need any instruments (consciousness etc) anymore.
That's how I see it, anyway
Sabre
Just for reference, the Buddha also makes the point that whatever one takes to be their self — if it is really their self — should be fully subject to their control and not lead to affliction. However, the phenomena and experiences that we cling to as self are neither subject to our full control nor are the free from affliction. This includes everything from the five aggregates to the six sense-media, which are the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self.
Our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' is merely a mental imputation; the product of what the Buddha called a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making.' It's seen as a continuous process—something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, the Buddha observed that there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to those momentary and fleeting identities and the objects of our sensory experience on which they're based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress. (For more of my thoughts on clinging, see this).
This leads into the teachings on not-self (anatta). In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant (anicca) is stressful (dukkha), and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience.
That doesn't mean, however, that the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, they merely break down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine' (SN 22.59).
In addition, the Buddha himself says that he doesn't "envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair" (MN 22). So, from a Theravadin point of view, if self = Buddhanature, and Buddhanature = big self or true self, then the Buddha rejects clinging to this idea of self along with the Upanishadic self. See SN 12.44 and SN 25.3.
in language we overlay concepts on reality. reality has no inherent names. thus we use words to describe something that frankly cannot be adequately described.
thus all the confusion.
Anatta = not-self = rejection of Upaishadic Self (Atman) = rejection of a self that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change.
Thanks.
IMO, the mechanism whereby mind clings is procreation. Two humans come together and create children to perpetuate what they are. This is like the analogy of one candle being used to light another candle; the new flame is not the same as the old flame, but is causally related, one flame leading to the next. If there were no children born from this point on, the species would die out, and the mind screams against this.
There are many ways to think of it, but you have to find a way that lets you "let go" and accept the impermanent and not-self reality, or else the mind continues to cling.
Rebirth is lokiya dhamma, that is, a mundane teaching for ordinary people (puthujjana).
Not-self is lokkutara dhamma, that is, a supramundane teaching for those seeking enlightenment (sekha).
The following video by the Dalai Lama may help straighten out what appears to you to be a contradiction.
With metta
The Pali word for consciousness is vinnana, which has its linguist root in the term "nana" or "knowing". Vinnana is not citta/mind-heart (storehouse). Vinnana is just mere knowing or awareness.
Vinnana cannot be the vehicle for transferring mental defilements & tendencies because it is mere sense awareness. The nature of consciousness is to dissolve mental defilements & tendencies rather than store or carry them.
"Self" is a thought construct that is born from the ignorant citta.
Neither "self" or "consciousness" are reborn in the teachings of the Lord Buddha.
What is "reborn" is karma & the results of karma.
For example, you murder another human being. That action haunts your mind in the future. Your mind may develop PTSD. This is rebirth. Or you end up in prison. This is rebirth.
The Lord Buddha emphasised karma is reborn.
"As His Holiness the Dalai Lama teaches, "until you realize that the basic, innate mind of clear light is your true nature, you remain a sentient being; but when you understand your ultimate nature, you become a Buddha." Although clear light tallies with mind's natural state, it does not appear in ordinary states of consciousness because they are darkened by ignorance and obscured by emotions. The Kalacakratantra analyzes the nature of those obscurations at the level of life's source motion, i.e., breathing. Each one of our breaths holds immensity within itself and is related to the universe because the very same energy that makes us breathe also sets celestial bodies into motion. In this context, energy is to be understood as some physical magnitude quantified by the calculation of the revolutions of the planets or the number of breaths. However, this physical energy also has its subtle spiritual dimension which is experienced while meditating."
http://viewonbuddhism.org/dharma-quotes-quotations-buddhist/vajrayana-tantra-practice.htm
I would be curious to know what Theravada has to say about this. I just get the impression (just IMO) that if whatever it is that moves to the next life is not in any way associated with "me", even in a very "subtle" way, for lack of a better term, then why should I really care? If whoever it is that is suffering in the next has absolutely nothing to do with the "me", why should I care at all? It's going to be somebody else that's suffering. I won't know anything about it.
So what does Theravada have to tell me about why I shouldn't just do a Hemingway?
When we remove "self" from the equation, we can move on to helping those who suffer. Love others as you'd love your children, and find a way to love yourself just as equally. It doesn't matter if the future has nothing to do with you, does that mean you don't care if your children's children, or just people in general, and sick and dying and in pain in the future? Do you not feel a connection, as if that's just like this generation arising into the conditions of the world we inherited from our ancestors?
Any problems we have are still just us, the "I", clinging to a personal existence. The mind will do anything to avoid seeing that it's not some permanent separate entity, and that it too will pass and recycle the body back to the Earth to be used for other things. We have to accept conditionality. We have to see the part we play, let it be, release our clinging and find peace. When we find that peace, we can help make the conditions for others better, and give better conditions to our children and those who will come after us. Selfishness has to go out the window!
Rhetorically. I am a firm Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhist myself, and I think the passage from HHDL is really good, but I present the question rhetorically for the Theravadins.
We always seem to be looking for someone else to tell us why we should care, or to command us to care. When we understand the suffering of others happens exactly the same way it happens to us, and there's no real separation, we can't help but care. No one has to tell you. This is why we need to follow the path and practice, not just take anything for granted as it's told to us. We have to find this out for ourselves, have our own perspective.
In essense, the Buddha inferred a 'self' is reborn. How can one encourage morality in unenlightened people if they themselves will not be reborn?
I agree with your point of view. If whoever it is that is suffering in the next has absolutely nothing to do with the "me", why should I care at all?
The Buddha said rebirth was mundane right view because it sides with morality or non-harming (but does not side with liberation).
The Buddha also said the view of eternalism was also mundane right view because it sides with morality or non-harming.
It is also seems to imply the mind of clear light does not get reborn. However, the mind of clear light is pure consciousness so, if so, how can consciousness be reborn?
Following the logic of the above quote, the only thing that can be reborn are the obscurations but obscurations are not consciousness.
Consciousness is like water. Obscurations are like mud. Mud obscures the water.
To justify their theories of reincarnation, the Mahayana was required to invent an 8th consciousness.
I am open-minded about this. I have to go back to that site and read the whole thing and maybe even (OMG) some Alexander Berzin. I don't stand by any of the statements because right now it's faith in the accomplishments of Mahayana and Vajrayana, that is, in their experiences such as the Bardo.
But right now it's probably my upbringing as a Catholic that draws me to Mahayana.
This is a Mahayana view but not one of the original suttas.
In the original suttas, only Nibbana is the unborn & undying.
P
MN136
15. (i) "Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.[But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.[8] And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence."
"He reappears..."?
Without identification of consciousness from life to life, there's no transmigration of consciousness.
Why would he do that? Do you think a Buddha even has the opportunity to lie? I don't think so. Having completed the 8-fold path, lying is impossible. Just to change his teachings to the likings of the ones listening is therefore no option. He was a rebel, never believing anyone. If he concluded during his enlightenment that there was no after-life rebirth, he would just have said that.
The topic of rebirth and no-self do not interfere with each other. They describe the exact same thing. An essential part of karma is the attachment to life. If this attachment is still there, the karma won't just disappear after a body dies.