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.
I Don't Exist
FairyFeller
Veteran
I was reading a book recently and they were talking about the concept of 'I' not existing but they don't go into much detail. They talk about it like it's one of key concepts of Buddhism.
Does anybody know of any clearer explanations of this?
Does anybody know of any clearer explanations of this?
0
Comments
I'd recommend http://www.BuddhaNet.net for some excellent information. Their Basic Buddhism Guide and Online Study Guide are worth looking into.
There is hearing, no hearer
There is seeing, no seer
In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors."
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
Read those aloud or in your head. Then after each read look in your experience.
Conventionally, the rainbow exists, but ultimately it's just a bunch of ever changing causes and conditions that we impute 'rainbow' onto. We're like that (I think).
But, I think that can easily be misinterpreted to mean "nothing matters" which is actually just the opposite! You are seamlessly tied with the cosmos. It's not The Cosmos + You, it's just.. The Cosmos. You are in the Cosmos and the Cosmos is in you. They are not separate. This is how we can develop an intellectual understanding of this.
So, developing an intellectual understanding is very useful, because then we can rely on the wisdom we glean from these statements, and eventually we can contemplate, and meditate on deeper insights, insights beyond words that put a lens between Us and Direct Experience of reality-as-is-as.
(unsatisfied with reality-as-it-is, and unsatisfied with reality-as I settled for the above xD)
In developing an intellectual understanding for such a thing as "this experience is seamlessly interwoven with the entirety of the cosmos" I think it's helpful to forget everything you know about "me"
and simply investigate what it means to perceive
http://www.amazon.com/No-Self-Problem-Anam-Thubten/dp/1559393262
It's suitable for a beginner or for someone more advanced.
empty of abiding characteristics
and non-existent were
difficult to grok
This is the book that I read in order to fully understand this concept (I had to read it twice!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_See_Yourself_As_You_Really_Are
"Nothing of me is original. I'm the combined effort of everyone I've ever known."
-Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
If you have such a feeling, you have a sense of self, of "I". But those things are illusions created by the mind-process itself. In reality there is no such a thing. That's what it means when it says "I" don't exist.
If you see through this, there is no thinking in terms of "I" or "me" or "mine".
With kindness,
Sabre
Does the word "I" or "me" point to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or does the word actually points to something that is always changing, that doesn't really exist?
That is emptiness -
How do you guys use 'emptiness'; how do you apply it to your day-to-day life?
I think its a confusing message. It's incredibly vague, and it doesn't really mean much. Emptiness in comparison to what? Fullness? Full of what? And why would you want to be empty of it? I just don't think it means anything
"The scepticism which ends with the abstraction “nothing” or “emptiness” can advance from this not a step farther, but must wait and see whether there is possibly anything new offered, and what that is—in order to cast it into the same abysmal void" (Phenomenology of Spirit).
Just for reference points.
I am following what you are saying, however, I need you to connect
some things for me.
........
"The conclusion of your logic is correct if sentient beings are lacking Buddha-nature. When our body craps out, we'are annihilated. But the Buddha never taught such a materialistic doctrine. All beings have the Buddha-nature which is the âtman. But they don't recognize it (this is why they are not Buddhas). Instead, they cling to what is not their Buddha-nature which is the psycho-physical body."
Do some schools/traditions believe that Buddha DID teach such a doctrine?
If 'people' dont recognize it...is it there? For them, I mean.?
Am I hearing you correct that the emptiness/I teaching is what
'they' call their 'Buddha-nature'?
The clinging is the same as the craving, would'nt you say?
See where the confusion stems from? Maybe emptiness just isn't a good word for whatever it is.
Nor did anyone ever believe in a psycho-physical body.
You can describe the taste and texture of an apple, but it doesn't give you an understanding of the experience of eating an apple, especially if you haven't ever eaten an apple.
In Nikaya Buddhism, which relies on the Pali canon, emptiness of being (satta-suññatâ) refers to the five aggregates as being empty, that is, lacking reality or sabhâva. The second emptiness refers to nirvana that it is devoid of determinate being or the same, empty of formations (sankhâra-suññatâ). Nirvana is a-sankhâra, i.e, not a formation.
Emptiness is kind of an ontological doctrine, rather than the negation of all knowledge claims. It is meant to tell us something about how things really are. For example, illusory things like our psycho-physical body are devoid of reality (sabhâva) or nirvana is empty of conditions/formations. As a matter of fact, the Buddha never taught such a doctrine as universal emptiness.
It's like trying to describe the taste of an apple and rather than saying tangy but also sweet you say it tastes like an apple
Your vocabulary is way larger than mine, so I'm going to have to
go grab a cup of tea and a biscuit and sit/read for awhile on that one!
May I continue to gain understanding and wisdom.
I think the term emptiness is really good in English, but it's not the same as shunyata. When we think empty we think of a negative connotation usually "oh no I ran out of gas and I'm on Empty."
but that's not the case.
Here's an idea:
the Sun is empty of the universe that surrounds the sun.
The Universe [that surrounds the sun] is empty of the sun.
With that mental image, perhaps it is easier to consider that these (and all) phenomena are co-dependent.
Now, the big leap is "the sun is empty of the sun" and "the universe that surrounds the sun is empty of the universe that surrounds the sun"
These are ideas that take quite a bit of [meditative] familiarization I think. Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy.
You already know everything you've ever known or will ever know.
You already know everything you've ever known or will ever know.
Not sure I get it. Could you explain?
If what you're looking at can't be described, are you really looking at anything ?
How do you know that there's the facility to understand, or anything to understand, or anyone to know?
What is knowing? Do we already know what's happening here? Isn't it obvious?
All I can tell you is that it is obvious. You already understand.
What do you know when all the theories are put aside?
They're not the same thing
So given the difference in their definitions, one has to be more correct and closer to the subjective truth than the other.