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.
No-self: A Thought Experiment
I wasn't sure which category to fit this post into, but I put it under Buddhism For Beginners, since it deals with a fundamental concept in Buddhism that I hope to gain a better understanding of.
Suppose there is a person, whom we will call B. Suppose that B believes that death is the complete cessation of all consciousness and memory. Also, let's suppose that B has good reason to believe that she has many years of health and productive life ahead of her. Now, suppose that one of two scenarios occurs: (1) B is told that on a particular day, she will be afflicted with a case of permanent, total amnesia; (2) B is told that on a particular day, she will be killed. In scenario (2), B's memory would function as normal after the amnesia, only she would have no memories whatsoever from before being struck with the amnesia. Given either scenario, knowing the day of her impending fate, B will have to deal with a range of emotions and experiences. The question I pose is, would the fear and regret experienced by B under scenario (2) be comparable to that experienced under scenario (1)?
I believe this little thought experiment is quite relevant to my understanding of the buddhist concept of the "self", and the concept of no-self. To explain, I believe that B would experience almost as much of a feeling of fear of loss of self under scenario (2). It seems to me that there would be, under that scenario, an irreparable break in the continuity of B's identity after permanently losing all memories. In a sense, a "new B" could then be reborn within her healthy mind and body through the construction of a new identity, but this would be a "new ego", an essentially different person.
It seems that it follows from this conclusion that the "separate self" that our minds are constantly constructing and misperceiving as a solid, independently existing entity depends almost totally on our personal history, as preserved in the memories of ourselves and others. From this perspective, much of the "sting of death" is in the fear of the loss of continuity of our personal identity. Also, if our sense of personal identity depends upon the memories of ourself and others, we must consider how fallible and subjective human memory is much of the time.
I hope that someone may find this line of thinking interesting, or that someone may have some thoughts to share that may shine some new light on these things for me.
Suppose there is a person, whom we will call B. Suppose that B believes that death is the complete cessation of all consciousness and memory. Also, let's suppose that B has good reason to believe that she has many years of health and productive life ahead of her. Now, suppose that one of two scenarios occurs: (1) B is told that on a particular day, she will be afflicted with a case of permanent, total amnesia; (2) B is told that on a particular day, she will be killed. In scenario (2), B's memory would function as normal after the amnesia, only she would have no memories whatsoever from before being struck with the amnesia. Given either scenario, knowing the day of her impending fate, B will have to deal with a range of emotions and experiences. The question I pose is, would the fear and regret experienced by B under scenario (2) be comparable to that experienced under scenario (1)?
I believe this little thought experiment is quite relevant to my understanding of the buddhist concept of the "self", and the concept of no-self. To explain, I believe that B would experience almost as much of a feeling of fear of loss of self under scenario (2). It seems to me that there would be, under that scenario, an irreparable break in the continuity of B's identity after permanently losing all memories. In a sense, a "new B" could then be reborn within her healthy mind and body through the construction of a new identity, but this would be a "new ego", an essentially different person.
It seems that it follows from this conclusion that the "separate self" that our minds are constantly constructing and misperceiving as a solid, independently existing entity depends almost totally on our personal history, as preserved in the memories of ourselves and others. From this perspective, much of the "sting of death" is in the fear of the loss of continuity of our personal identity. Also, if our sense of personal identity depends upon the memories of ourself and others, we must consider how fallible and subjective human memory is much of the time.
I hope that someone may find this line of thinking interesting, or that someone may have some thoughts to share that may shine some new light on these things for me.
0
Comments
but
'not-self'....
There is a distinct and subtle difference - but it's what leads to such confusion....
I know how hard it is to stop thinking.. I've always been a big thinker, over thinker, it's not worth goes nuts over thought.
Metta
But back on track, I think what we fear most is death of our ego, not the death of our body. It's hard for me to imagine, never having been in that situation, but I think the thought of no longer existing and experiencing could be terrifying.
I remember when I was about 12 years old, I had the sudden thought of... What if in one instant, the universe ceased to exist and there was just nothing... no one to even wonder about the nothing... no one to even know. Just nothing. The thought sent a chill through my spine that I can still remember, but it was the thought of the "no one to know of the nothing" that got me more than the nothingness itself.
Interesting question, thanks for posting.
Also, I agree with you about how the ego death is what is most feared. Actually, my understanding of the idea of reincarnation held by many Buddhists is that it is something like an ego-death but with the continuity of awareness continuing into a new life, which to me seems something like amnesia. I may have a wrong understanding, but that is based on what I have read so far! As for me, I am currently reincarnation agnostic :
Jeffrey: Wow, that is a good point. Forgetting is really like a type of amnesia. I can think of times when I mourned the loss of the innocent person I was at a time during childhood. I have forgotten so much since then, and I have gained so many new memories that have shaped who I am in many ways.
Thanks for your replies!
Buddhism works with what is sometimes called "no abiding self."
the issue is we have this illusion that this self is permanent.. that it is something we control, like a soul for example. We say this body is "mine", but we have little to no control over it.... it is not-self, same with all the causes and conditions that create this thing we call " I ".
now to say there is no-self, is to say that nothing actually exists at all, which isn't what the Buddha taught as far as I can tell.
all in all I try to stay away from Anatta as much as possible because like I said , thinking about it just wastes time that you could use for practice.
I don't think a fluxional 'me' is the extent of non-self. Non-self denies even a fluxional self I believe, but it is something that initially can be doubted and discarded. That is one reason not many people do not realize it, because it is so easy to doubt.
Then we enter the coursest view of emptiness, the sravaka. And that sravaka is the view that we are not the five fluxional skhandas.
For more information Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche has written a book, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html
Nevermind: It seems that I am trying to understand the fundamental teaching of the Buddha that our suffering is caused by attachment and aversion to things, which is largely caused by our misunderstanding of how things really are. From what I have read, we view ourself as a separate, independent and unchanging entity and this is a source of suffering that is caused essentially by selfishness. I am trying to attack this problem using the tool of logic. Maybe this is not the best tool. To me if I could understand the source of my misunderstanding, then maybe a new perspective would dispell the delusion. Maybe this itself is part of the misunderstanding: trying to use delusion to dispel delusion. Also, someone very dear to me is losing her memory due to old age, and this has me thinking alot about memory and how I cherish my memories.
misecmisc1: Thanks for this explanation. It is very compact, yet comprehensible. I will spend some time trying to deeply understand this.
lobster: In the end, I think that you are right. Imagine one who is prone to overeating. Such a one loves food and must always be careful to use restraint when eating, in order to stay healthy. Still this person will always have a tendency to love food. So it is with myself and "philosophical" types of thinking. Maybe I will overcome this attachment in my practice or somehow transform it into stillness, as you say.
Deepankar: You make a very good point. Sadly, I know many such people, even among those I that are dear to me, that believe this way. In fact, I myself have trouble sometimes to see how there is anything beyond this brief life. However, I can easily see how each action of mine in each moment, right down to my internal attitude and emotional state, is part of the causes and conditions for infinite other things. I can see how there is something destructive that arises from what Buddhism calls delusion. This is very practical to me, such as how in my state of despair and delusion, my mistreating someone, intentionally or not, could ripple outward to affect many others. I can also see how the opposite of that, the life of the Noble Eightfold Path, could have many outward-radiating positive consequences.