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.
Is a sense of identity healthy?
overthecuckoosnest
Explorer
Hello, all 
Buddhism has many very wise teachings about letting go of a fixed sense of self so that one can experience the true, impermanent nature of the present moment. However, isn't a certain sense of identity important in some situations? I, for one, have had many issues with cultivating a sense of myself and asserting the needs of that self. How does one balance self-care with no-self? Is it a matter of allowing the identity to form, yet not forming attachments TO the identity?
Looking forward to yet another insightful discussion with you all
0
Comments
Though we may not have a permanent identity, we do have a most unique perspective.
I think it's good to think of not-self rather than no-self. Because we are not permanent is all the more reason to take care of ourselves while we last.
@overthecuckoosnest great question! When I look in the mirror these days I'm not sure who I am looking at anymore but I still have a job as a manager and I'm soon to be a husband.
I've heard that people who have been enlightened have a choice to withdraw from the world or get involved. The ones that get involved play a role. Rather like actors in a play. You know the role isn't true but you play the part for the audience
Also Sadgh Guru tells a story of an enlightened man in India who was apparently awakened quickly and found it hard to remain in the world. He forced himself to be attached to food so he didn't let all worldly desires go. Like this guy would teach disciples and then cut the teaching short because food was ready. Haha. Cool story anyway.
I would say you can be whatever you want to be. Even with Anatta realisations.
This sense of "self" is probably one of the most confusing things in Buddhism.
I once had a monk tell me that it was "easy to learn about Buddhism [but] difficult to learn about yourself."
I think you have to "know" your self-identity to figure out where you fit in Buddhism and where you fit in the world. But I think you also have to remember that people (and their selfs) evolve. I just turned 65 last week. I don't look the same as I did when I was 32 or 2. I don't think the same as at those other ages. I don't act the same as I did back during those ages. I don't feel the same as I did back then. My self has changed...evolved. And, as in the Thai analogy, like the lotus I will soon shrivel and die and disintegrate.
Very well said! I have leaned toward similar thoughts on identity as a role. Due to upbringing, environment, etc. we all tend to take on certain roles, personalities, and identities. When one is involved in the world this is fairly unavoidable.
I suppose the important thing is to recognize the identity as illusory and impermanent. Much like anything else, attachment causes suffering. The thing itself is neutral.
@overthecuckoosnest
IMO
The discussion of self is often wrought with the assumption that our mind alone somehow has the capacity to objectively study itself.
The study of the self is like trying to find our way out of the dream that we are dreaming,
where the dreamer and the dream are continually hiding behind each other.
Here, saying that the self might be able to clearly see itself is like believing than a snake might be able to completely swallow itself, tail first.
A sincere meditation practice however , offers the potential manifestation of no self (or not self) which is simply existence beyond the constructions of the dream or the dreamer.
Here the self returns to being just another particle of existence, no more or less special than any other particle. The meditator affords it as much respect and attention as any other particle.
It is just a downgrading of a composite inertial energy (the self) that had assumed a position that was beyond it's capacity to realistically function in.
From the meditative perspective...There is little need to worry about balancing the self with no self or not self.
Finding no self (not self) offers a vastly wider mind/heart to draw upon that can better address whatever needs the self may ask for.
Kia Ora @overthecuckoosnest ,
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water....Ie the concept of "No self" "Anatta"
"One is simply ones's experience
Ones ego is the abstraction from these experiences.
One ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device!"
The deeper one delves into Buddhism (especially meditation) the more this will come to light...
So in the conventional sense, yes a sense of self is
healthynecessary...Metta Shoshin .
..
Compassion. Starting with the nearest available deluded self . . . which would be me . . .
Balance comes from practice. Unless you are unbalanced in which case you need help. Personally I would learn to meditate before going any further. What answer do you want to hear? :orange: .
Identities are like sandcastles. If you stop having an identity, you stop having anymore castles to play with.
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html
@Shoshin
"One is simply ones's experience
Ones ego is the abstraction from these experiences.
One ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device!"
I disagree, where did you get that quote from?
The ego is a illusion . People have a completely deluded sense of self because of this. You can analyse without having an ego.
Kia Ora,
"I" experience it, plus it was described as such in some Zen literature, I think the guy that quoted this was a neuroscientist plus an experienced Zen practitioner... Don't ask me who, I'm not good with retaining authors names and book titles...
Ok....Yes I agree, the ego is an illusion,(be it a very persistent one at that .
.. ) but then who is this "you" you speak of that is capable of doing the analysing ? .
Non-conceptual awareness perhaps ?
Metta Shoshin .
..
I can't detach from the self until I find out where I am attached. That takes paying attention to myself.
There have been stages in my growth. Once I didn't know how to stand up for myself in a healthy way. I was a doormat without boundaries. I had to learn and practice. Today I have no difficulty setting boundaries, protecting or standing up for myself... and I often find that I no longer need to.
As a child, my mother would often tell me that I was stupid, worthless, unwanted. My self accepted and owned those gifts. I had to heal from that before I was able to understand the following from the Buddha:
"If someone offer you a gift and you refuse to accept it, to whom does the gift belong?"
Today, I sometimes still cringe a bit at such comments, but I no longer cringe for me. I feel pity for the giver.
Kia Ora,
When I first was introduced to "anatta" (many moons ago) I fell into the trap, (hook line and sinker) I mistakenly believed that it meant that a self does not exist, only to find out later that a self does exist, but this existence like everything else, is in a constant state of flux...
@overthecuckoosnest ,
You might find this link of interest:
Mindah-Lee Kumar(a former Tibetan Buddhist nun) she explains "anatta" (selflessness-no self) in simple lay person's terms, ideal for those just setting out on the path and having some difficulty with the concept.... . :banghead: ..
Metta Shoshin .
..
The sense of self is a mental construct. Who am I really? My memories, my opinions? What if I lose my memory, or change my opinion? Clearly there is far more to who I am than that narrow view.
But that doesn't mean I reject myself as an entity. I am responsible for this precious human life I have been given, so I cherish it like a newborn in my hands. I clothe and nourish it, I keep it safe. When the time comes to relinquish it, I give it up as easily as I took possession of it.
Ok cool! I'm the same with names. I read and listen to a lot.
Who is it that does the analysing? The human brain? Just like who beats your heart... Or regulates your hormones. That's what does the analysing!
Metta chris
Thank you for this. I hadn't seen this series of videos before. They are wonderful.
Ah, okay, fair enough...but is it really a quote or your paraphrase?
Very compelling post.
I think to have or not have a sense of identity (ego) is not an option, we will always have it. On the other hand, becoming attached to our identity can be an option.
Kia Ora,
You might find this interesting...BTW the music that accompanies the clip is nice too...
Metta Shoshin .
..
Kia Ora,
A paraphrase I guess... But then again it could be a parrot phrase. .
..
Metta Shoshin .
..
Kia Ora,
You're welcome...She does have a way with words....
Metta Shoshin .
..
I will certainly watch it.
thanks. Just based on the title, I never said we are the human body 
in fact we are not the human body or mind. But we are part of it. As well as everything else right.
I will watch it as soon as I can. Thanks
We have many different selves, but they all have no inherent existence. My teacher calls them mandalas. For example we have a practice mandala. We have to cultivate this mandala. It won't go very far without attention. We have a mandala of our family. Caring for our loved ones and being involved with them. They also need attention for example with children or spouse. We also have an ego mandala and we need to see it clearly in order to (this time) disempower it. If we do not take care of our own needs how can we help others? An example of self.. what happens with children when you give one something and not give the others? That is self.
When I was in my teens, twenties and early 30's, having some kind of 'identity' was paramount. I felt a keen sense of incompleteness and attributed that to a lack of personal identity that clearly defined WHO and WHAT I am. It was an actual discomfort, and at times I experienced a kind of despair at this incompleteness.
"The Logical Song" by SuperTramp was exquisite in capturing that 'incompleteness' and sense of being just a step or two 'off' or 'behind' (or ahead?). A deep restlessness and seeking, searching for something 'lost' that I must find.
Then somewhere in my late 30's, it's as if that quandary began to fade and eventually, became a bit silly, even absurd. I don't know what triggered it, or if anything triggered it. It felt completely organic to not really CARE who and what I am. It felt like asking a question with such an obvious answer that asking it was silly.
This was before formal practice, but I'm pretty sure that just growing up and maturing follows most of the same milestones as Awakening anyway.
It was SO important to have a personal identity, and then it didn't matter or even seem relevant. I have to admit it is a relief to not have that restlessness anymore
. It is a gem of relief and I feel grateful that I no longer am plagued like I was, but I don't know why it changed and especially, I don't think I 'found myself' as I restlessly yearned to do.
But in the suttas identification with the aggregates ( experience ) is said to be the cause of craving, clinging and suffering. So...?
@Shoshin thanks for the link, they kind of just state the obvious in the video with a cello playing haha.
I had a chuckle when they said try and stop your mind blabbering.
Cheers.
Chris
That's because the aggregates themselves are already imbedded with clinging. The suttas also mention that the aggregates are not self. So I think there is a distinction between what is self and what the aggregates are pointing to, which is probably the whole realm of pleasant/unpleasant/fabricated experiences.
So are you suggesting that there is a self "outside" the aggregates?
No as I hear it he just said the aggregates are not the self @SpinyNorman
Do you mean not self, or not the self?
I'm not sure what you are asking @SpinyNorman. The shravaka level of understanding emptiness is that none of the skhandas are a self.
Kia Ora,
You're welcome....
Tis true, it's a straight forward lesson in human biology and does state the obvious to those in the know (those who have pondered/meditated upon it) and who carry this awareness around with them...
But for many, basic biology (biological facts) like this might be taken for granted then forgotten, and never taken into account when it really 'matters' ...
Metta Shoshin .
..
Well there is a limited sense of self that we can try to maintain, keep healthy, and reduce dukkha.
Kia Ora,
I'm drawn to this koan by ~ Chan Master Hsu Yun (Empty Cloud) :
"One hour and then another.
Inexorably march, step by step.
Whenever I meet you, we each smile.
But who is it who drags your corpse around?"
Metta Shoshin .
..
Your real self is when you love, your real self is when you don't.
Your real self is when you will, your real self is when you won't.
Your real self is when you care, you real self is if you dare.
Your real self is led by your heart, your real self makes a start.
So whatever you do is the real you, & so there's no excuses it's 100% true.
ID, ego, super ego, self, i, mind, whatever we call our bit that's not kind.
It's all us doing it with our own free will, so a question of the red or take the blue pill?.
So there is no i until we've learn't then died, then we judge what we've built whilst here for the ride. :-)
Care to explain that logically in one short sentence? I can't see the sense in it myself...
I like whatever you do is the real you, no excuses it's a 100% true.
Interesting to see the authors take on the poetry.
Is a sense of identity healthy?
Healthy for what?
A sense of identity is just a crutch being carried by a being dreaming that they are crippled.
That would imply that we are all without exception handicapped and somewhat dependent on others for a modicum of support, which is not necessarily a bad thing...
The fact that your conventional self is not a permanent accoutrement is no excuse for not treating it well and rubbing it the right way.
The balance would be in cultivating a healthy sense of self-identity which does not depend on getting attached to even more transient aspects of your already transient self, like beauty or youth.
Impermanence gives you plenty of margin for growth precisely because neither the good in your life, nor the bad are carved in stone and every moment is infinitely creative.
You are accountable to yourself for the responsibility of your actions and every moment you can choose to make of your life whatever you want it to be.
Since Buddhism is about the cessation of dukkha, the idea would be to make the most of this present moment, and of this present fiction of your own person.
After mistreating himself through self-mortification, the Buddha was very insistent on handling ourselves with all due respect.
Well a sense of identity in my eyes leads to you basing future decisions on that actual identity which in that view isn't how you are actually feeling in that moment.
I like the way Alan Watts put it in the sense that freedom of choice isn't freedom at all, because all it does is show a state of hesitation we take on before actually choosing.
"It's funny that we call a person decisive when he doesn't actually stop to decide" :P
Also, from the being mode you can employ what I like to call creator mind. As the subconscious communications in template/archetypal image's and the linked emotional state with those image's and sensations, from the being point of view, you can actually think of an image you have linked with certain emotions during your lifetime and you "create" that desired state within yourself quite naturally, without that intellectual jabbering.
Well, if we didn't have a sense of self to overcome we would never have the chance to wake up.
It's better to have loved and lost than never to love, or something like that.
To The OP:
Yes - a sense of identity keeps us alive and being what we are.
However, it is the association of ourselves with the representative identity, that causes the problem, or predicament, that we find ourselves in as human beings; i.e. we live our lives associated with a most frustrating image of ourselves; that we desire to be a permanent self, but know after even a cursory or rather superficial investigation that without doubt we are very much impermanent.
Buddhism gives a different take on the reality of your being and connectedness to the universe as a whole, and the investigative process is necessary to establish knowledge or indeed faith in the status quo, as determining whether you are in samsara or nirvana.
So we have to learn to live with this sense of self and yet not be so attached to it that it will become a cause of intense suffering when it must be given up, as must happen.
there is conventional truth and Ultimate Truth
we live in the world (conventional truth) with knowing Ultimate Truth
that is the balance of self-care with no-self
we see the suffering in the world, but live without involve in suffering because we know world means suffering
we help others with metta to reduce their suffering up to the limit that what we can do, and let go of the part that we can not help
if we are mindful with Buddha's Teaching the balance can be carried out
problem is until one become an Arahant one has un-mindful times too
so practice, practice until one is perfect
And when one is perfect, you should invite yourself to give up that perfection, as that will bind you even more...
... \ lol / ...
Great discussion so far!
It seems that humans have a psychological mechanism that desires permanence and certainty; a fact that we are, interestingly enough, discussing in my history/philosophy of science class (Artistotle's 1st Principle, etc). I suppose that formulating an identity and clinging to that identity as something permanent, solid, and "you" is yet another function of that mechanism. An identity is a narrow way to experience the self, yet it is, perhaps, a natural part of it.
Being trapped in the identity and clinging to it is the crutch.
I am reading this very interesting book by Linda Blanchard, "Dependent Arising in Context." She has an interesting explanation for the Buddha's DO theory, which she tracks back to the Vedic myths.
Her take on Ignorance, the first link, is that we are born ignorant of what preceded us, how we came to be and the ulterior motivation behind our behaviour and actions.
Our Volitional Impulses, our Actions, trigger the process of a self-creation, and perpetuate it, through a desire to know and a desire for existence.
"Hungry Consciousness is the source of the individuality of name-and-form because it divides the world up in order to know itself; and name-and-form feeds viññana, Consciousness, the food it seeks in order to continue existing/knowing it exists.
"To frame this in mundane terms, name-and-form does represent our tendency to split the world up into a dualistic view in which each of us is an individual (subject) and we see individual elements as outside us (objects); but more important than that is the way in which we tend to see some aspect of ourselves in everything we encounter: we sort things in terms of how they relate to us (are they useful; are they dangerous; are they like us in some way; are they too dissimilar)"
So, we indulge in dualistic thinking because we constantly relate everything we perceive to us, to this artificial construct of a self that has gradually emerged as we have abstracted it from the reality we perceive around us.
"We create our own world because we define the world in terms of ourselves," concludes Blanchard.
A sign of our modern times(compared with the ancients)is that people become too self-conscious of their outward forms(looks,attire,accessories,etc).Much time,energy,money is spend on improving their appearances,to the extent of going for plastic surgery.
Is this the ultimate result of a strong sense of self-identity?
A self-identity that "grows"gives rise to a self-consciousness which could add stress to one's life.Walking through a throng of people,a person with a strong self-identity may think that everyone is looking at him or her,as the identity gives birth to intense self-consciousness.
With no sense of a self,one breezes through the crowd without feeling any stress.No stage fright too!
Linda is a regular contributor at this forum: http://secularbuddhism.org/forum/
IMO, having a static sense of identity may be very limiting. I am "such an such" type of person therefore I must adhere to this persona and do "so and so" and not "this and that". I think it is healthy to have values and morals which you stand for but to have one definite identity would put up walls. At least for me. I would feel very restricted. If not restricted I think I would be in a constant state of confusion because every day new puzzle pieces (of me) are added and I already had this complete identity so what do I do with the overflow? I bend and flex and try to squeeze new emotions, ideas and opinions into the form of me but if I am already full or contradicting myself I think I would cause myself great distress. I would rather have a more free flowing existence. "I am Jen and sometimes I like things this way but other times I like them that way" Am I making sense? I tried :P