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-respect in Buddhism
Hi everyone,
I'm brand new here, and I have recently been reading a bit about buddhism and what I have read so far makes sense and I am trying to apply some of the principles to my life such as meditation. However, one question I had was, one of my values in life is self-respect, and I feel proud when I act with integrity and virtue. I know that this has a lot of bearing in Buddhism, but I was wondering how you respect yourself when there is no true "self?" Do you consider following the five precepts and the Noble Eightfold path the way to gaining greater self-respect? How can we use self-respect as a value to make proper choices in our lives if there is no self and we're supposed to be striving for selflessness? Anyways, if anyone could answer, I would very much appreciate it.
Cheers,
artsman
I'm brand new here, and I have recently been reading a bit about buddhism and what I have read so far makes sense and I am trying to apply some of the principles to my life such as meditation. However, one question I had was, one of my values in life is self-respect, and I feel proud when I act with integrity and virtue. I know that this has a lot of bearing in Buddhism, but I was wondering how you respect yourself when there is no true "self?" Do you consider following the five precepts and the Noble Eightfold path the way to gaining greater self-respect? How can we use self-respect as a value to make proper choices in our lives if there is no self and we're supposed to be striving for selflessness? Anyways, if anyone could answer, I would very much appreciate it.
Cheers,
artsman
0
Comments
The five precepts are practiced in order to attain well-being and happiness, and separation from sorrow. The Noble Eightfold Path is practiced in order to attain enlightenment. A person practicing the Eightfold Path concentrates on the wise engagement with the aspects of that path and is no longer hung up about the existence of a mundane self, because it has been recognised as being empty. If you ask, Then who recognises emptiness? Emptiness is the innate characteristic of phenomena which transcends self and other, so in fact there is no self to name.
In terms of making proper choices in our lives, Buddhism teaches the precepts and the path, and the ten good actions, and based on these one makes proper choices in their life. For example, not to kill, steal, lie, and so on. And to practice right view, right idea, right speech, and so on. And to not slander, curse, chatter frivolously, and exercise greed, hatred and stupidity.
If one can practice all these and be in perfect harmony with the way to nirvana, then what further need is there is strive for selflessness?
Palzang
See the Attavagga
Also, some realisation of not-self (anatta) does not stop the natural feeling of shame (hiri) that naturally accompanies unskilful karma.
However, regarding the 'self', when one realises it is impermanent and not real, merely a mental construct for communication, it does not mean it gets annihilated. To the contrary, it functions freely.
Both being & non-being are the same in enlightenment. Clinging to non-being is not enlightenment.
In which case a Buddhist teaching and practice would in no way differ from any other religious or secular teaching and practice; for in the secular world we see that self is ever-changing on every level. We are hot, then not; we are cold, then not; we are hungry then not; thirsty then not; happy then not; rich then not; angry then not; healthy then not; ill then not; busy then not; awake then not; confident then not; anxious then not; in love then not; injured and then not; concentrated, then scatter-brained; determined, then unsure; convinced, then dubious; not yet born, then born; youthful, then not; middle-aged, then elderly; healthy then not; alive, then not; and so on.
All of these things are as you say the self ever-changing on every level and there is no difference between your take on Buddhist teaching and practice of self and mundane secular view and practice of self.
But Buddhist teaching of self is actually different to secular views of self. The "self" imputed in any thought, act or word is just that, imputed; and that which is merely imputed is empty. Therefore in Buddhist teaching, the self is empty, and that which is empty does not exist in the way that the secular person takes it to exist when not recognised as being empty.
Therefore you should not say "self certainly exists according to the Buddhist teaching; only, it always changes." For self exists and changes like that in the secular view of things; in the Buddhist teaching that same secular self is seen as empty and nonexistent. This is the actual Buddhist teaching as opposed to the secular, worldly view of things. You can well check the scriptures if you still have doubts.
To a beginner the concept of "no-self" potentially becomes, dare I say it, "grounds to inflict suffering indiscriminately." Questions like "Why is killing bad, then?" arise. But truly understanding this concept takes practice, and when you start to truly understand it, then the question of "Why is killing bad, then?" seems to slip away...
Is that a direct quote? -_- Not quite.
Obviously there is more to learn, and that often comes through practice rather than trying to reach an intellectual understanding.
That you struggle to answer the original question in a manner on the level of the questioner shows your views are extreme views and disconnected from reality.
:hohum:
This. A thousand times -- this.
As a relative newcomer to all of this, I found your responses to be completely without utility for me, lalavajra.
If you're unable to frame your messages in terms the uninitiated are familiar with, you're unable to teach. The Buddha himself was well aware of this.
By the way, might I ask this: If reality actually was at the extreme you posit -- that there is literally no self to speak of whatsoever -- then why does teaching need to occur? If there is no individual consciousness to speak of, then why do we not all have the same understanding already?
And why would you use a clause like "I have advanced the Buddhist notion of self"?
if you want to do that, either keep it to PMs, or go to the 'Experienced practitioners' forum and debate it there.
Thank you. *
This would be the "self" I was referring to.
If someone asks "Since there is no self, how can there be self-respect?" and I answer: "Self-respect is empty", well, what do you think? That is the answer. The answer to the question: "How can there b self-respect if there is no self?" is simply: "Self-respect, like all dharmas (or dhammas) are empty." That is simply the answer.
You can't just say "Ohhhhhhhh nooooooo don't say things are empty! We don't like to hear that; so, we censor all such posts."
Which is what you did. The last place who did like that - e-sangha -well, I say.
If you try and censor doctrines you don't like, this is the same as ignoring them. And if you ignore them, this is a case of ignore-ance, commonly known as ignorance.
It's amazing that you read all of that into her post when in fact she was just doing her job and didn't say a single thing about the topic we're discussing.
Tirade!
A person says: "O you! There really is no self. Since there is no self, there can be nothing, we may know, to call self-respect."
Having heard such things, the king decreed that all such statements should be ushered away and out of sight; this is the case as it stands.
If "The King" was doing as you describe, then mine and everyone else's posts would still be here, and only yours gone.
She said if we want to further discuss these concepts in such a way, that the Experienced Practitioners forum is a more appropriate place and we (that means you, too) are free to repost, word-for-word, there. Would you like me to send you the posts you lost? I still have the window open.
:rolleyes:
Quite! Don't let the cold in though, or mosquitoes, depending on where you live. Hehe.
Well, how about this - since the thread starter asked a question such as this: "O friends! I now ask you this. If it is so that there is no self, how can there be any such as self-respect?"
If the nature of the question is such that it will lead to discussion outside of the precincts of the Beginner's Forum, then the fault lies in the original question, not the replies; therefore the entire thread should be transferred, at the point of the first initial post, to a more appropriate forum.
Could I be wrong about this?
The question was answered from multiple points of view sufficiently. Edit - and yet also note, she did not say THIS discussion had to stop.
What we were getting into was more advanced (particularly in the way it was being discussed) and did not pertain to the original question or benefit the original poster.
Yup.
Relax.
Open a window yourself.
The answer comes out: "O good man! There is, truth to tell, no self. Since there is no self, there is, truth to say, none such as self-respect."
As the implications of this are discussed, various words are spoken.
Now, you cannot simply say: "O you! You should know that all such words are of no benefit to the questioner. Let us, rather, curtail the discussion."
If the questioner asks "O you all! How can there be self-respect, in the absence of self?" And the answer comes :" O you! There is really neither self nor self-respect", and the discussion leads on from there, you cannot just say: "This discussion benefits not the questioner; come, let us end the discussion."
Huh?
Yeah, just as I thought.
You said "O you! Open a window yourself". Not grasping the meaning, I say "Excuse me?", in a vernacular form as "Huh?". In turn, you say "Heheh. Why, how highly amusing! It is just exactly as I had thought."
Even know, I do not grasp your meaning.
But what do you mean to say, "O you! Go hither or thither; open a window yourself" ? I still do not know.
Of the endless trains of the faithless—of cities fill’d with the foolish;
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light—of the objects mean—of the struggle ever renew’d;
Of the poor results of all—of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me;
Of the empty and useless years of the rest—with the rest me intertwined;
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?
Answer.
That you are here—that life exists, and identity;
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.
Tit Porng[d] went to visit the Venerable Abbot of the nearby monastery. At one point, he asked:
"Eh, Luang Por, the Buddha taught that everything is not-self, and is without an owner -- there is no-one who commits kamma and no-one who receives its results. If that's the case, then I can go out and hit somebody over the head or even kill them, or do anything I like, because there is no-one committing kamma and no-one receiving its results."
No sooner had Tit Porng finished speaking, when the Abbot's walking stick, concealed somewhere unknown to Tit Porng, swung down like a flash. Tit Porng could hardly get his arm up fast enough to ward off the blow. Even so, the walking stick struck squarely in the middle of his arm, giving it a good bruise.
Clutching his sore arm, Tit Porng said, "Luang Por! Why did you do that?" His voice trembled with the anger that was welling up inside him.
"Oh! What's the matter?" the Abbot asked offhandedly.
"Why, you hit me! That hurts!"
The Abbot, assuming a tone of voice usually reserved for sermons, slowly murmured: "There is kamma but no-one creating it. There are results of kamma, but no-one receiving them. There is feeling, but no-one experiencing it. There is pain, but no-one in pain ... He who tries to use the law of not-self for his own selfish purposes is not freed of self; he who clings to not-self is one who clings to self. He does not really know not-self. He who clings to the idea that there is no-one who creates kamma must also cling to the idea that there is one who is in pain. He does not really know that there is no-one who creates kamma and no-one who experiences pain."
The moral of this story is: if you want to say "there is no-one who creates kamma," you must first learn how to stop saying "Ouch!"
Having read through this tedious argument, I am reminded of my lessons in maths at school. How often my teachers would demand that we "show our workings". Simply giving an answer is just not enough. We have to show how we get there.
To reply to the OP as some have done is simply to rush to an answer, leaving aside the steps leading there. Fede is quite right that we are required, both here and (I suggest) elsewhere, to show precisely how we got there. Simply asserting "this is doctrine (or dogma)" just won't wash.
The longer I practise, the more I understand why the Blessed Tathagata hestitated so long before Turning the Wheel.
Palzang
Luvit.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
Artman, I'm sorry this thread got caught up in babble. I tried to leave the most relevant posts, but it's confusing even me.
basically - And everyone, I do mean, BASICALLY -
There is a 'You'.
of course there is.
The lesson of being thwacked with a stick tells you that there is a you.
That's one.
there is also a not-you.
this is the you that you are today, because the you that you were yesterday isn't here any more.
And if you were to remove (bear with me - forget microsurgery and amputation, it's just a description) both arms, and put them to one side, and both legs, and put them to the other - would you still be you?
Yes, of course.
But altered, changed and physically different perhaps.
but your consciousness would still be you.
That would not change.
You would be able to look down and think - "I have no arms! I have no legs! but I am still 'me' - !"
That's because the Self and Not-Self, come and go.
Consciousness - Awareness - is what counts.....
The Self and Not-Self are essentially states of being, within a mental perception and construct.
We are conditioned to believe we are solid, unmoving, permanent and of great significance in our own lives...
But in essence, we are ephemeral and a composite of so many different aggregates, all arising and falling away at any given second.
This is the reality of Dual Thinking.
When - like a Buddha - you are able to fully grasp that you are here, in concrete completely, yet not here, transitory and ephemeral - at one and the same time, completely, constantly - and know that neither one is more or less important or significant than the other - then, you will have completely grasped the notion of Self/Not-self.
That's just my penn'orth.
I could be completely out of whack, and have gotten it monstrously wrong.
feel free, one and all to discuss... tear me to bits, or pat me on the back.
Very simply put - do it simply.
Hi, artsman. The confusion surronding this question is largely a simple matter of using poorly matched terms. When Dhatu says Buddhism teaches about self-respect, he does not mean it in the way it's conventionally used in the West. Self-respect in Buddhism means respect for the experiences conventionally identified with self. In fact, Buddhist practice leads to respect for every aspect of experience, even the unpleasant ones. So, for instance, when you feel proud after acting with integrity and virtue, from the perspective of Buddhist practice, that is pride in the action, in the moment of the action. Imputing from that pride a pride in self would be taking things too far, at least from the perspective of the practice. Suzuki Roshi was pointing to a related distinction when he said "Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings, only enlightened actions."
The path and precepts arise from, and represent, treating every aspect of experience with respect.
Very.
well put.
Yes.
I second that.
If we are kind out of a spirit of oneness we are part of a healthy system.
If we are not kind we create an evil self and then have to live with it.
If we are kind and take pride in it we create an icon of ourselves that we must protect from tarnish. This is a burden.
Now I return you to your original programming...
Palzang