More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[dwai]

Buddhism and the concept of the Self

 

read the link above for full article...

 

 

The first quote from Samyutta Nikaya seems to suggest that there is some kind of rebirth. If there is rebirth then there has to be something that is common between the two births. That would suggest that there is a self. However, the second quote from Samyutta Nikaya seems to suggest that the self exists at the level of phenomena since the self is really nonself! (It is curious that the Samyutta Nikaya talks of Brahmins being annihilationists. Did some Brahmins at that time claim that there is no permanent self? Upanishads do say that it is the Kshatriyas who introduced the doctrine of the Atman. ) Since the self is nonself i.e. phenomenon, there is really no such thing as a self in the Buddhist scheme of things. This position is contradictory on two counts:

 

2. Buddhist schools say that there is no relation between A and B. Yet Buddhist scriptures talk of Buddha Jataka stories where Buddha's past 500 births are related. If there is no relation between 2 births except for karma then how can Buddha's 500 rebirths be traced?</span>

 

</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; ">Some Buddhists suggest that the Buddhist position is more subtle than that stated above that B is not related to A. They say that when B is born with the karma of A, B is neither A nor not A. In other words, the self of B is not the same as A nor is it different from A.

Edited July 25, 2010 by dwai

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[forestofclarity]

When Buddhism speaks of a lack of self, they mean there is no inherent, independent self. This applies to things as well as people. This doesn't mean things and people don't exist at all.

 

For example, if you take a person's hand--- there is no independent, unchanging something called a hand. On the one hand, there is a collection of fingers and a palm, and each of these can be further subdivided ad infinitum.

 

Another is that what appears to be a hand depends on other things: the presence of a sentient being at a certain distance. From the moon, you won't see the hand at all. From the perspective of an atom, a hand is a vast universe. There is not one thing you can say is a "hand".

 

Even so, an empty hand still packs a punch, even if it lacks a self.

[Pero]

Nails in the coffin? LOL, certainly not from this article.

 

You don't even have to look to past life to understand. Since the writer took the analogy of a murderer so will I. Lets say that as a young man I killed someone because maybe I just thought it's cool. Fortunatelly I didn't get busted. But after a few years, I changed, realized that that way of thinking is no good and deeply regreted what I've done. Unfortunatelly after these few years the police solved the case and found it was me and caught me. Now, I am no longer the same person I was years ago when I commited the murder but I am still sentenced to death. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but fairness doesn't necessarily enter into the equation, after all, I'm still the same person who comitted the crime.

 

I always find it laughable when people talking about karma talk about fairness. Karma doesn't care about you. It's not some kind of living thing. It's like if you accidentally fell into a meat grinder and I'd say "oh man, that meat grinder sure is unfair, it killed that good guy.".

 

But I guess I shouldn't expect deists to be able to understand these things.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Buddhism and the concept of the Self

 

read the link above for full article...

 

 

The first quote from Samyutta Nikaya seems to suggest that there is some kind of rebirth. If there is rebirth then there has to be something that is common between the two births. That would suggest that there is a self. However, the second quote from Samyutta Nikaya seems to suggest that the self exists at the level of phenomena since the self is really nonself! (It is curious that the Samyutta Nikaya talks of Brahmins being annihilationists. Did some Brahmins at that time claim that there is no permanent self? Upanishads do say that it is the Kshatriyas who introduced the doctrine of the Atman. ) Since the self is nonself i.e. phenomenon, there is really no such thing as a self in the Buddhist scheme of things. This position is contradictory on two counts:

 

2. Buddhist schools say that there is no relation between A and B. Yet Buddhist scriptures talk of Buddha Jataka stories where Buddha's past 500 births are related. If there is no relation between 2 births except for karma then how can Buddha's 500 rebirths be traced?</span>

 

</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; ">Some Buddhists suggest that the Buddhist position is more subtle than that stated above that B is not related to A. They say that when B is born with the karma of A, B is neither A nor not A. In other words, the self of B is not the same as A nor is it different from A.

After years of discussion, you haven't developed or changed much have you?

 

What is the point of anymore discussions? The points you raised were covered in the span of hours and days. You're beating a dead horse.

 

Really, what are you trying to prove? Why do you at all think this discussion is anymore fruitful?

 

If you are very confident in your views, you wouldn't post this topic again and again.

 

What are you trying to prove?

[DarthBane]

A friend once told me that:

Karma was the easy way out of understanding a situation that is usually more complex than one thinks. Sometimes, although it is rare, karma does not apply at all.

If one discusses Karma, you have to deal with the nuts and bolts. After that you might never really want to talk about it again. Much like talking to a mechanic about a muscle car then having him describe how it works.

 

Somethings can be more complex than any book you could read on a subject.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Guest

[Encephalon]

I can understand the effort to rationalize the eternal existence of an independent self. I can even understand the effort by those people who participate in this forum, as there are a number of westerners who find it difficult to let go of the idea of a permanent identity even though they genuinely seek the wisdom the east has to offer.

 

I would only invite everyone so inclined to examine this attachment and see what comes up. I believe there is only one reason we cling to this notion, but I won't spoil the fun now.

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[3bob]

There is a teaching regarding the "Self" in the following Upanishad, but there is no mention of an "independent self" as being the Self per-se as many apparently interpret such teachings...

 

Khandogya Upanishad, VII Prapathaka, 23rd Khanda.

 

23.

1. The Infinite (bhuman) is bliss. There is no bliss in anything

finite. Infinity only is bliss. This Infinity, however, we must desire

to understand.

 

Sir, I desire to understand it.

 

24.

1. Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands

nothing else, that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else,

hears something else, understands something else, that is the finite.

The Infinite is immortal, the finite is mortal.

 

Sir, in what does the Infinite rest? In its own greatness - or not even in greatness.

 

25. In the world they call cows and horses, elephants and gold,

slaves, wives, fields and houses greatness. I do not mean this,

thus he spoke; for in that case one being (the possessor) rests in

something else, (but the Infinite cannot rest in something

different from itself) ...(my added color highlight to the original text)

 

 

1. The Infinite indeed is below, above, behind, before, right and

left--it is indeed all this. Now follows the explanation of the

Infinite as the I: I am below, I am above, I am behind, before,

right and left--I am all this.

(thus if being so where is its independent self existing separately? also added by me)

 

2. Next follows the explanation of the Infinite as the Self: Self

is below, above, behind, before, right and left - Self is all this.

He who sees, perceives, and understands this, loves the Self,

delights in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self--he

becomes a Svarag, (an autocrat or self-ruler) he is lord and master

in all the worlds. But those who think differently from this, live in

perishable worlds, and have other beings for their rulers.

 

26.

1. To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit

(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory

springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and

disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,

will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this

springs from the Self.

 

2. There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor

illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains

everything everywhere.

 

"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),

he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is

called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."

When the intellectual aliment has been purified, the whole nature

becomes purified. When the whole nature has been purified, the memory

becomes firm. And when the memory (of the Highest Self) remains firm,

then all the ties (which bind us to a belief in anything but the Self)

are loosened."

 

Om

Edited July 25, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Nails in the coffin? LOL, certainly not from this article.

 

You don't even have to look to past life to understand. Since the writer took the analogy of a murderer so will I. Lets say that as a young man I killed someone because maybe I just thought it's cool. Fortunatelly I didn't get busted. But after a few years, I changed, realized that that way of thinking is no good and deeply regreted what I've done. Unfortunatelly after these few years the police solved the case and found it was me and caught me. Now, I am no longer the same person I was years ago when I commited the murder but I am still sentenced to death. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but fairness doesn't necessarily enter into the equation, after all, I'm still the same person who comitted the crime.

 

I always find it laughable when people talking about karma talk about fairness. Karma doesn't care about you. It's not some kind of living thing. It's like if you accidentally fell into a meat grinder and I'd say "oh man, that meat grinder sure is unfair, it killed that good guy.".

 

But I guess I shouldn't expect deists to be able to understand these things.

 

That was funny but you are still going to die for that murder you committed.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

When Buddhism speaks of a lack of self, they mean there is no inherent, independent self. This applies to things as well as people. This doesn't mean things and people don't exist at all.

 

For example, if you take a person's hand--- there is no independent, unchanging something called a hand. On the one hand, there is a collection of fingers and a palm, and each of these can be further subdivided ad infinitum.

 

Another is that what appears to be a hand depends on other things: the presence of a sentient being at a certain distance. From the moon, you won't see the hand at all. From the perspective of an atom, a hand is a vast universe. There is not one thing you can say is a "hand".

 

Even so, an empty hand still packs a punch, even if it lacks a self.

 

Well said Forest. Just as nails are made of non-nail elements and coffins made also of non-coffin elements.

 

Therefore the self that lays in the coffin must also be made of non-self elements.

 

So in the self exists traces of iron and wood - likewise in wood and iron exists traces of the 'flesh and blood' being. One cannot exist without an 'other'.

 

Nail - coffin - body : one aspect of one set of elements.

Iron - wood - bones : another aspect of another set of elements.

 

ad infinitum. all connected.

[3bob]

Well said Forest. Just as nails are made of non-nail elements and coffins made also of non-coffin elements.

 

Therefore the self that lays in the coffin must also be made of non-self elements.

 

So in the self exists traces of iron and wood - likewise in wood and iron exists traces of the 'flesh and blood' being. One cannot exist without an 'other'.

 

Nail - coffin - body : one aspect of one set of elements.

Iron - wood - bones : another aspect of another set of elements.

 

ad infinitum. all connected.

 

Hi CowTao, Of course an aggregate is made up of parts and thus your analogy applies to the worlds of aggregates - but in my interpretation it does not apply to to the "beyond of the beyond" of "Buddha Nature".

[C T]

Hi CowTao, Of course an aggregate is made up of parts and thus your analogy applies to the worlds of aggregates - but in my interpretation it does not apply to to the "beyond of the beyond" of "Buddha Nature".

Hello Bob...

 

I'd rather not go into this. Some Taoists would become quite sensitive and proclaim that Buddhists are starting their sermonic preaching again..

 

You get the drift.

[Marblehead]

Hello Bob...

 

I'd rather not go into this. Some Taoists would become quite sensitive and proclaim that Buddhists are starting their sermonic preaching again..

 

You get the drift.

 

I would have no problem with y'all going there. This is, afterall, a discussion of a Buddist concept.

 

Oh, sure, we might add our two cents but let's see if we can have a good discussion of a Buddhist concept without other members getting bent all out of shape.

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[JustARandomPanda]

Hi CowTao, Of course an aggregate is made up of parts and thus your analogy applies to the worlds of aggregates - but in my interpretation it does not apply to to the "beyond of the beyond" of "Buddha Nature".

 

How then do you explain it 3Bob? I'd like to listen.

[dwai]

ame='dwai' date='25 July 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1280087422' post='202758']

Buddhism and the concept of the Self

 

read the link above for full article...

 

 

 

 

After years of discussion, you haven't developed or changed much have you?

 

What is the point of anymore discussions? The points you raised were covered in the span of hours and days. You're beating a dead horse.

 

Really, what are you trying to prove? Why do you at all think this discussion is anymore fruitful?

 

If you are very confident in your views, you wouldn't post this topic again and again.

 

What are you trying to prove?

 

 

Lucky m'boy, I don't think the focus of your attention should be me. Rather, you should start looking at your belief system and analyze why you believe that there is "No Self" and why it appeals to you. The nihilism that is rapant amongst your ilk is a very spectacular example of how The Teachings of Buddha have been distorted and retrofitted to justify a potential psychological pathology.

 

[Encephalon]

If there is no permanent identity then reincarnation makes no sense at all and Buddhists need to let go of the idea of life after death even though they seek eternity. Can't have it both ways. So just admit it to yourself. According to some Buddhist cosmology there is no permanence and so no more me after I die. Taoists see it another way. Don't hate us as it is what it is for both of us and has no impact on how we should get along on a shared planet ergo rather trivial and certainly unknowable so why speak with such Absolute Certainty and just scare people when in fact you don't really know? That's not for me.

 

Sorry - your last sentence left me in the dust. All I was suggesting is that people who find comfort in the idea of a permanent self should thoroughly investigate for themselves why they find that notion comfortable and examine why the notion of a non-existent self is now ready for burial. We are responsible for our own ideas, are we not?

[JustARandomPanda]

analyze why you believe that there is "No Self" and why it appeals to you.

 

 

And This...

 

All I was suggesting is that people who find comfort in the idea of a permanent self should thoroughly investigate for themselves why they find that notion comfortable and examine why the notion of a non-existent self is now ready for burial.

 

 

 

Let go of the belief of a True Self or a No-Self.

 

Must say I rather like that. But I have no idea why. It just is.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Dwai...I'd like to know why you like the idea of a True Self. Just curious.

[xabir2005]

forwarded

Edited July 26, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote long ago in this forum before, but just re-wrote recently to someone:

 

From Actual Freedom and Buddhism ( http://www.box.net/shared/sbyi64jrms )

 

In hearing there is always only interdependently originated (along with the ear, stick, bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the entire universe coming together as this very manifestation) sound which is of itself vividly present and clear, without a hearer/feeler – hence there is no denial of sound, only that the “I hear sound” is an illusion. Similarly, there is no denial of the process/phenomena of rebirth in Buddhism, but the notion that a self/Self/soul is being reborn is an illusion. Rebirth is simply any kind other kind of phenomena, like sound, sight, thoughts, etc. All are happening according to Dependent Origination without a need for a Soul.

 

Hence, the issue of ‘soul’ and the issue of ‘rebirth’ are two separate things: you can believe in Soul + Reincarnation (Hinduism), you can believe in Rebirth BUT No Soul (the insight and experience of Buddha/Buddhism), you can believe that there is No Rebirth and No Soul (Richard/Actual Freedom).

 

Any of these combinations can take place. However, Buddha’s experience with remembering past lives and his insight of Anatta allowed him to conclude that there is indeed rebirth, but no soul. Richard’s error is not simply that he did not remember his past lives and therefore did not believe in rebirth, but it is that he is completely mixing up two separate issues: rebirth, and soul – he thinks that rebirth automatically implies the necessity of soul, but this is *Not Necessarily The Case* (at least not in Buddhism).

 

Due to his error, he wrongly accused Buddhism of believing that Buddhism teaches that a soul reincarnates, which is totally false, against the countless articles by many Buddhist masters explaining how the “soulless rebirth” of Buddhism is totally different from Hinduism’s “soul-reincarnation”. He then criticizes that although Buddhism does not believe in an unchanging or substantial soul, they believed that karma survives and therefore karma is the soul. How can karma be a soul or fixed self or identity when karma is simply a stream of insubstantial volitional phenomena rolling on in the very same way as thoughts and sounds and sights are a stream of insubstantial and impermanent sensations rolling on according to dependent origination without a doer/recipient/feeler and does not even stay the same for even a moment? Just because you can remember an event yesterday, does that imply that there is a soul? No! Just because you have a habit to smoke and this habit continues day by day, does that mean that there is a continuous soul? The fact that you can remember yesterday means there are some imprints and tendencies and these karmic tendencies and propensities continue to play and affect our lives moment to moment, but none of them implies a soul or a self!

 

In Buddhism, you cannot say that you are the same person/soul you are one hour ago, one day ago, or one year ago, and neither can you say that you are a different person. Both ‘same’ and ‘different’ implies that there is an entity: a self/Self/soul that can remain the same or different. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change. In actuality, there is simply an ever-changing stream of ever-fresh (Heraclitus: you cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.) action and sensation showing up moment by moment without a doer nor a soul/feeler. That there are seemingly predictable patterns that keep showing up simply means (karmic) tendencies and nothing else.

 

In short: Rebirth is simply a stream of arisings (the meaning of ‘re-birth’) that is the continuity of a process but not the continuity or passing on of a self-entity – in the same way that the fact that when I wake up today I still remember what ‘I’ did yesterday is a testimony to a continuity of a selfless process, and not the passing on of a self-entity or soul.

 

I shall also disgress from the main focus (Pali suttas, Theravada) of comparison with AF in this paragraph and also state that what I just explained is the case understood not only in Theravada Buddhism but also in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism – which means that all traditions of Buddhism does not teach a ‘soul’ being reborn – for example in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, it is the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) or the 8th Consciousness that functions as a kind of receptacle for so-called “seeds” or elementary units of past experiences, which then project into various experiences, as well as the illusions of there being inherently existing empirical subjects and corresponding objects (prior to transforming ‘consciousness’ into ‘wisdom’ through realizations). All memories, habits, tendencies, karma, are ‘stored’ therein. Now, the point to be understood here is that even though the alaya-vijnana is prior and above subject-object duality, it is also not a kind of Absolute mind: rather, alaya-vijnana is considered momentary and insubstantial, simply part of the mind-stream – nothing unchanging or independent or ‘Self’ unlike the views of non-Buddhist traditions. The term ‘store-house’ is not literally talking about a location, a place, an inherent Self/Soul, it is simply a convention for a process of consciousness. And there is no other Self or Absolute apart from the 8 consciousness-es – the only job Buddhists need to do with is to transform the 8 existing impure state of consciousness (which comes with the illusion of self/Self) into ‘pure consciousness experience’ (though in Buddhism we call it wisdom/awareness instead of ‘consciousness’) ridded of the illusion of self/Self and all illusions of inherency through the insight into Anatta and Emptiness.

 

Here’s what a wise and experienced forummer ‘rizenfenix’ wrote:

Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

 

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

 

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

 

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

 

The person at Medha Journal argues:

 

It seems highly unfair that the self of B that is not the same as A should suffer from the karmic consequences of A being the murderer.

 

But this is precisely what happens on a daily basis and you wouldn't think it is unfair. For example: the self of yesterday stole someone's car, and then the self of today landed in jail.

 

You would not think that it is unfair that the self of today will have to land up in jail for the misdeed of the self of yesterday.

 

Now in truth, the mindstream is conventionally still the same person - which means that karma is 'fair' because you do not suffer for my karma, and I do not suffer from yours (mindstreams are individual and not collective) - but the same person is not in fact an independent, unchanging entity. It is simply a stream of arisings that is the continuity of a process but not the continuity or passing on of a self-entity.

 

Anyway karma is not an issue of 'fairness/unfairness', it is an issue of 'cause and effect' - Cause A will bring about Effect B. And it just works that way due to the natural and universal law of causality.

 

'Perfection' is perhaps a better way to describe karma than 'just/unjust' - karma works perfectly precisely because it is the natural law of causality, not the judgement of any 'just/unjust' God high above. Hit the drum with a stick, a sound manifest, that alone is the perfection of the manifestation of causality.

 

As Steven Norquist wrote:

 

...You see, with enlightenment comes the knowledge that even though there is much activity in the world, there are no doers. The universe is in a sense, lifeless. There is no one, only happenings and the experience of happenings. Enlightenment reveals that the universe emerges spontaneously. It’s emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to. There is no random chance, or evolution based on chance. The universe is perfect, nothing is wrong or could be. There seems to be chance or unpredictability from a human perspective but that is only because our time frame reference can not see the universe emerge through its whole life span in a matter of minutes. If we could see that, then we would clearly see how every event was not only perfect and necessary but even predictable...

Edited July 26, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Anyway karma is not an issue of 'fairness/unfairness', it is an issue of 'cause and effect' - Cause A will bring about Effect B. And it just works that way due to the natural and universal law of causality.

 

I like that for whatever it is worth.

 

Peace & Love!

[Pero]

Lucky m'boy, I don't think the focus of your attention should be me. Rather, you should start looking at your belief system and analyze why you believe that there is "No Self" and why it appeals to you. The nihilism that is rapant amongst your ilk is a very spectacular example of how The Teachings of Buddha have been distorted and retrofitted to justify a potential psychological pathology.

 

ROFL.....

[Pero]

That was funny but you are still going to die for that murder you committed.

 

Uhm yes hehe... I don't understand what you mean.

[Marblehead]

Uhm yes hehe... I don't understand what you mean.

 

That's okay. I sometimes don't understand what I mean.

 

The point of discussion was who we change over time. That is a given, I think. The water under the bridge is never the same water.

 

I have heard so many time about people who were on death row that they had changed while awaiting their punishment and now they are a born-again Christian and people come to their defense saying that this criminal no longer deserves to die because he is a child of God and only God has the right to take his life.

 

I don't buy it. Not even a little bit. Cause and effect rule in nature. If there were no effects of negative behavior far more people would conduct negative behavior. We see this all the time in non-human nature. We, humans, are not above nature. We are subject to the same processes as all other plants and animals in the universe.

 

Therefore, if we violate the natural process and the norms of society we will pay the consequences. Doesn't matter how often we are born again, doesn't matter how much we changed over the years since we committed the violation. It is up to nature and, in the case of a social animal, society to determine the final effects of what we had done.

 

That is cause and effect. We can work our karma out later. (If we hold to such a concept.)

 

Peace & Love!