More nails in the Coffin of the non-existent Self

[dwai]

I like that Dwai posted it. It's fuel for thought. Dwai said his belief is based upon his personal experiences and Vedanta texts. In this he is similar to Vajrahidaya who says he believes in No-Self because it's based on his personal experiences and Buddhist texts.

 

It is not simply an opinion...it is a fact. The very fact that You and I and every other person is posting and writing, eating, sleeping and living is a testament to the fact that there is a subjective basis for all experience. One cannot say in a similar vein, that the subjective basis of all experience is a Not-Self. If they did, then the Self and Not-Self are one and the same.

[dwai]

[Lucky7Strikes]

me and wise ass? nah man...you got me mistaken for someone else. If it is so moot a discussion, why bother responding?

 

BTW, I love you and everyone else (mostly)

To let you and others see that this discussion will lead no where and discussions with you is pointless, that looking back on your profile is enough to show where this will eventually lead, that the topics have been covered over and over, and that this is not about the issues at hand, but about you.

[JustARandomPanda]

It is not simply an opinion...it is a fact. The very fact that You and I and every other person is posting and writing, eating, sleeping and living is a testament to the fact that there is a subjective basis for all experience. One cannot say in a similar vein, that the subjective basis of all experience is a Not-Self. If they did, then the Self and Not-Self are one and the same.

 

But this is precisely what Vajrahidaya tells me. That No-Self is not an opinion but a Fact. Whom then am I to believe? Both of you can not be Right. He points to his personal experiences and to Buddhist texts to back his claims up. You do exactly the same by pointing to personal experiences and to Hindu texts. Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?

[Marblehead]

Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?

 

Your truth is the Real Truth.

 

That's all I got to say.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

But this is precisely what Vajrahidaya tells me. That No-Self is not an opinion but a Fact. Whom then am I to believe? Both of you can not be Right. He points to his personal experiences and to Buddhist texts to back his claims up. You do exactly the same by pointing to personal experiences and to Hindu texts. Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?

 

"Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?"

 

concepts to help reach such are not such.

[JustARandomPanda]

"Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?"

 

concepts to help reach such are not such.

 

That's why I particularly liked Blasto's answer.

 

 

Your truth is the Real Truth.

 

That's all I got to say.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Thanks Marble. TaoBums is lucky to have someone like you posting.

[Pero]

Your truth is the Real Truth.

 

That's all I got to say.

 

Unfortunatelly most of us are complete idiots so our truths are also completely idiotic.

 

 

 

But this is precisely what Vajrahidaya tells me. That No-Self is not an opinion but a Fact. Whom then am I to believe? Both of you can not be Right. He points to his personal experiences and to Buddhist texts to back his claims up. You do exactly the same by pointing to personal experiences and to Hindu texts. Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?

 

It's a good question though. This is why I find it hard to tell someone who's still searching to do this or that, since what would be the point of him/her going on my say so?

[Encephalon]

[beoman]

In the grand scheme of things...evil and good are relative and define each other. It is context-sensitive and depends on circumstances...so what might seem like an evil act might be so from one perspective and not so from another. You are right, the True Self did not perform those acts. It is the Limiting Adjunct that did...the one that thinks that it is separate from everything and everyone else. Once the misconception of separateness disappears, the limiting adjunct realizes his/her true nature and then there is no more dichotomy. The next thought or moment is rooted in the previous thought or moment. In the relative sense, one leads to another leads to another...but the unity of that which underlies these moments and thoughts is what is important. Same is true for everything in this universe...apparently different and unique but linked together as a continuum.

 

 

 

 

 

The You that is being referred to here is not the limited self but the Absolute Self, the True Self. That continuum is not a stream of consciousness, but simply consciousness. The stream is an appearance only. It's like the waves of an ocean. The waves don't make an ocean...

 

Maybe you are agreeing with each other, but one is calling it "No Self" and another, "True Self". The way you describe it sounds similar. By "True Self" do you mean that this self pervades the whole universe and is in fact the universe in a sense? From what I understand, Buddhists would say the same about emptiness/void/form. and that ends up being the same thing - if there is nothing at all, it's indistinguishable from there being everything altogether. there's no difference if it's all the same.

 

well I'm probably just babbling, i'm not very familiar with these things.

Edited July 26, 2010 by beoman

[xabir2005]

Maybe you are agreeing with each other, but one is calling it "No Self" and another, "True Self". The way you describe it sounds similar. By "True Self" do you mean that this self pervades the whole universe and is in fact the universe in a sense? From what I understand, Buddhists would say the same about emptiness/void/form. and that ends up being the same thing - if there is nothing at all, it's indistinguishable from there being everything altogether. there's no difference if it's all the same.

 

well I'm probably just babbling, i'm not very familiar with these things.

I'm sure Dwai will agree with you as he always seem to misunderstand Buddhist Emptiness to be "True Self" when it is actually two different things.

 

It would be helpful if you familiarize yourself with Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment (which I think you did) - Emptiness is Stage 5 and 6 (emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas, respectively)

 

As Dr Greg Goode (who is not only highly knowledgeable but highly enlightened/experienced - do read his well-written article to have a better understanding of Buddhist Empiness) who is a philosopher and spiritual teacher from an Advaita background and yet was unbiased in his learning of Buddhist Emptiness, says:

 

Nondual Emptiness

 

(excerpts)

 

...For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free....

 

........

 

Emptiness Itself is Empty

 

Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

 

Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

 

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

 

* Emptiness is not a substance

* Emptiness is not a substratum or background

* Emptiness is not light

* Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

* Emptiness is not the Absolute

* Emptiness does not exist on its own

* Objects do not consist of emptiness

* Objects do not arise from emptiness

* Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

* Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

* Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Back to top

 

 

-------------

 

p.s. this also reminded me of what Bernadette Roberts (a highly experienced Catholic contemplative) said:

 

"That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine.

 

Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

Edited July 26, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Unfortunatelly most of us are complete idiots so our truths are also completely idiotic.

 

Yeah, I was expecting a response to my post.

 

I would argue with your statement though. I would rather suggest that most of us just have not found our truth. And some never do. That is sad, I think.

 

Yes, our confusion sometimes causes us to appear to be idiots. (Hehehe. I've been there a couple times.)

 

But let us not forget that even though we may have lost the Tao (Way) the Tao never looses us. There is always a Way back.

 

Same with our truth. It is there, all we have to do is realize it.

 

Peace & Love!

[beoman]

...For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free....

Ah thanks for this clarification. I was definitely making these mistakes, thinking that things come from emptiness and go back to it.

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[Encephalon]

[Tao99]

ok

Edited July 27, 2010 by Tao99

[styrofoamdog]

The reason that the Buddha taught no-self was to allow people to let go of this impermanent self that is created by the mind. Apart from the mind, self never exists, and the skandha of vijnana is the only thing that sustains it. Even after death, a new intermediate body is created by the mind, through grasping and the power of karma. It will then find a new body in one of the various realms of existence in accordance with this. If anyone considers himself a Buddhist but doubts reincarnation, they should read about yoga in the bardo state, because this explains the exact steps of dying, and the stages between lives. There are practices at various points in this process, so it was important that they were recorded.

 

There is a deviant nihilistic view that is basically the same as what was rejected by the Buddhist sutras, that the doctrine of no-self implies that there is no reincarnation, or that nothing even matters. This makes no sense, and could not be consistent with Buddhist views. This is in strong contrast to the very basis of the earliest Buddhism and the tradition of shramanas that it came out of in India. For Buddhists and all the shramanas, karma, cyclic existence, and escape from it are very fundamental. Now in the West, there are some people calling themselves Buddhists who believe that there is no rebirth and therefore that no karma will follow them. These people are clinging to a notion of emptiness, and denying the other fundamental principle of karma and conditioned existence. Without karma and conditioned existence, Buddhism would be no different from nihilism. Without cyclic existence, there would be no need to practice Buddhism because even the worst murderers would enter extinction upon death.

 

The reason for the teaching of no-self is to break up the false self, which exists provisionally without any absolute existence, just as any other conditioned phenomena (including everything in the universe). The basis of this is the unconditioned reality that is the substratum of both mind and karmic existence. The unconditioned can be spoken of in negative terms such as emptiness and no-self, but it is not really lacking anything. It can also be spoken of as the True Self, Buddha-nature, or Tathagatagarbha, or simply the Buddha, to use positive terms. For example, the Nirvana Sutra speaks of it as Self, permanence, existence, bliss. The Lotus Sutra teaches similarly that the Buddha taught no-self, in order for people to reach realization of the eternal Buddha and enlightenment. There are also neutral terms such as Tathagata, thus, such, thusness, suchness, equality, and simply this.

 

It's not so difficult, but it becomes difficult when people want simple answers to cling to. When people wanted to cling to a notion of a self, the Buddha taught no-self. When people began to cling to no-self and emptiness, he taught the True Self and Buddha-nature. He always turns back people who dwell in various notions, to point them to the truth. Don't cling to every word, read between the lines and study deeply. The problem today is that people read a little bit and then start publishing books, misleading people. This happened with Alan Watts writing naive things like the idea that Zen Buddhism denies reincarnation. Things like this can mislead an entire generation. If people read the Buddhist sutras directly, then Buddhism will definitely improve in the West.

 

The problem becomes difficult when someone reads a commentary and takes that as authoritative. No matter what, it is one degree of separation between the original text and the reader, and the original texts have layers of meaning. Add to that the differences in culture, depth, and traditions, and people can end up with some really strange views. This happens a lot in Tibet with Yogacara texts, where the views don't actually match those of the earlier Yogacara school in India. Another example is the Japanese Pure Land schools, which all place a premium on faith in Amitabha Buddha as a Jesus-like savior figure. They totally ignore the earliest traditions such as those of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, which clearly teach that bodhisattvas use the name of Amitabha Buddha as a mantra primarily for entering samadhi. The element of faith is simply there to unify the mind, as the practices of Amitabha are akin to early deity yoga, and they also include bardo practices. The Japanese schools think that superstitious faith is good enough, so naturally anyone who can make progress is rare. This is how traditions die. These are examples for us, so we can learn from the mistakes they made along the way.

Edited July 27, 2010 by styrofoamdog

[dwai]

[dwai]

But this is precisely what Vajrahidaya tells me. That No-Self is not an opinion but a Fact. Whom then am I to believe? Both of you can not be Right. He points to his personal experiences and to Buddhist texts to back his claims up. You do exactly the same by pointing to personal experiences and to Hindu texts. Again...whose Truth is the Real Truth?

 

There in lies the "TWIST"...dear SB...

Both are right!

Again I give you David Loy's essay on this subject:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?

[xabir2005]

The reason that the Buddha taught no-self was to allow people to let go of this impermanent self that is created by the mind. Apart from the mind, self never exists, and the skandha of vijnana is the only thing that sustains it. Even after death, a new intermediate body is created by the mind, through grasping and the power of karma. It will then find a new body in one of the various realms of existence in accordance with this. If anyone considers himself a Buddhist but doubts reincarnation, they should read about yoga in the bardo state, because this explains the exact steps of dying, and the stages between lives. There are practices at various points in this process, so it was important that they were recorded.

 

There is a deviant nihilistic view that is basically the same as what was rejected by the Buddhist sutras, that the doctrine of no-self implies that there is no reincarnation, or that nothing even matters. This makes no sense, and could not be consistent with Buddhist views. This is in strong contrast to the very basis of the earliest Buddhism and the tradition of shramanas that it came out of in India. For Buddhists and all the shramanas, karma, cyclic existence, and escape from it are very fundamental. Now in the West, there are some people calling themselves Buddhists who believe that there is no rebirth and therefore that no karma will follow them. These people are clinging to a notion of emptiness, and denying the other fundamental principle of karma and conditioned existence. Without karma and conditioned existence, Buddhism would be no different from nihilism. Without cyclic existence, there would be no need to practice Buddhism because even the worst murderers would enter extinction upon death.

 

The reason for the teaching of no-self is to break up the false self, which exists provisionally without any absolute existence, just as any other conditioned phenomena (including everything in the universe). The basis of this is the unconditioned reality that is the substratum of both mind and karmic existence. The unconditioned can be spoken of in negative terms such as emptiness and no-self, but it is not really lacking anything. It can also be spoken of as the True Self, Buddha-nature, or Tathagatagarbha, or simply the Buddha, to use positive terms. For example, the Nirvana Sutra speaks of it as Self, permanence, existence, bliss. The Lotus Sutra teaches similarly that the Buddha taught no-self, in order for people to reach realization of the eternal Buddha and enlightenment. There are also neutral terms such as Tathagata, thus, such, thusness, suchness, equality, and simply this.

 

It's not so difficult, but it becomes difficult when people want simple answers to cling to. When people wanted to cling to a notion of a self, the Buddha taught no-self. When people began to cling to no-self and emptiness, he taught the True Self and Buddha-nature. He always turns back people who dwell in various notions, to point them to the truth. Don't cling to every word, read between the lines and study deeply. The problem today is that people read a little bit and then start publishing books, misleading people. This happened with Alan Watts writing naive things like the idea that Zen Buddhism denies reincarnation. Things like this can mislead an entire generation. If people read the Buddhist sutras directly, then Buddhism will definitely improve in the West.

 

The problem becomes difficult when someone reads a commentary and takes that as authoritative. No matter what, it is one degree of separation between the original text and the reader, and the original texts have layers of meaning. Add to that the differences in culture, depth, and traditions, and people can end up with some really strange views. This happens a lot in Tibet with Yogacara texts, where the views don't actually match those of the earlier Yogacara school in India. Another example is the Japanese Pure Land schools, which all place a premium on faith in Amitabha Buddha as a Jesus-like savior figure. They totally ignore the earliest traditions such as those of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, which clearly teach that bodhisattvas use the name of Amitabha Buddha as a mantra primarily for entering samadhi. The element of faith is simply there to unify the mind, as the practices of Amitabha are akin to early deity yoga, and they also include bardo practices. The Japanese schools think that superstitious faith is good enough, so naturally anyone who can make progress is rare. This is how traditions die. These are examples for us, so we can learn from the mistakes they made along the way.

Well written post, I agree with almost all of your points.

 

What I want to note though... is that regarding the True Self teachings in the latter Mahayana development (the Tathagathagarbha doctrine) can very easily lead people to the conclusion that Buddhism preaches the Hindu Atman doctrine.

 

But, as I explained (quoting from a few scriptural based sources), this is not what is meant - see for example my post in http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13153-there-is-such-a-self/page__view__findpost__p__168181 and http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13153-there-is-such-a-self/page__view__findpost__p__168182

Edited July 27, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Encephalon]

There is a deviant nihilistic view that is basically the same as what was rejected by the Buddhist sutras, that the doctrine of no-self implies that there is no reincarnation, or that nothing even matters. This makes no sense, and could not be consistent with Buddhist views. This is in strong contrast to the very basis of the earliest Buddhism and the tradition of shramanas that it came out of in India. For Buddhists and all the shramanas, karma, cyclic existence, and escape from it are very fundamental. Now in the West, there are some people calling themselves Buddhists who believe that there is no rebirth and therefore that no karma will follow them. These people are clinging to a notion of emptiness, and denying the other fundamental principle of karma and conditioned existence. Without karma and conditioned existence, Buddhism would be no different from nihilism. Without cyclic existence, there would be no need to practice Buddhism because even the worst murderers would enter extinction upon death.

 

I suppose I would have to include myself in this population. I suppose the most articulate voice of this school of Buddhism would be Stephen Batchelor ("Buddhism without Beliefs" and "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist"). I think those of us in this camp would feel comfortable with calling ourselves secular humanists as well as Buddhists, and would take issue with rejection of the doctrine of reincarnation as an embrace of nihilism or a belief that nothing matters. There is still plenty of room for moral and ethical theory in a humanist view.

 

I have asked the question of why people cling to an idea of a permanent or isolated self, and I'm not entirely sure the answer has arrived, but I guess I'm obliged to explain why I embrace the opposite view. And my reason for rejecting an independent self is because secular Buddhism (and much of the Buddhist psychology that has emanated from the last 50 years of east/west dialogue), postmodernism, and modern psychology have made a more compelling case for a constructed identity than an immutable one. But have I given into nihilism? I think that's a stretch.

[JustARandomPanda]

Similarly 'Awareness', 'Self' is simply a convention but is ultimately 'empty' - it is simply these self-luminous manifestation that dependently originate, it is just the stream of aggregates.

 

I take it Xabir this is the crux where Buddhists depart with Dwai (and I presume other Advaita-ers)? Buddhists say upon examination even the True Self is discovered to be a collection of empty aggregates?

 

Am I understanding this right or not?

 

 

First of all Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting the world, but rather Awareness is a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting.

 

GiH said that the above statement is wrong (if I understood him correctly).

 

I said I had learned something like this from reading Buddhist books and said GiH's explanation of how Mind and Mindset work sounded very Hindu. Rigpa = Mind, Sems = Mindset. The mind reflects mindset. One can experience the Mind without Mindset just as a mirror can exist without reflecting anything. Or so he says - assuming I understood him correctly.

 

Awareness is just a term, a label, a convention. I don't mean there is an ultimate pure awareness outside of the skandhas.

 

The term 'pure awareness' is also confusing -- for example as Thusness said, the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. There is no 'THE Pure Awareness'. There is simply the six consciousness that dependently originates along with the six sense objects and faculties.

 

Dwai...do you agree the above is correct? Is this what one experiences when meditating long enough?

[3bob]

The "Self" is indivisible from being cut into parts, even parts of light, thus not an aggregate...

 

Think, talk and debate forever in speculation or simply, "know the Self by the Self".

 

Om

[JustARandomPanda]

The "Self" is indivisible from being cut into parts, even parts of light, thus not an aggregate...

 

So I take it 3bob that you do not agree with the following?

 

Similarly 'Awareness', 'Self' is simply a convention but is ultimately 'empty' - it is simply these self-luminous manifestation that dependently originate, it is just the stream of aggregates.

 

3Bob, are you a Buddhist? For some reason from your posts I always thought you were a Taoist.