The Buddhist Self Inquiry

[RongzomFan]

To do so, we first have to be clear about what it is we are refuting, which is the nature as it appears. So what we refer to as an individual is a continuity, and what we call a phenomenon is something that has characteristics. Thus when we focus on the continuity of the aggregates, thinking, “From a point with no beginning I have arrived at this point, and from here I shall continue further to the next point,” this concept of “I” is the self of the individual. The way we apprehend this self varies. Sometimes, when we say “I am sick,” we are thinking of the aggregates as “I.” But if someone asks us, “What is the trouble?” and we reply, “My head aches,” we are thinking of the aggregates as “mine.”

 

So focusing on the continuity is the belief in the self of the individual, and the object of that belief is the individual. The basis for designating the individual is the five aggregates, which are the objects of the belief in the substantiality of phenomena, and the belief that they truly exist is the belief in the substantiality of phenomena.

 

When we believe in the personal self, we are clinging to it as something permanent, single, and independent. So, begin by examining whether this so-called individual self is the same as, or different from, the five aggregates. If it is the same, then just as the self is permanent, single, and independent, so too must the aggregates be permanent, single, and independent. On the other hand, if the aggregates are impermanent, multiple, and dependent, then it follows that this self must also be impermanent, multiple, and dependent. When you investigate in this way, you will find that the self and the aggregates cannot be the same. If the self is something other than the aggregates, you should be able to observe that the self and aggregates, which are not separate in terms of place, time, or appearance, are distinct. Since this is not what one sees, you have to conclude that there is no basis for a self.

 

You might think then, “Well, even though the self does not exist, the aggregates still do.” But if you analyze them, you will find they do not exist either.

 

------by the supreme authority Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang

Edited December 18, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

The thread title is an oxymoron, but that's good summary from that excerpt.

[RongzomFan]

How is the title an oxymoron?

[RongzomFan]

Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara is all about this stuff.

Edited December 18, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

How is the title an oxymoron?

 

Buddha rejects self-inquiry as explained here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

 

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

 

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

 

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive selfarises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

[RongzomFan]

But this is self-inquiry.