The Self, Does it Exist?

[rocala]

Well, is there a self, what is it?

[rocala]

I would like to add another question to this. Are no-self and non-self the same thing?

[Michael Sternbach]

23 minutes ago, rocala said:

I would like to add another question to this. Are no-self and non-self the same thing?

 

Not in my view. The former includes the whole cosmos, the latter excludes it. Does this make sense to you?

[rocala]

9 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Not in my view. The former includes the whole cosmos, the latter excludes it. Does this make sense to you?

Some elaboration would be very welcome.

[3bob]

the capital 'S' for Self is correct in Veda based systems/texts/teachers.   In a Buddhist sub-forum you are barking up the wrong tree,

for such a teaching is what the Buddha taught against.  (and there may be some Buddhists that debate that but that is what the founder and most other teachers of Buddhism stick to.) 

 

[lifeforce]

http://m.nirvanasutra.net/site/mobile?dm_path=%2Fdreadofthesoul.htm&fw_sig_premium=1&fw_sig_permissions=none&fw_sig_permission_level=0&fw_sig_social=1&fw_sig_session_key=54b7d9625b045b2f28259d325f7df8791125e22a449f2e6dc709ce38597e3a5f-8967449&fw_sig_potential_abuse=1&fw_sig_locale=en-US&fw_sig=410418d4a2878f17cea0af203aa6ea60&fw_sig_time=1527503067135&fw_sig_partner=webs&fw_sig_access_token=6334516ba53dd4d26ae71a8a5f00bce7b12abd89&fw_sig_url=http://www.nirvanasutra.net/&fw_sig_site=8967449&fw_sig_tier=-1&fw_sig_is_admin=0&fw_sig_api_key=522b0eedffc137c934fc7268582d53a1&fb_sig_network=fw#0202

 

Such a long hyperlink !

Edited July 22, 2018 by lifeforce

[rocala]

The capital S was used as part of the title only and did not occur in subsequent posts.

 

...the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

©1996 Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

I am afraid phrases such as "most teachers" do not really cut it for me. It is the debate not the stats that I find interesting.

[Michael Sternbach]

58 minutes ago, rocala said:

Some elaboration would be very welcome.

 

With pleasure.

 

First, let's consider what no-self means. The absence of awareness? Unconsciousness? Hardly. Rather, it refers to a state in which the conceptual nature of the self is recognized as such. For there can only be a self if there is a non-self. A division, BTW, that very young children don't make - they still  exist in an oceanic state of mind. So much for my statement that the non-self excludes the cosmos. Save for that tiny part of it that is always out for 'me', of course.

 

By the same token, transcending those conceptual dividing lines that constitute the border lines of the self leads to the understanding, nay, to the perception that the self is actually one with all of existence. Therefore I said that 'no-self' includes the whole cosmos.

 

And yet some sense of self remains. Without it, it would be impossible to keep functioning in physical reality. However, it is a state hugely  expanded from what people commonly experience.

 

Do I make sense to you now?

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

the capital 'S' for Self is correct in Veda based systems/texts/teachers.   In a Buddhist sub-forum you are barking up the wrong tree,

for such a teaching is what the Buddha taught against.  (and there may be some Buddhists that debate that but that is what the founder and most other teachers of Buddhism stick to.) 

 

 

Well, Buddhists tend to get entangled in semantics and conceptualizations.

 

Replace 'Self' by 'Buddha nature' and you are talking business.

 

Either way, I don't think it's THAT self which the OP is referring to.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[rocala]

Yes, that is clear, thanks @Michael Sternbach

[3bob]

well rocala why did you use the capital S  in the header incorrectly if that wasn't your drift?  Anyway no biggy, besides it is fun to answer our own questions sometimes isn't it?   

 

Btw, and as long as we are kicking the can around some Buddhists don't accept teachings about a Buddha nature either.

 

Lastly the upanishads explain the Self quite nicely if you happen kill the Buddha while walking down the road someday...   

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

well rocala why did you use the capital S  in the header incorrectly if that wasn't your drift?

 

It's not incorrect to start the words of a header with capital letters, 3bob.

 

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

Anyway no biggy, besides it is fun to answer our own questions sometimes isn't it?   

 

Btw, and as long as we are kicking the can around some Buddhists don't accept teachings about a Buddha nature either.

 

Lastly the upanishads explain the Self quite nicely if you happen kill the Buddha while walking down the road someday...   

 

I guess we will have to talk about the nature of the Self next...

[ion]

Buddhist doctrine is clear that there is no self. In fact it is one of the 3 marks of existence.

 

H also cleary said that there is nothing in all of reality that corresponds to the word self.

 

Many Buddhist who do not really have a thorough understanding of dependent origination/emptiness will argue and argue that there is a self, but IMO it's not Buddhism anymore. The rest of the doctrine that is dependent on there being no self just falls apart into a new age type  belief system that does,not connect in many places

[3bob]

there we go again with that small 's' ,   which does not mean the one with a cap 'S',   (per the Upanishads)

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, 3bob said:

there we go again with that small 's' ,   which does not mean the one with a cap 'S',   (per the Upanishads)

Actually, that's the way I understand it too,  the sources for my understanding is different though.

 

[dwai]

https://www.medhajournal.com/most-people-misunderstand-what-atman-means

[Limahong]

On 7/23/2018 at 1:34 AM, rocala said:

Well, is there a self, what is it?

 

On 7/23/2018 at 2:58 AM, rocala said:

I would like to add another question to this. Are no-self and non-self the same thing?

 

 

If self is 'I', then no-self and non-self are respectively - 'no-I' and 'non-I'.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Limahong
Enhance ...

[Marblehead]

I am therefore I sometimes think.

 

[Limahong]

7 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I am therefore I sometimes think.

 

Then other times are linked to dreamless sleep? I am therefore sleeping.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Limahong

[ion]

I think it's pretty common knowledge in the field of (physiological) medicine, and anthropology that the brain does not  come with thoughts and emotions "hard wired" into it, but for those of you that believe there is a self I ask simply; 

 

What are the characteristics of a self? And what exactly is a self dependent on for its existence and characterization?

[Limahong]

4 minutes ago, ion said:

What are the characteristics of a self?

 

The characteristics cannot be named.

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, ion said:

What are the characteristics of a self? And what exactly is a self dependent on for its existence and characterization?

I've been through all that here before.  Keep in mind I am a Materialist and a Physicalist.

 

There really are some instincts woven into our brain.  They can be over-come but it is very difficult to do so.

 

Self:  Everything that is and what has become a part of this animal called "Marblehead".  No, I cannot put my finger on my "Self".  That is because it is not just one thing.

 

For sure the "Self" is dependent on many things.  The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, etc.  We are not self-sustaining objects.  Nothing is, really, except for Dao.  But then, that's not a thing so it doesn't apply.

 

[ion]

1 minute ago, Limahong said:

 

The characteristics cannot be named.

well what  is it dependent on?

 

 

anything that is said to exist is the characterization of what it is dependent on.

 

if it is not dependent on anything it has no characteristics And so does not exist.

 

If it exist it has it's origins, and those origins, and the being of the existing thing will be e product of causative factors or certain conditions.

 

What are those conditions?

[Limahong]

1 minute ago, ion said:

well what  is it dependent on?

 

Characteristics spoken are not the eternalness [of characteristics].

[Marblehead]

In other words, "How the fuck would I know?"