Self vs No-Self

[Maddie]

15 hours ago, dwai said:

 

 

Something that I have often noticed on this topic is that a lot of times I think people use the five aggregates or five skandas to explain what the Buddha said we are, but it seems when I read the suttas the Buddha is using the five skandas to explain what we are not.

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Something that I have often noticed on this topic is that a lot of times I think people use the five aggregates or five skandas to explain what the Buddha said we are, but it seems when I read the suttas the Buddha is using the five skandas to explain what we are not.

That is how I look at it as well.
 

If you talk to higher level Buddhists, they will not deny the possibility that “atman” and “Buddha Nature/True Nature etc etc” are similar (if not outright accept that they are the same). 
 

There has always been a case in debates, of the “other” view being caricatured to a certain extent. Hindu scholars called Buddhism nihilistic. Buddhist scholars called Hindus ignorant. 
 

But if there is true cessation of suffering, it must go hand in hand with true awakening as well. And if there is true awakening, the differences fall away, and the underlying truth is what is perceived. (IMHO) 

[Maddie]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is how I look at it as well.
 

If you talk to higher level Buddhists, they will not deny the possibility that “atman” and “Buddha Nature/True Nature etc etc” are similar (if not outright accept that they are the same). 

There has always been a case in debates, of the “other” view being caricatured to a certain extent. Hindu scholars called Buddhism nihilistic. Buddhist scholars called Hindus ignorant. 

 

I can't claim to be too familiar with the notion of Buddha nature as most of what I learned from Buddhism at least initially came from the theravada school. I don't believe they have such a concept as Buddha nature. Though as I got more into it it did begin to feel somewhat nilistic to me as well.

 

* Additionally I do believe that after Alexander the great brought Greece into contact with India there were debates between Buddhists and Greek thinkers but I wonder what the nature of those debates was like?

Edited December 6, 2020 by dmattwads

[helpfuldemon]

If there should be a no-self, as it stands, it appears that there is simply the Eternal.  As you can see, there is no agreement on what that is, and that is because it is different for everyone.  

[Maddie]

Since at the very least the five things the Buddha said are not-self are the five skandhas then we can at least look at these and consider how and if they are not-self. They are form (or body) perceptions, conceptions, volitions, and consciousness. 

 

1. The body is not self. Most of the molecules in our bodies are constantly replacing themselves throughout our life. The body we had last year is mostly not the same body we have this year, so it can't be considered self. 

 

2. Perceptions are not-self. The information we take in through the senses and our judgment on it being pleasant or unpleasant are not self, such as sights we see, noises we hear, odors we smell, flavors we taste, and tactiles we feel. 

 

3. Conceptions are not-self. The way we conceptualize what the senses take in are not self. 

 

4. Volitions are not self. Our judgments and will are not self. I think we often identify with our volitions, choices and opinions as being self, but ultimately they are simply conditioned. Examples are culture and fashion trends. How many people think they dress unique while more or less dressing like most of society around them for example.

 

5. Consciousness is not self. I think of all of the skandhas this one is identified with the most as self, yet consciousness only arises in response to sensory input. What about when we are unconscious? Do we stop existing? 

[rocala]

57 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

Consciousness is not self. I think of all of the skandhas this one is identified with the most as self, yet consciousness only arises in response to sensory input. What about when we are unconscious? Do we stop existing? 

 

A very good question. I caught some of an interview a few years back. A Buddhist was saying that he felt that the information being gathered about NDE's could be something that Buddhists would have to deal with.

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

5. Consciousness is not self. I think of all of the skandhas this one is identified with the most as self, yet consciousness only arises in response to sensory input. What about when we are unconscious? Do we stop existing? 

This is a big misconception. Consciousness is perfectly existent without any sensory inputs too.  

[Maddie]

16 minutes ago, dwai said:

This is a big misconception. Consciousness is perfectly existent without any sensory inputs too.  

 

It's important to keep in mind that the mind is considered the sixth sense in Buddhism.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, dmattwads said:

 

It's important to keep in mind that the mind is considered the sixth sense in Buddhism.

Yes for mind, incorrect to use consciousness  

Hindus consider the mind to be a subtle organ, which borrows the “light” of consciousness (like the moon borrows the light of the sun).

Edited December 7, 2020 by dwai

[Maddie]

48 minutes ago, rocala said:

A very good question. I caught some of an interview a few years back. A Buddhist was saying that he felt that the information being gathered about NDE's could be something that Buddhists would have to deal with.

 

 

How so? In what way?

[Maddie]

20 minutes ago, dwai said:

This is a big misconception. Consciousness is perfectly existent without any sensory inputs too.  

 

Can you elaborate please?

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Can you elaborate please?

In samādhi, there are no objects but Consciousness exists just fine without them. Also in the deep sleep state, there are no objects, yet consciousness exists just fine with them.

Like I mentioned above, in the Hindu tradition, the mind is considered to be a subtle organ, made up of 4 components -- 

• The mindstream (which is a field of objects)
• The ego -- that which identifies the "self" with identity
• the storehouse of impressions and memories
• The intellect 

This organ borrows the light of consciousness to illuminate objects. The Ego mistakenly ascribes the identity "I am the knower" to the mind. But the knower is actually Consciousness itself,  which knows the state with objects or without the objects -- both of which are in the mind alone. 

 

 

[Maddie]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

In samādhi, there are no objects but Consciousness exists just fine without them. Also in the deep sleep state, there are no objects, yet consciousness exists just fine with them.

Like I mentioned above, in the Hindu tradition, the mind is considered to be a subtle organ, made up of 4 components -- 

• The mindstream (which is a field of objects)
• The ego -- that which identifies the "self" with identity
• the storehouse of impressions and memories
• The intellect 

This organ borrows the light of consciousness to illuminate objects. The Ego mistakenly ascribes the identity "I am the knower" to the mind. But the knower is actually Consciousness itself,  which knows the state with objects or without the objects -- both of which are in the mind alone. 

 

 

 

When one is asleep isn't one by definition unconscious? Therefore wouldn't there be no consciousness at this moment? 

 

On another topic regarding consciousness that I am confused about it would seem in the 12 links of dependent origination that consciousness exists as a "thing" between lives that gives rise to rebirth, but when speaking about the 5 skandhas it seems to suggest that consciousness arises as the result of the 6 senses, so not sure what to make of that unless these various types of consciousness are not the same thing.  

[dwai]

1 minute ago, dmattwads said:

 

When one is asleep isn't one by definition unconscious? Therefore wouldn't there be no consciousness at this moment? 

The absence of objects doesn't mean the absence of consciousness. In deep sleep, there is the absence of objects, but consciousness exists as it is. For 'normal' people the consciousness in deep sleep is not apparent at all, so the assumption is that they are unconscious. 

 

Try this as an exercise -- put all your attention/focus waiting for the next thought to arise in your mind. Let me know what happens. 

1 minute ago, dmattwads said:

 

On another topic regarding consciousness that I am confused about it would seem in the 12 links of dependent origination that consciousness exists as a "thing" between lives that gives rise to rebirth, but when speaking about the 5 skandhas it seems to suggest that consciousness arises as the result of the 6 senses, so not sure what to make of that unless these various types of consciousness are not the same thing.  

In the Hindu tradition, we consider the mind  (as I outlined in an earlier post) to be the one that coordinates with the five senses to experience "things". So, there are not really various types of consciousness per se, but the mind, using the sense organs to experience objects in different ways, the mind being reflected consciousness. 

 

Transmigration is a longer topic, which I don't have time to delve into at the present  

[Maddie]

30 minutes ago, dwai said:

The absence of objects doesn't mean the absence of consciousness. In deep sleep, there is the absence of objects, but consciousness exists as it is. For 'normal' people the consciousness in deep sleep is not apparent at all, so the assumption is that they are unconscious. 

 

Try this as an exercise -- put all your attention/focus waiting for the next thought to arise in your mind. Let me know what happens. 

In the Hindu tradition, we consider the mind  (as I outlined in an earlier post) to be the one that coordinates with the five senses to experience "things". So, there are not really various types of consciousness per se, but the mind, using the sense organs to experience objects in different ways, the mind being reflected consciousness. 

 

Transmigration is a longer topic, which I don't have time to delve into at the present  

 

If you are speaking for the Hindu point of view on consciousness and I think you are then to me it begins to almost seem like the difference of perspective on consciousness from the Hindu point of view and the Buddhist point of view or the question rather is is consciousness a thing or a function?

 

Based on what I think I understand as your explanation it seems to me that Hinduism explains consciousness as a thing.

 

Buddhism on the other hand seems to explain consciousness as a function or at least from the perspective of the five skandas.

 

The thing versus function debate seems to tie back into the self or no self issue.

[dwai]

30 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

If you are speaking for the Hindu point of view on consciousness and I think you are then to me it begins to almost seem like the difference of perspective on consciousness from the Hindu point of view and the Buddhist point of view or the question rather is is consciousness a thing or a function?

 

Based on what I think I understand as your explanation it seems to me that Hinduism explains consciousness as a thing.

Not a thing. It is what makes things known  

 

30 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Buddhism on the other hand seems to explain consciousness as a function or at least from the perspective of the five skandas.

🤷‍♂️

30 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

The thing versus function debate seems to tie back into the self or no self issue.

It seems like it’s rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a “thing”. 

[helpfuldemon]

My friend was telling me of the glory of his meditation practice.  He said it was addictive, that he had reached a state of perfection.  I asked what it was like he said "Its awareness"  I said "What are you aware of?"  He said "Awareness".  I didn't quite get it, but with this discussion I think I do.  There must be a state of existence where there is no senses, no light, perhaps no dark- just consciousness.

[helpfuldemon]

Personally, just by virtue of the definition- consciousness means to be aware, and if its not through senses- then what?  Being unconscious doesn't sound like consciousness to me.  What is eternal about not being aware?

[rocala]

10 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

How so? In what way?

As stated I only caught a bit of it. There is other info on the web, such as :

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11535/near-death-experience-and-meditation

https://www.nalandawest.org/near-death-experiences-buddhist-perspectives/

https://buddhismzone.org/buddhist-near-death-experience-what-really-happens/

[dwai]

Pertinent discussion vis-a-vis Deep sleep and Consciousness --

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Spaceofawareness]

On 07/12/2020 at 6:52 PM, helpfuldemon said:

Personally, just by virtue of the definition- consciousness means to be aware, and if its not through senses- then what?  Being unconscious doesn't sound like consciousness to me.  What is eternal about not being aware?

Awareness can know itself, but only like a shadow of itself, never knowing directly, because awareness has no characteristics, anything that can be seen is not it, it is what sees. But it can be felt as a presence of self. Normally, we aren’t aware of ourselves, only of the world, but awareness can “feel” itself, which is how it knows itself. 

 

It is a naturally pleasant state, calm, peaceful, and yet completely alert of the world. If you can watch yourself always, you will be it.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Spaceofawareness

[old3bob]

"There is only one reality in form, which is the pure consciousness which is conscious of form,

and this reality is what realizes itself as formless, timeless, space-less"  Gurudeva

Edited December 13, 2020 by old3bob

[Gerard]

On 06/12/2020 at 2:27 AM, dmattwads said:

So without getting too nuanced I would like to hear various thoughts on this topic and reasons for thinking them. Do we have a real self? Or do we just think we do?

You have a higher self indeed but where is it located and what it is exactly doing?

 

This is a big question indeed.

 

This YOU is only a small fragment of the higher being that you are and we all are.

 

Hinduism and Buddhism have only tapped on the surface of the true nature of the SOUL. 
 

We are extremely complex and infinite (ever evolving) beings. 
 

MIND CREATES REALITY. 
 

No beginning no end.

 

Quantum Physics viewpoint:

 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/endless-versions-of-you-in-endless-parallel-universes-a-growing-number-of

 

First started by the famous "Schrödinger's cat" paradox.

 

Final point: Religion is very limiting. TRANSCEND RELIGION. It only fuels FEAR!! 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Gerard

[old3bob]

true religions and philosophies based on Spirit and which are vehicles for Spirit do not in any way fuel fear...and it's misleading and nihilistically cynical to say so imo.  

 

Btw and per Taoism: "Tao gave birth to One" (with everything following afterwards) thus a beginning  and also a return or end, both which then cycle over and over.  So if you are pointing to the "One" instead of the Tao then that was also misleading imo.

Edited December 14, 2020 by old3bob

[helpfuldemon]

29 minutes ago, old3bob said:

true religions and philosophies based on Spirit and which are vehicles for Spirit do not in any way fuel fear...and it's misleading and cynical to say so imo.  

 

Btw and per Taoism: "Tao gave birth to One" (with everything following afterwards) thus a beginning  and also a return or end, both which then cycle over and over.  So if you are pointing to the "One" instead of the Tao then that was also misleading imo.

I think Taoism is just like any other philosophers idea:  there is one absolute way and thing.  The One is just another One as compared to all the other Ones out there.  I think the goal is to find your One and be it.