Self vs No-Self

[old3bob]

7 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

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.

 

have you read and studied the Tao Teh Ching?  I would not generalize or minimize as it sounds like you have.  The "One" contains all others so to speak, anyway I suggest looking at chapter 42 that points to its meaning 

[TaraTarini]

I think that to believe in anatman you must believe basically that things arise out of nothing.let me explain:the alaya is made up of a composition of momentary cittas all arising and perishing instantaneously.to believe that a citta arises anew when it’s former citta has already ceased is to say things Arise from nothing and that infinite new persons make up yourself when there is only a sence of continuity of yourself with recognition and remembrance.to accept anatman is to accept radical momentariness wich even Buddhists agree must be heavily meditated on to grasp as it cannot be understood logically.thats just my opinion.

 

 

Also if we take mipham’s four great logical arguments against arising and apply them to citta or the alaya,we will come to accept a permanent self.arising can only happen within consciousness.

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

Edited December 14, 2020 by TaraTarini

[idiot_stimpy]

5 minutes ago, TaraTarini said:

I think that to believe in anatman you must believe basically that things arise out of nothing.let me explain:the alaya is made up of a composition of momentary cittas all arising and perishing instantaneously.to believe that a citta arises anew when it’s former citta has already ceased is to say things Arise from nothing and that infinite new persons make up yourself when there is only a sence of continuity of yourself with recognition and remembrance.to accept anatman is to accept radical momentariness wich even Buddhists agree must be heavily meditated on to grasp as it cannot be understood logically.thats just my opinion.

 

 

Also if we take mipham’s four great logical arguments against arising and apply them to citta or the alaya,we will come to accept a permanent self.arising can only happen within consciousness.

 

 

Fantastic post. Have you found this to be your experience?

[TaraTarini]

5 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

 

Fantastic post. Have you found this to be your experience?

Thank you brother.I have looked at the arguments for momentariness or anatman and it basically all boils down to the fact the contents of consciousness are momentary so there is no unchanging consciousness.I found this a weak argument and I found Adi Shankara’ and ramanuja’s arguments against anatman more powerful.there are plenty of Buddhists that believe in a atman or higher alaya so this doesn’t prove Hinduism above Buddhism per se,but it does prove that Nagarjuna was wrong and anatman is wrong.

 

nagarjuna’s emptiness empty of itself would be a reality if there were a true infinite chain of arising and cessation.but true infinite’s numerically are impossible and arising and cessation are impossible outside of consciousness so shunyata and anatman do not exist.there is empty of other but not self as dolpopa wrote imo

 

I haven’t really done much spiritual practice so I can’t say I had a direct realization of atman but logically you can’t escape atman and yes I have debated many Buddhists on this matter.

[idiot_stimpy]

9 minutes ago, TaraTarini said:

..it basically all boils down to the fact the contents of consciousness are momentary so there is no unchanging consciousness.

 

I understand the contents of consciousness change, however the fact of existing right now doesn't change. I'm not talking about the thought of existing right now, but actually being right now. In a sense, the unchanging existence contains all things, but in itself is nothing. 

[C T]

Might it be more apt to substitute 'existence' with 'space'? 

Just wondering 

[old3bob]

"nothing" is a problematic word to work with imo, like many other words;  more so since meanings in "western" ways and "eastern"  ways for the same word can vary a lot, or a word being used in the  east may not even exist in the west.

 

I would say that one of the best handles of meaning  for nothing in some of these discussion's is no-thing. 

Having said that some of us may accept that  Pure consciousness is no-thing thus not even a subtle thing or a  construct (as often heard in  Buddhism) and that It effortlessly understands and sees things as they are and as they change while also perpetually knowing beyond regular or mental knowing that it is not one of the myriads of things (with thoughts also being things)  passing before it, or which it might also be said to be passing through in a certain sense, although not limited to the times and spaces of things.

Edited December 15, 2020 by old3bob

[idiot_stimpy]

Quote

4

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.
Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
I do not know from whence it comes.
It is the forefather of the gods.

14

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

 

Quote

Primordial emptiness is free from change, and it is the nature of awareness.

Bless me so that I may recognize this view, my very own nature.

~ Trulshik Rinpoche

 

 

Unfathomable source,

hidden deep but ever present.

It is intangible,

beyond description.

Move with the present,

it is the nature of awareness.

Edited December 15, 2020 by idiot_stimpy

[Maddie]

Thought I'd bump this topic since it was being discussed on the meditation thread.

[Apech]

40 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

Thought I'd bump this topic since it was being discussed on the meditation thread.

 

 

There is no you and there is no thread.

[forestofclarity]

Self threads should start with reasonably clear definitions. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Self threads should start with reasonably clear definitions. 

As must no-self threads  

[natural]

I am confused.

Are we talking about me?

Myself?

Or I?

Or to me, myself or I?

Am I real?

Or Memorex?

[Apech]

1 hour ago, natural said:

I am confused.

Are we talking about me?

Myself?

Or I?

Or to me, myself or I?

Am I real?

Or Memorex?

 

No.

[natural]

Thanks!

Does that qualify as an existential crisis?

Am I cured?

[forestofclarity]

21 hours ago, dwai said:

As must no-self threads  

 Hey, I tried :

 

 

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 Hey, I tried :

 

 

Nice. So have I -- https://www.medhajournal.com/most-people-misunderstand-what-atman-means/

[forestofclarity]

36 minutes ago, dwai said:

Nice. So have I -- https://www.medhajournal.com/most-people-misunderstand-what-atman-means/

 

@dwai, glad you can assist me in avoiding doing things I don't want to do.

 

This sounds like an argument for the emptiness of the Atman.

 

Let's check: 

 

1.  "It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead." In addition, "it is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses)" In other words, it is not findable under analysis. There is nothing for the mind to grasp onto as there is nothing fixed, substantial, findable, etc. i.e. = empty. 

 

2. In order to not be empty, it should have an independent, unitary, permanent self.

 

     a. Is it independent? No: the Atman is described as "as pure subject predicate, without which no manifestation can happen." Accordingly, it is not independent, it relates to manifestation.  

    b. Is it permanent? No: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." 

    c. Is it unitary? No, for reason #2.

 

3. Assertion to the contrary: "This root does not change", however, this is just a way of speaking since "both space and time appear in it." How can one talk about change without space and time? Change means time, which means we're already outside of this "Atman" and into manifestation.  

 

4. Explicit confirmation that it is empty: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." and "Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light." Using contradictory words right next to each other suggests a mutual negation, i.e. that it doesn't really fit in one or the other. 

 

So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all?  If not, what is its essence (keeping in mind it cannot be described in terms of the senses or mental categories)? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by forestofemptiness

[Creation]

21 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all?

It might be useful to recall that what dwai is describing was, and still is, called crypto-Buddhist by rival Hindu schools.

[dwai]

49 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

@dwai, glad you can assist me in avoiding doing things I don't want to do.

 

This sounds like an argument for the emptiness of the Atman.

 

Let's check: 

 

1.  "It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead." In addition, "it is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses)" In other words, it is not findable under analysis. There is nothing for the mind to grasp onto as there is nothing fixed, substantial, findable, etc. i.e. = empty. 

 

2. In order to not be empty, it should have an independent, unitary, permanent self.

 

     a. Is it independent? No: the Atman is described as "as pure subject predicate, without which no manifestation can happen." Accordingly, it is not independent, it relates to manifestation.  

    b. Is it permanent? No: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." 

    c. Is it unitary? No, for reason #2.

 Why does the subject have to be dependent on the manifestation? Subject is independent, can and does exist perfectly well without manifestation. As far as the terminology used is concerned, wrt. subject-object relationship, it can be misidentified as "dependently originated"...but that is not really the case from an empirical perspective. 

 

To use a limited analogy -- does the movie screen depend on the movie playing on it?

Quote

3. Assertion to the contrary: "This root does not change", however, this is just a way of speaking since "both space and time appear in it." How can one talk about change without space and time? Change means time, which means we're already outside of this "Atman" and into manifestation.  

 

 

4. Explicit confirmation that it is empty: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." and "Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light." Using contradictory words right next to each other suggests a mutual negation, i.e. that it doesn't really fit in one or the other. 

 Why can it not? Neither space, nor time actually exist -- they appear (manifest) and disappear (unmanifest) within Awareness itself. 

Quote

So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all?  If not, what is its essence (keeping in mind it cannot be described in terms of the senses or mental categories)? 

 

 

 

 

Atman is certainly not the "not-self", it is the Self  

What is it's essence? It is Being itself. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by dwai

[manitou]

On 12/5/2020 at 9:15 AM, C T said:

You've been doing this sort of thing — changing the boundaries of what's self and not-self — all of the time. Think back on your life — or even for just a day — to see the many times your sense of self has changed from one role to another.

 

 

You can see this in a dramatic way when you find yourself in the position of saving a life.  Suddenly it's not 'me' and 'the girl across the restaurant'.  When the choking starts, the soul screams "US!"

[manitou]

On 12/5/2020 at 9:46 AM, dmattwads said:

 

Yes I am interested to hear from other perspectives as well.

 

 

Can a metaphysician participate?

 

It might be that the concept of 'self' is meant to be destroyed as much as possible, as self and ego are pretty much the same thing.  Self realization, or enlightenment, doesn't happen until a person has permeated themselves down to the core, and filed off those inner buttons that can inflame us.  This renders us capable of reacting to any situation in any way we choose - totally unrestricted.  It happens that we become no longer at the mercy of emotions, nor do we have to 'rebel' in the opposite direction, because the rebel that remains within us finally grows up.  The rebellion tendency is such a point of pride with some folks; yet it is the very thing that prevents them from clarity.

 

As I see it, the true self is who we are without ego or without conditioning.  It is the pure essence, that thing which calls us to itself throughout our whole life - regardless of the variety or strangeness of the paths that got us here.  I think that in the end, they all go to the same place - who We truly Are.

[forestofclarity]

We're playing Shankaracharya rules, right? Loser coverts?  

 

The subject need not be dependent on the object, nor the object on the subject. Rather, the appearance of a subject depends on an object, and vice versa. They are interdependent. Similarly, if there were no movies, there could be no movie screens. I suppose we could imagine a theoretical Subject in which no object ever appears, but that would not be relevant to the current situation, because objects have appeared. 

 

The problem with asserting independence is that is denies a relationship. A relationship is a coming together, a merging, a union. According, if the Self were truly changeless and independent, there would be no knowing objects because 1) knowing a rising/falling object is a change; or 2) Subject and object would be completely separate. This is the problem that always sinks dualities: when you posit two separate things, there's no way to bring them together, because the very act of bringing them together negates the separation (and thus any sort of independence). That's why many philosophies tend to argue over what kind of thing everything is (materialism = everything is matter; idealism = everything is mind; monism = everything is God), as dualities cannot be maintained. 

 

From a Buddhist POV, you never really find an atomic one or essence to anything, because nothing can really be pinned down, and all attempts to pin things down are merely conceptual. Part of the problem is that we take our concepts to be real when they're not. I mean, look at all the issues we have with trying to even define a self! 

 

Switching from a unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable Self to an unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable "Being" does not shore up the case.

 

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:37 AM, dwai said:

 Why does the subject have to dependent on the manifestation? Subject is independent, can and does exist perfectly well without manifestation. As far as the terminology used is concerned, wrt. subject-object relationship, it can be misidentified as "dependently originated"...but that is not really the case from an empirical perspective. 

 

To use a limited analogy -- does the movie screen depend on the movie playing on it?

 Why can it not? Neither space, nor time actually exist -- they appear (manifest) and disappear (unmanifest) within Awareness itself. 

Atman is certainly not the "not-self", it is the Self  

What is it's essence? It is Being itself. 

 

Of course, many accused the Mahayana of "smuggling in the Atman!" 

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:33 AM, Creation said:

It might be useful to recall that what dwai is describing was, and still is, called crypto-Buddhist by rival Hindu schools.

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

57 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

The problem with asserting independence is that is denies a relationship. A relationship is a coming together, a merging, a union. According, if the Self were truly changeless and independent, there would be no knowing objects because 1) knowing a rising/falling object is a change; or 2) Subject and object would be completely separate. This is the problem that always sinks dualities: when you posit two separate things, there's no way to bring them together, because the very act of bringing them together negates the separation (and thus any sort of independence). That's why many philosophies tend to argue over what kind of thing everything is (materialism = everything is matter; idealism = everything is mind; monism = everything is God), as dualities cannot be maintained. 

That is only valid if objects indeed do exist. Take the case of an optical mirage — it seems as if the mirage is actually water. But upon closer inspection, it turns out that there never was any water at all, only an optical illusion. Does, by knowing this, the mirage disappear? Not so!
 

So long as exist the conditions for the mirage to “manifest”, it appears to be. The wise go on with their lives knowing that a mirage is only an optical illusion. Similarly for the Self-realized sage  

Edited January 28, 2021 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

You know what Buddhist call optical illusions? 

 

That's right. 

 

Spoiler

Empty.

 

You ARE a crypto-Buddhist! Welcome brother! 

 

11 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is only valid if objects indeed do exist. Take the case of an optical mirage — it seems as if the mirage is actually water. But upon closer inspection, it turns out that there never was any water at all, only an optical illusion. Does, by knowing this, the mirage disappear? Not so!
 

So long as exist the conditions for the mirage to “manifest”, it appears to be. The wise go on with their lives knowing that a mirage is only an optical illusion. Similarly for the Self-realized sage