self

[Aemilius]

Self is a mental event that anticipates a future existent-moment of a present momentary body-mind complex (the one in which this mental event occurs).

[ground]

You forgot the past. "anticipation" is not possible without the past.

kind regards

[Individual]

Self is a mental event that anticipates a future existent-moment of a present momentary body-mind complex (the one in which this mental event occurs).

I would change that a bit: The perception of self... might be... a mental event...

Also, I would use the term "selfing" rather than self to clarify it as only a process that is not permanent or true self.

[Aemilius]

Self is a mental event that anticipates a future existent-moment of a present momentary body-mind complex (the one in which this mental event occurs).

I would change that a bit: The perception of self... might be... a mental event...

Also, I would use the term "selfing" rather than self to clarify it as only a process that is not permanent or true self.

I still say that self is a mental event (caitta). It has a further function of ensuring the continued existence of the body-mind complex, making plans for that end. It is evident that all caittas (mental events) are impermanent, there is no need to emphasize that.

[White Lotus]

Self is a complicated subject. fundamentally there is no self at all. from the start not a thing anywhere. but the conventional situation can be experience of a personal individual self, or a higher non personal self.

we are told in the Denkoroku that:

since i have no self, you should see the 'S'elf,
because if you take me as your teacher you will understand
that the self is not the Self.

it is possible to dissolve the personal self with practice and thus attain the higher self. which has no me nor mine... however going beyond nothingness (dropping it) one sees that there is no self whatsoever. (fundamentally). but relatively there is obviously still a self typing at this computer... though that self can be said not to exist. to be entirely not a thing at all. likewise the computer... not a thing, with no name whatsoever.

National teacher Hui Chung of China said that "no name whatsoever for it". so what you have called Self you may choose to see as total non existence and yet not nothingness, nor everthing. both having been dropped.

this non state, which does not exist and can be seen as having no name can be called 'it'... since 'It' has no name. it can therefore be said to be nameless or named. neither empty nor full, neither nothing nor everything, or all of these things. that is because the situation within is no different from the situation without. The Japanese National teacher (Zenkei Shibayama) clearly affirms the identity of the nameless and speechless as 'it', and therefore one does not only tightly close ones lips when asked "what is it?", but one is free to say anything. since "it can be anything". or to act spontaneously.

with love, from White Lotus.

the self is not the self
the self is the self.
this self is a universe unfold.
revealed through all things
and as all things.
not even nothing,
and yet perfectly empty,
yet not even empty.
and yet all things.
Mind, Life, Being, Energy,
Reality, Causality, Dogs and
people, Emptiness, Nothingness.
all and yet none.

[nirmal]

deleted

[Individual]

Self is a mental event that anticipates a future existent-moment of a present momentary body-mind complex (the one in which this mental event occurs).

I would change that a bit: The perception of self... might be... a mental event...

Also, I would use the term "selfing" rather than self to clarify it as only a process that is not permanent or true self.

I still say that self is a mental event (caitta). It has a further function of ensuring the continued existence of the body-mind complex, making plans for that end. It is evident that all caittas (mental events) are impermanent, there is no need to emphasize that.

If mental events arise and cease and your self is a mental event, is your self continuous or discontinuous? If it is continuous, you are being deceitful. If it is discontinuous, why call it a self?

[Aemilius]

If mental events arise and cease and your self is a mental event, is your self continuous or discontinuous? If it is continuous, you are being deceitful. If it is discontinuous, why call it a self?

Example: Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence. When the future moment and future activity arises the past moment that anticipated it is already gone and nonexistent.

[ground]

Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence.

As a challenge : This is called wrong view because it is an identity view. Identity view is identifying "self" which is like "the horn of the hare" with one of the aggregates.

Kind regards

[Aemilius]

Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence.

As a challenge : This is called wrong view because it is an identity view. Identity view is identifying "self" which is like "the horn of the hare" with one of the aggregates.

Kind regards

Identity of what with what ?

[ground]

Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence.

As a challenge : This is called wrong view because it is an identity view. Identity view is identifying "self" which is like "the horn of the hare" with one of the aggregates.

Kind regards

Identity of what with what ?

Self is a distinct mental event

Kind regards

[White Lotus]

I want to make a clarification and it is an important one. i had said that the No self can be called 'it', alluding toward the fact that no mind can be called it, actually the buddhist experience as it fundamentally is cannot be named. it is without name.

'itness' relates to the conventional, things that we experience as they just are. to attempt to name the fundamental 'it', completely misses the point. to understand 'it' as an expression of the conventional is profound and points towards a balancing of all things.

Hui Chung points towards the fundamental. Shibayama points towards the conventional. ultimately all conventionality... The Self, The Mind, Energy, Being, Reality are all non existent.

[conebeckham]

"Self" is a cognitive error. Mahayanasutralamkara says:

In itself, the view about a self lacks a characteristic of a self,
As do its deformities-their characteristics differ [from a self].
Nor is there another [self] apart from these two, so it arises as a mere error.

The "deformities" are the skandhas, an examination of which will reveal that their nature(s) is/are contradictory to the notion of "self"--and even the collection, when considered as a whole, is contradictory to what we "feel" a self to be.

The "view about a self" is a sort of conceptual construct about a "self"--it is a mental event, as you say. This is the "self" that we can talk about as "soul," or "essence," or whatnot, and which has no existence whatsoever, and is completely imaginary. But there's another, more subtle, kind of mental 'event,' or "mental element," if you will, which is a sort of seemingly-fundamental and almost pre-consciouss "self referential" attitude underlying all discursive thought.

It's that more subtle element which is almost an assumption, not something we really analyze or think about conceptually, that is the real error--not some sort of philosophical construct, but a pyschological 'mode' of sorts. This is the "Afflicted Mind," spoken of sometimes as the 7th consciousness--with the 5 sense consciousnesses, and the 6th, or mental consciousness.

[Aemilius]

Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence.

As a challenge : This is called wrong view because it is an identity view. Identity view is identifying "self" which is like "the horn of the hare" with one of the aggregates.

Kind regards

There is a mental event of remembering, remembering a previously existent moment of consciousness, a moment of will and volition. Then you identify with that previous moment of consciousness and you think, "I did that". Altough that previously existent momentary body & mind is no longer present, i.e. it is no longer existent. In this way your present moment of consciousness has a mental event of identification, it identifies itself with a past moment of the body & mind. This is a basis for your saying," I did that".
In legal matters one is held responsible for acts that a previously existent consciousness has willed and performed, although that previous momentary body & mind is no longer existent. It doesn't help much if you in court say to the judge that, "It was a past momentarily existent body & mind that put some sperm in a vagina (of a named person)", and that, "the judge is suffering from the false identity view if he thinks that your present person did that mentioned act !!"

[Individual]

If mental events arise and cease and your self is a mental event, is your self continuous or discontinuous? If it is continuous, you are being deceitful. If it is discontinuous, why call it a self?

Example: Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence. When the future moment and future activity arises the past moment that anticipated it is already gone and nonexistent.

Is that mental event permanent or impermanent?

[conebeckham]

There is a mental event of remembering, remembering a previously existent moment of consciousness, a moment of will and volition. Then you identify with that previous moment of consciousness and you think, "I did that". Altough that previously existent momentary body & mind is no longer present, i.e. it is no longer existent. In this way your present moment of consciousness has a mental event of identification, it identifies itself with a past moment of the body & mind. This is a basis for your saying," I did that".

Okay, so....what is it, exactly, that takes that moment of remembering and thinks "I did that?" If the memories and moments of consciousness are impermanent, what is it that "creates" a sense of permanence or an essential "self?" What creates the illusion that the memories are "owned" by the same thinker?

And what projects into the future? "I will do that, I want to do that, I plan to do that..." Those don't rely on memory, do they? How does your "theory" work with "future?"

Tangentially, I heard a neuroscientist on NPR radio a few days ago, talking about brain function and memory. He said that every time we recall a memory, we "change" it a bit...it was fascinating......of course, he was very much a "hard science" kind of guy, but he got into his subject via art, literature, and he was talking about William James and his landmark textbook on psychology, and how he talked about "introspection" which was quite novel--for people who think in terms of materialistic science.

[ground]

Self is a distinct mental event that today thinks of a future moment in this stream of existence, like tomorrow for example, and plans an activity that will take place at that future moment in the stream of existence.

As a challenge : This is called wrong view because it is an identity view. Identity view is identifying "self" which is like "the horn of the hare" with one of the aggregates.

Kind regards

...
In legal matters one is held responsible for acts that a previously existent consciousness has willed and performed, although that previous momentary body & mind is no longer existent. It doesn't help much if you in court say to the judge that, "It was a past momentarily existent body & mind that put some sperm in a vagina (of a named person)", and that, "the judge is suffering from the false identity view if he thinks that your present person did that mentioned act !!"

We are here not "in legal matters". Do not try to escape the fact that in a thread dealing with the "self" in a buddhist forum you said "Self is a distinct mental event"

Why not use the sayings of catholics as arguments?

Kind regards

[Individual]

Why not use the sayings of catholics as arguments?

1 Corinthians 13

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have no love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

[ground]

Here we have it:

1 Corinthians 13

... I am nothing. ... I gain nothing.

Nihilism.

1 Corinthians 13

... Love never ends.

Eternalism.


So you should really be careful what view you base your arguments on. Because the view you base your arguments on is the view you will hold eventually.


Kind regards

[Aemilius]

...
We are here not "in legal matters". Do not try to escape the fact that in a thread dealing with the "self" in a buddhist forum you said "Self is a distinct mental event"

Kind regards

I'm trying to describe what the experiental self really is. Something that is valid in one's everyday experience.
As we have said before, mental events are impermanent.
I'm not sure what you mean with "identity"? There is no house that is separate from the concept "house". We can not know an object of names and concepts even conceptually that would exist prior to the perceptual process.