Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:13 pm

"futerko"

More importantly, I agree that the aggregates are anattâ, but as consciousness is one of these aggregates what do you mean by the word "self"? I have no concept of the word self that exists in the sense in which you seem to be using it. The aggregates include everything that constitutes the concept of a person/individual/subject/identity/being - so if we are talking about a via negativa, then the designation "true self" would seem to misrepresent that completely.


"futerko"
I agree that the aggregates are anattâ


so then you agree that not-self(Anatta) is apart of Dependent Origination and is sourced in Ignorance(one of the 3 poisons)
so the Buddha would not be Anatta other wise he would be apart of D.O and be sourced in ingnorance correct?

"futerko"
but as consciousness is one of these aggregates what do you mean by the word "self"


good question.
*Self as in it proper meaning is something that is Permenent,everlasting,eternal,and not subject to change.(its simply a discription)

*False self is the "i"/ego/personality/identity the worldly self based on the 5 aggreagtes of D.O. that thinks it will exist as Permenent,everlasting,eternal,and not subject to change.

*True Self is that Enlightenement is permenent,Everlasting,eternal,and not subject to change

(1)tell me is Enlightenement permenent or impermenant?
(2)is Enlightenment Everlasting/Eternal or does the Buddha lose it?
(3)does Enlightenement change?or does it always stay enlightenment(note if it changes then that means it is apart of D.O since it changes dependent upon object/preception ect.)

do you see why I would call it True Self now?
by answering these questions would you consider Enlightenment/True Self Permenent,everlasting,eternal,and not subject to change.or would you consider it everything that is apart of D.O?

Peace and Love.
(P.S. check out the 10 Bodhisattva vows of Queen Srimala I think you will love them)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:20 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote:
then Futerko and Songhill are the same "true self"
and thus, no characteristic that can be regarded as a "self".
.
.
.


Speaking philosophically, this is the universal self or, as Huángbò, a great Chan master put it, One Mind which transcends all limits, measures, names, etc. Borrowing from Kafka, the iron cages of the aggregates went in search of the self (Kafka wrote: A cage went in search of a bird).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:33 pm

Where is this "Self"?

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Self.

I do not see a Self, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Self.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby oushi » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:51 pm

Azidonis wrote:Where is this "Self"?

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Self.

I do not see a Self, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Self.

What about that "I" that looks and sees? What is it?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:52 pm

Azidonis wrote:Where is this "Self"?

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Self.

I do not see a Self, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Self.



Lotus sutra says (chapter 2) "I will say no more.Why?Because what the Buddha has acheived is the rarest and most difficult to understand Law.The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas"

Where is this "Enlightenment"

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Enlightenment.

I do not see a Enlightenement, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Enlightenment.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:54 pm

oushi wrote:
Azidonis wrote:Where is this "Self"?

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Self.

I do not see a Self, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Self.

What about that "I" that looks and sees? What is it?


Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:55 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:so then you agree that not-self(Anatta) is apart of Dependent Origination and is sourced in Ignorance(one of the 3 poisons)
so the Buddha would not be Anatta other wise he would be apart of D.O and be sourced in ingnorance correct?
Anatta is not a thing, no matter how hard you try to make it one. Enlightenment is not a source of identification, no matter how much our limited grasping mind tries to make it one. It's not that the aggregates ARE anatta, like a cup is not its empty space. Anatta is a charactersitic of the aggregates, like the empty space is a charactersitic of a cup.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby oushi » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:05 pm

Azidonis wrote:
oushi wrote:
Azidonis wrote:Where is this "Self"?

Can anyone show it to me?

When I look for it, all I see are thoughts about thought, and thoughts about a Self.

I do not see a Self, about which there are thoughts.

That doesn't mean that there's not some human body sitting here typing. It just means that there is no central core inside of that body, that one might call a Self.

What about that "I" that looks and sees? What is it?


Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?

I don't know. What did you mean, when you used it?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:39 pm

Azidonis wrote:Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?
23 pages later and nobody has been willing to offer a serious answer to this question. It is probabaly the seventh time (at least) that it has been asked and it'll be the seventh time (at least) that it won't be answered.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:46 pm

Azidonis wrote: wrote:Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?

You can put the label "self" on anything you like,
but if you define 'self' as an independently arising state of cognition
you cannot arrive at any final point that is the self.
If you want to know
"who is the one that is aware (buddha) of its own "non-self" nature?
at that point, there is no distinction between that which perceives and that which is perceived
so the question then becomes moot.
There is no arising of 'self' because anything which would stand in relation to that 'self',
and which would thus define it,
is also "understood" as having no intrinsic self (likewise doesn't arise) either.
Even the "understood' part does not arise as a conceptual thing.




This is a really good resource : http://www.shenpen-osel.org/
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:15 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Azidonis wrote:Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?
23 pages later and nobody has been willing to offer a serious answer to this question. It is probabaly the seventh time (at least) that it has been asked and it'll be the seventh time (at least) that it won't be answered.
:namaste:


That's why I asked it again. It seems this entire thread revolves around this one question, which those who want to continually maintain a definite existence of a self, or ghost in the shell, are dancing around constantly.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Azidonis wrote: wrote:Is it anything at all? Can you show it to me?

You can put the label "self" on anything you like,
but if you define 'self' as an independently arising state of cognition
you cannot arrive at any final point that is the self.
If you want to know
"who is the one that is aware (buddha) of its own "non-self" nature?
at that point, there is no distinction between that which perceives and that which is perceived
so the question then becomes moot.
There is no arising of 'self' because anything which would stand in relation to that 'self',
and which would thus define it,
is also "understood" as having no intrinsic self (likewise doesn't arise) either.
Even the "understood' part does not arise as a conceptual thing.


Agreed.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:28 pm

It is also the largest hole in the argument, a hole which, it seems, is impossible to plug.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:49 pm

Azidonis wrote:
That's why I asked it again. It seems this entire thread revolves around this one question, which those who want to continually maintain a definite existence of a self, or ghost in the shell, are dancing around constantly.



Maybe a more pertinent question concerns the Tathagatha. Are the aggregates like form, etc., the Tathagata?
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:02 am

Another attempt to deflect the question, another round of dancing around the subject, another four pages without receiving a straight answer. :zzz:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7905
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:04 am

songhill wrote:
Azidonis wrote:
That's why I asked it again. It seems this entire thread revolves around this one question, which those who want to continually maintain a definite existence of a self, or ghost in the shell, are dancing around constantly.



Maybe a more pertinent question concerns the Tathagatha. Are the aggregates like form, etc., the Tathagata?


Are you asking if the aggregates are "thus gone"?
If they have stopped aggregating?

Or if the hologram which their aggregation creates has dissolved, leaving one literally "thus gone", as in away?
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:25 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Another attempt to deflect the question, another round of dancing around the subject, another four pages without receiving a straight answer. :zzz:


So it is. Since I have presented both logical and canonical sources that literally state that there is no "true self" in Buddhism I see no need to keep repeating it. Let me know once someone has come up with a clear answer to what that self is they claim to exist.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:35 am

In the few short months i've been here, the number of pages given to an advocacy of "true self" seems to be surpassed only by the number of pages where it fails to be defined:)
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:50 am

Azidonis wrote:
songhill wrote:
Azidonis wrote:
That's why I asked it again. It seems this entire thread revolves around this one question, which those who want to continually maintain a definite existence of a self, or ghost in the shell, are dancing around constantly.



Maybe a more pertinent question concerns the Tathagatha. Are the aggregates like form, etc., the Tathagata?


Are you asking if the aggregates are "thus gone"?
If they have stopped aggregating?

Or if the hologram which their aggregation creates has dissolved, leaving one literally "thus gone", as in away?


Let me reframe the question. Has the tathagata abandoned, in short, all of the five aggregates?
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:53 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:In the few short months i've been here, the number of pages given to an advocacy of "true self" seems to be surpassed only by the number of pages where it fails to be defined:)


People generally don't like to admit that their personal image (ie. ego) is an illusion, as it reveals an existential crisis they are not ready to deal with.

Or maybe they want to admit to it, but posit that it still must be generated by "something higher", and so posit this "True Self" idea, as a source from which everything flows. It's the proverbial "Big Bang Theory" of philosophy.

Funny, as I recall the Buddha mentioning the prevention of outflows as part of the path to enlightenment.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Azidonis » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:59 am

songhill wrote:Let me reframe the question. Has the tathagata abandoned, in short, all of the five aggregates?


What is there to abandon anything? If the skandhas aggregate (easier than saying if the aggregates aggregate), and create a hologram, then what goes is the hologram.

To say that a Tathagata doesn't have thoughts, or sense impressions of any kind, would imply that a Tathagata is a synonym for corpse, and it isn't.

Nirvana means, "blowing out" or "blown out", and Tathagata means, "thus gone". Poof, no more hologram. No more personal reference point. The sense of individuality that makes us seem to appear as separate from the universe (ie. self vs not-self) is no longer there. The filter is gone. Likewise then, all preferences are gone, for preferences are based upon what is necessary to create and continually sustain the hologram, which is gone.
Azidonis
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, Phuntsog Tashi, Thrasymachus, tobes and 11 guests

>