Self

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Post Reply
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Self

Post by LastLegend »

Most people think self is simply an idea...sincerely no please...self is whatever the whole appearance arises as mind phenomena...individualized, distinguished...in the context of us being beaten by karma before truly awakened.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Könchok Chödrak
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: Self

Post by Könchok Chödrak »

Some people wouldn’t tell you that you have no self so you wouldn’t be discouraged that who you think you are really isn’t you. But until you become Enlightened, Buddha is saying, kindly “no this really isn’t you.” And when you finally get there, and dwell Thus Gone, you will realize there is no coming and no going, no abiding and no entering extinction.

I like how the Buddha explains it in the Lotus Sutra, the more I read it the happier I become.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Self

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

No one can deny that the experience of a self in a dream occurs
Yet no one would say that dream self is real.
Likewise, no one can say that there isn’t an experience of a self when not sleeping
But the Buddha says that this too is not real.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Self

Post by LastLegend »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:35 am Some people wouldn’t tell you that you have no self so you wouldn’t be discouraged that who you think you are really isn’t you. But until you become Enlightened, Buddha is saying, kindly “no this really isn’t you.” And when you finally get there, and dwell Thus Gone, you will realize there is no coming and no going, no abiding and no entering extinction.

I like how the Buddha explains it in the Lotus Sutra, the more I read it the happier I become.
Candle has to be blown out.
It’s eye blinking.
Danny
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:43 pm

Re: Self

Post by Danny »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:49 pm No one can deny that the experience of a self in a dream occurs
Yet no one would say that dream self is real.
Likewise, no one can say that there isn’t an experience of a self when not sleeping
But the Buddha says that this too is not real.
Self is dualistic vision.
Unreal, like a big dream.
Cycles of day and night.
One real the other unreal, both are unreal.
Yet seem real.
Isn’t that wonderful?
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12804
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:37 am Most people think self is simply an idea...sincerely no please...self is whatever the whole appearance arises as mind phenomena...individualized, distinguished...in the context of us being beaten by karma before truly awakened.
Self is the what I believe is perceiving the phenomena, whether it is external phenomena or internal phenomena. In the case of external phenomena it becomes "other", and with internal phenomena it becomes "mine", but the separation is illusory, and impossible to find, I can't find me or mine when I look at the looker.

There is also a kind of "self image" which is more like a kind of frozen image that comes from putting together information from the skandhas and trying to make them into a whole. Meditation wise I don't think this is a very big deal, it's easy to see that it can't be a "self" because it is a little different every time it is noticed. Thinking of "what is looking" as a self is much more pernicious and ingrained.
There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.

-Guhatthaka-suttadinesso
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Self

Post by Supramundane »

"A lot of people believe in natthatta until they get punched in the face."
--- Mike Tyson
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 12804
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Supramundane wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:53 am "A lot of people believe in natthatta until they get punched in the face."
--- Mike Tyson
It's punched in the mouth, cite your Tyson correctly ;) :twothumbsup: :twothumbsup: :anjali:
There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.

-Guhatthaka-suttadinesso
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Self

Post by Supramundane »

I stand corrected. :applause:
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Self

Post by FiveSkandhas »

LastLegend wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:37 am Most people think self is simply an idea...sincerely no please...self is whatever the whole appearance arises as mind phenomena...individualized, distinguished...in the context of us being beaten by karma before truly awakened.
"Self" is an English word. As long as you define this word "self" in a way such that it is not a translation of the Pali term attā, I suppose you can make all sorts of valid arguments using this particular 4-letter word.

But the majority translation consensus is sort of hardening these days, and most Buddhists are tending to use "self" to mean something in the neighborhood of attā or 我.

But hey, fight the power. If Herbert Guenther can get away with using the English language the way he does in Matrix of Mystery, I'm willing to cut you a lot of slack on how you choose to define and use the term "self." :D


:anjali:
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Self

Post by LastLegend »

You have to use English to communicate right...I understand there are some words are difficult to translate...Self is “Ngã” in Vietnamese literally means “I.” In Chan, how we understand ‘I’ is rejected. That’s why there is a koan ‘Who am I?”
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Self

Post by FiveSkandhas »

LastLegend wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:48 pm In Chan, how we understand ‘I’ is rejected. That’s why there is a koan ‘Who am I?”
Chan seems to differentiate between 我 and 性.

我 is the common Chinese translation for the Pali attā and is usually translated into English as "self". Thus the Chan expression 無我 ("no self")

性 is the common Chinese translation for the Sanskrit svabhāva (स्वभाव) and is often translated in English as "true nature" or "essential nature." Thus the Chan expression 見性 for dṛṣṭi-svabhāva or "view one's essential nature"...Kensho in Japanese Rinzai Zen.

So we've got "no self" but "essential nature"...any thoughts on how they fit together? I agree with those who point to a strong Yogacara influence on Chan.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5018
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Self

Post by LastLegend »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:19 pm
LastLegend wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:48 pm In Chan, how we understand ‘I’ is rejected. That’s why there is a koan ‘Who am I?”
Chan seems to differentiate between 我 and 性.

我 is the common Chinese translation for the Pali attā and is usually translated into English as "self". Thus the Chan expression 無我 ("no self")

性 is the common Chinese translation for the Sanskrit svabhāva (स्वभाव) and is often translated in English as "true nature" or "essential nature." Thus the Chan expression 見性 for dṛṣṭi-svabhāva or "view one's essential nature"...Kensho in Japanese Rinzai Zen.

So we've got "no self" but "essential nature"...any thoughts on how they fit together? I agree with those who point to a strong Yogacara influence on Chan.
Essential nature has no self...because essential nature just is...there is nothing in there to know “this is essential nature.” We still know that means there is something that is automatically separate (and thus self ‘I versus it, them, etc’) whether we know it explicitly or implicitly...but it’s not understood to merge it or anything that would be constructing and grasping...it has to be truly cessated to truly be clear of nature.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Self

Post by FiveSkandhas »

LastLegend wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:45 pm
Essential nature has no self...because essential nature just is...there is nothing in there to know “this is essential nature.” We still know that means there is something that is automatically separate (and thus self ‘I versus it, them, etc’) whether we know it explicitly or implicitly...but it’s not understood to merge it or anything that would be constructing and grasping...it has to be truly cessated to truly be clear of nature.
Interesting, thank you.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
master of puppets
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:52 pm

Re: Self

Post by master of puppets »

Try not to take things personally. It's usually not about you.
from twitter
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Self

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Conventionally, we can say yourself or myself and refer to specific streams of consciousness, specific karma, which differentiates you from me. You and I do not share the same existence. In that sense, self becomes a workable concept even if no actual self or atma can be located.

You can use the analogy of two different rivers.
Yes, on the one hand you can distinguish the Amazon from the Nile. Each one is, itself, a different river than the other.

But if you examine either one or the other, neither one is constantly the same for even a second. Neither has that kind of “self”.

Likewise with people. I am a me and you are you, comparatively. But if I look at me, there is no “me” and if you look at you, there is no “you”.

Even that awareness which is looking is not a self.
(Advaita Vedanta argues that awareness is the self, but Buddhism disputes that assertion.)
We impose the experience of “self” onto that awareness. First, there is awareness, and only then, because there are objects of awareness, we impute “me” onto that awareness. “Me, I myself am having that awareness” ...but that is really the source of samsara, of the whole problem to begin with.

...
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
master of puppets
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:52 pm

Re: Self

Post by master of puppets »

First look, is the best look.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”