Page 1 of 1

Self

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:37 am
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:35 am
by Budai
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:49 pm
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:28 pm
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:46 pm
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?

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:24 am
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:53 am
by Supramundane
"A lot of people believe in natthatta until they get punched in the face."
--- Mike Tyson

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:02 am
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:

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:59 am
by Supramundane
I stand corrected. :applause:

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:52 am
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:

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:48 pm
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?”

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:19 pm
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:45 pm
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:12 pm
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.

Re: Self

Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 12:27 pm
by master of puppets
Try not to take things personally. It's usually not about you.
from twitter

Re: Self

Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 1:06 pm
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.

...

Re: Self

Posted: Tue May 04, 2021 4:09 pm
by master of puppets
First look, is the best look.