When I first learned about not self and asked, I still feel the sense of self, and no matter how I try to deny it, it comes back. Thus the way of ending the delusion of self is not via brute force or aversion to this sense of self. It’s only via the noble 8 fold path. Develop morality, meditation and wisdom to finally see the conditioned nature, impermanent nature and suffering nature of these 5 aggregates, of whatever we deemed to be a self, then it can drop. Not before.
By accepting that the Buddha is right that the delusion of self leads to suffering, it is not to create more violence within to deny the sense of self with aversion, but to have faith, patience and the goal to know where to go, what’s going to happen, and walk the noble 8fold path. Psychologically, one may think this is undesirable, but I heard too (very early on in my Buddhist life) that no one who has attained liberation ever regretted it. Perhaps the only wish is to have attained sooner.
Thanks for your nice reply Bran. I have doubts, surely. In my life i have never made a problem of it and i also not gonna do that. I feel, we humans can better doubt then pretending some certainty where it is only artificial, fake certainty, based upon on grasping.
Ofcourse i also doubt if all i do is not only a huge ego-project, claiming attainments, wisdom, love. Ego wants to shine. Investing in an illusion of a me who is wise, free, has insights or who has, with own effort, attained this or that. For me it never feels really safe. To be honest, not at all.
I know the theory, really. But is there really one person who has really left ego-conceit behind and the desire to shine as ego? I am indeed cynical about this.
I feel, if one thing is very easy for us humans, it is to claim knowledge where it is in fact, in reality, absent. One almost never meets a buddhist who says…i do not know… while that is almost always the only honest answer. Being honest is a kind of taboe. We all seem so knowledgeable…yeh…sure…
For us it is very easy to step of the path of sincerity, uprightness. I feel, if we look at all in a honest and sincere way, the Path often only deals with power, a sense of power. It is not really about truth, finding truth but more about normal human psychology, i feel. We want power. And the idea of us having realisations, insights, wisdom, identity, knowledge gives us a sense of power.
Yes, that makes sense to me. Still i believe one does not loose as stable sense of self.
Also, if one would see that the stable sense of self is a form of light, and not really a soullike atta, not a mental entity, even then it does not happen that the stable sense of self disappears. It is only seen as it really is. That is what i believe happens. This sense of self is also not asmi mana nor sakkaya ditthi.
A sense of self is not the problem, but ignorance is. Ignorance is not the same as having as sense of self, but it is more like: not knowing that this sense of self is the quality of light of the mind, and not a mental entity. If you look closely you can see that the stable sense of self and the light of the mind are inseperable. The stable sense of self, i believe, goed back to the natural radiance of the mind. Not seen as radiance, but seen as atta, as mental entity, is our usual distorted perception.
From SAKKĀYA by Ven. Nanavira (the emphasis is my):
Sakkāya is pañc’upādānakkhandhā (Majjhima v,4 <M.i,299>), and may conveniently be translated as ‘somebody’ or ‘person’ or, abstractly, ‘personality’. See PARAMATTHA SACCA, also for what follows.
An arahat (while alive—that is, if we can speak of a ‘living arahat’) continues to be individual in the sense that ‘he’ is a sequence of states (Theragāthā v. 716)[13] distinguishable from other arahanto (and a fortiori from individuals other than arahanto). Every set of pañcakkhandhā[a]—not pañc’upādānakkhandhā in the arahat’s case—is unique, and individuality in this sense ceases only with the final cessation of the pañcakkhandhā at the breaking up of the arahat’s body. But a living arahat is no longer somebody or a person, since the notion or conceit ‘(I) am’ has already ceased. Individuality must therefore be carefully distinguished from personality,[b] which is: being a person, being somebody, being a subject (to whom objects are present), selfhood, the mirage ‘I am’, and so on. The puthujjana is not able to distinguish them—for him individuality is not conceivable apart from personality, which he takes as selfhood. The sotāpanna is able to distinguish them—he sees that personality or ‘selfhood’ is a deception dependent upon avijjā, a deception dependent upon not seeing the deception, which is not the case with individuality—, though he is not yet free from an aroma of subjectivity, asmimāna. The arahat not only distinguishes them but also has entirely got rid of all taint of subjectivity—‘he’ is individual but in no way personal. For lack of suitable expressions (which in any case would puzzle the puthujjana) ‘he’ is obliged to go on saying ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘mine’ (cf. Dīgha i,9 <D.i,202>; Devatā Samy. iii,5 <S.i,14>[14]). Individuality where the arahat is concerned still involves the perspective or orientation that things necessarily adopt when they exist, or are present, or are cognized; and for each individual the perspective is different. Loss of upādāna is not loss of point of view.
But i think we can agree that the sense of self does not change. It is like an empty room. It is not that the room really changes when you turn it into a kitchen and later into your bathroom. Only the content changes and the label, the function. But in a sense it is the same room.
Likewise, i believe, the content of mind changes, but it is quit clear that our sense of self does not rely on that content, but more on the room.
I do not agree with this. Our sense of self, or aliveness does not point to the entire complex of body or mind but to a very specific element in our lives, which, i believe Buddha refered to as asankhata and is described as emptiness, signless, desireless, uninclined. I believe this is the ground or nature of the mind.
It also means we must not think about dispassion, the stilling of all formations, detachment, peace as something that can and must be created or made. No only defilements must be removed and mind will reveal itself as naturally uninclined, signless, empty, desireless. It is not created nor made by our effort.
It was always the nature of mind, is the nature of mind, and will be the nature of mind but due do the combination of craving and ignorance we fail to see this.
I believe it is this dimension of emptiness, desireless, peace, signless, uninclined that all the time pervades our lifes, our experiences. It is never absent element or aspect in our lives.
But it is so normal, so self-evident that we do not pay any attention to it. We just ignore it.
This is a sign of our ignorance. Ignorance is not a not knowing, ignorance is like sleep and awakening is like awakening from that sleep of having not seen before what was always present.
Just like the sutta’s also teach that ignorance grows upon neutral feelings. They are common. We pay no attention to them, we ignore them. But Nibbana is even more common to us. Much more.
I see this as the asankhata element in our lives. Our lives are never seperated from Nibbana not for a moment. The scheme of four fruits does not imply at all that Nibbana is only present for an arahant .
No, but it means that an arahant has the complete taste of it, as it were, because defilements are uprooted.
I believe, if we look more closely our sense of self does not really depend on fleeting feelings, on emotions, on thoughts, plans, tendencies coming and going, but relies on what is stable and not seen arising and ceasing. It relies on the signless, emptiness, desireless, peaceful, uninclined dimension or element in our lifes.
No, this is not a doctrine of self or attachment to self. I believe it is not. It only established that water has really a self as its pure nature without adventitious defilements. Likewise the mind.
They would partially inherit this from past lives. Selfishness is a deep delusion, it’s not about bodily awareness like learning how to crawl and walk.
Doubt is only a (distracting) arising. No puthujjana fully agrees with the Buddha right, but that doesn’t mean they should fill themselves with doubt, they can simply be open to whether it’s right or wrong.
It is not impossible that some people were inspired by the Buddha’s words and have dedicated themselves towards meditation and understanding the world. And most people will just not answer a question if they don’t know the answer. I agree that if someone is arrogant about their beliefs it’s pretty harmful.
I don’t relate at all to this or anything you’re saying. The entire point is giving up desire, if you want “real power” then you should stop desiring power. Things can work in deep and recursive ways, and you have the capability to investigate your deepest intentions to see if it’s done out of selfishness or not.
“Apart from theory and belief” – you probably know it’s impossible to prove this and it’s not interesting to do that. But, you can see in the suttas how he acted that none of it came from anger, greed, or desire, all of which come from selfishness. You can also see a lot of his clear language and metaphors which would be a side-effect of an extremely clear and understanding mind as well as the enlightened students. Ultimately, the only way you really know is by practicing it yourself.
It often is, but you don’t truly come into contact with anything permanent, and all of the 5 aggregates are impermanent. Your idea, perception, or sensing of any sort of permanent thing such as a law or concept are created and ceased.
Saying “there is some self behind the impermanent processes of the mind” is a self theory. It is subtle in that you may still be calling the impermanent processes self, but either way, The Buddha mentioned many self theories beyond just materialism:
DN1
‘That which is called “the eye”, “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and also “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable. That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’
…
“The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.”
…
The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.
These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
I do not really doubt the qualities of the Buddha Bran.
Do you believe that a dear that is afraid of a lion and runs for life is selfish?
Suppose someone abuses me, and i become angry, that is selfish?
If i have a desire to live is that selfish?
if the Buddha does not want ot teach expacting trouble for himself that is not selfish?
When i say that there is a stable sense of self i do not say that it is permanently present. I have also said that a sense of self can be totally absent. But IF there is a sense of self it is always the same kind of sense of self. It is not that when you awaken in the morning you have a totally different sense of self. Difficult to admit. Why? Isnt it true?
I believe this phenomena that one does not feel that ones sense of self changes can be explained by the natural radiance of the mind . Like a lamp. It produces the same light although it is not literally the same light. You see. I believe with the radiance of the mind it is the same. And we pick this up immediately when we awaken. We sense that same light, that same clarity, although it is not literally the same light and clarity. But for us, it feels that way because the quality of the light, is the same. Minds clarity remains the same clarity.
I think this is not a bad explanations of the perception of a stable self.
Please notice that i also experience that a sense of self can vanish or be absent while awake.
But if it comes back, it comes back as the same sense of self.
Yes, and I love this example because it’s a very good example of not-self. The deer is deluded because it’s attached to itself, and so fear arises. Death is inevitable, and you don’t have to suffer over when it does happen. Delusion is indeed a good way to keep animals surviving and struggling for existence. The deer does not need to stay alive although it desires to. Nature does not care at all if you suffer or if you’re delusional. All the animals that have survived so many years are not the smartest ones, but just the ones who reproduce and stay alive easiest, both of which nature deludes us into doing (sexual lust). Although I also believe that the earliest animals came pre-loaded with selfishness since they came from godly realms, and selfishness wasn’t an evolved belief but was just there since the beginning. Compassion and giving is going beyond that kind of nature, and we’re capable of it. Of course I’m not pro death, it would be skillful for us to stay alive since our lives are pretty valuable, and stupid to kill other animals, but it is still delusional to suffer over this inevitability since “you” doesn’t really die and this body is really not “yours”.
Absolutely. I wouldn’t exactly tell an abuse victim “you’re just being selfish”, but this is true. Why would you need to become angry over this? There are a few reasons they may: they selfishly want their body to be perfect, not expecting that it would eventually change. Or, they don’t care about the pain and hate the perpetrator. The abuser is conditioned by all their past actions to act with anger towards me, how could I ever hate them for that? Even if someone is sawing off your limbs and says the most hateful things you could imagine to you, why would you need to suffer over that? You really really don’t need to nor have to, it’s an option, and it would be rooted in selfishness regarding the 5 aggregates, which is something I think you agreed is delusional as “self is something separate from those”.
Why would he teach it to people who couldn’t understand it. Or why would he want to try to teach it to them if it’s just going to generate anger in the world. Until he decided that maybe some will understand.
I know what you are trying to say with your whole explanation. You are basically proposing paramatman. I don’t think you have proved there is a self by saying there is always a sense of self even if it is an impermanent sense and it will just come back, a non-sequitur. However, that isn’t something that is proved just philosophically since it’s also something people end up believing from meditation, but I think this is a topic for another thread?
It is not that when thoughts cease, you cease. It is not that when a nice feeling is replaced by a painful feeling, you perceive that the pain is felt by a totally different you. In jhana, whatever you experience, you never experience the cessation of a me who abides in jhana and tastes all these changes. In our life there is this constant factor, this one who knows. I do not say that it is always present, but if present it always has the same tone, sphere, quality.
For me the practical import is that i do not really have to fear cessation of formations because that does not mean i will cease. When i first started meditating, 20 years ago, and i noticed no thoughts at all, fear arose.
The mind sees formations as a proof one exist. It looks like this…I exist because there are formations coming and going, and formations are coming and going, so I exist…
It is like we all the time confirm this way that we exist. This does really happen in the mind.
That is, i feel, the key of all ignorance. That is why all beings live in fear and become restless seekers.
I think that the one who knows is in all our lifes felt or perceived as the same but what he/she knows not.
This one who knows , i do not yet know what it is. Maha Boowa says that connected to a body it is experienced as personal and local, a me. And also as arising and ceasing. But one can also know and see some day that the one who knows is in fact a mere knowing that does not really arise and ceases
But this cannot be seen from a personal perspective.
Maybe because I didn’t to mention that chasing an animal to eat it is indeed a bad action, and abusing someone is also a bad action. Again, you don’t have to suffer, nothing in the world says that.
