"Is there a Self?"

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by aflatun »

SDC wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:17 pm Absolutely. It is beginningless in the sense that experience is always sankhara-sankhata dhamma, it is always a thing there with its determination. All attempts to quantify this nature, "hold both together as a whole" fails to take into account that that "held whole" is just another thing with its own determination. Why? Because you assumed a position on the outside of this nature, a position not subject to the nature of DO, a position of permanence in regard to change that is both "me" and "mine". But that is the infinity. That nature can be known without identifying position of origin that is permanent. (cf. aflatun's signature and Notes on AN 1.51)
:goodpost:

Thank you for this, I'm glad you found us in here :heart:

I also really like the related article, Hierarchy of Awareness:
Ven. N. Nanamoli wrote:The fundamental nature of our experience can be described as a hierarchy, which Ven. Ñāṇavīra Thera tried to explain in his Fundamental Structure (Notes on Dhamma). We are what we experience, it is not possible to view (or imagine) this hierarchy from 'outside', independent of us, because regardless of how far one steps back, one cannot abandon the experience as such.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by SDC »

boundless wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:21 pm P.S.
Thanks for the elaboration about samsara. Even though I need further reflections on this issue,
I now understand how a temporal infinity (no beginning and no end for the cycles of the universe)
can be compatible with the "imponderability".
Sure thing.

(OFF TOPIC: I'm out on a limb here - and this may be what you mean when you say compatibility - but if you take into account those suttas about those cycles of expansion and contraction, it isn't so much that the discernible beginning is being addressed in two different ways - temporal and atemporal - but that even through all of those grand and immense temporal descriptions, which share that infinite nature, the status of that imponderability never alters. It is just as relevant aeons ago as it is right now, and no matter how big you try and make it, the potency of that imponderability remains exactly the same. Totally unaffected by any sort of temporal distance. Flat out unknowable in temporal terms. Drop AN 4.45 into the mix and the whole thing gets even more intriguing: it takes a tremendous and fundamental act of ignoring to ponder beginninglessness in both space and time. Why? Because it is being done from a position that is assumed to be beyond the reaches of either; hell, assumed to be beyond the reaches of everything. That is what subjectivity is, until it isn't.

I cannot remember where, perhaps aflatun does, but Ven NN mentions something about impermanence is in regard to that infinity. That experience can be infinite yet impermanent, i.e. that infinity is always available even if it isn't being considered. So you can see why assuming permanence at the foundations of what is fundamentally both infinite, therefore impermanent, creates all sorts of problems. A whole other can of worms, but something to consider.)
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless »

SDC wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:52 am ...
Hello SDC,
After some reflection (not really enough :thinking: I am still quite confused BTW ), these are my "comments". So, “reality” is a continuous process of arising and ceasing. We can see it in our breathing, for example. The cyclic idea of the universe suggests that even “everything” is such a process of arising and ceasing, re-arising and re-ceasing etc Interestingly this idea was quite popular in ancient cultures: even many Greeks thought that our universe was a beginning-less and end-less cyclical process. And in fact, as Parmenides said if some-thing really “was”, then it could not change. At the same time, however, since there is the arising we cannot conclude that things do not exist. So “existence” and “non-existence” cannot be applied to such a process. In fact a real “being” or a real “non-being” cannot “arise” and “cease”: they would be an “obstruction” to the “flow” of ever-changing phenomena. This is true to the cosmos. Also the cosmos as a whole is not a "being", but a process. (it is about the cosmos, but I added it because it is relevant in my reasoning...)

At a “personal” level, we can see the arising and ceasing of our experiences. These “cycles” have different time-spans. There is waking and sleeping, there is birth and death and so on. And everything that arises must also cease. Therefore our “lives” are impermanent. But as is the cosmos, is also our life, i.e. empty of a “being”, a truly “unifying” core. If there were such a core, then change would not be possible: a “core” would “obstruct” the incessant process of arising and ceasing. When we realize this, we cease to attach a “unifying” label to our experience, i.e. we do not regard them as “ours”, anymore. Then, of course, there is still “becoming” but in a different way: things arise and cease, without self-view imposed on them. Since rebirth is due to craving (SN 56.11) and craving is due to the tendency to see “things” as “mine”, then gradually our minds begin to “disentangle” to phenomena. And after some time, consciousness ceases to “arise” (and to “cease”).

However, this does not really address the point of the “transcendentalists”, IMO. They in fact think that the “self” is to be found “outside” experience. So it does not cause an “obstruction” to the process of arising and ceasing. However, to be self-aware that “self” needs the awareness of change. It needs to have some kinds of experience. Therefore all arguments which try to disprove the existence of the ”transcendent self” fail if they are based on the analysis of experience. Possibly the only real “proof” is experiential: when one “realizes the truth”, then his consciousness is so radically different in this “state” that it has no sense of “privateness” (at least in the instant of “awakening”). But again, I really do not know how this argument can be used against the “transcendental self”: maybe because now the “mind” has no limits, so we cannot consider it as a “whole” or a “distinct thing”.

(OFF TOPIC: Interestingly, In the article you have linked, there is the famous verse of MN 49 “non-indicative consciousness, limitless, completely radiant” which describes a mind utterly free of “obstructions” of defilements. This is also linked to “akasa”, unobstructed space. I found a striking resemblance to some Mahayana ideas. In both Vajrayana (e.g. https://www.lionsroar.com/this-very-min ... -luminous/) and Chan Buddhism (e.g. https://terebess.hu/zen/huangboBlofeld.html), for example, there is a very similar language. The “voidness” has also a “cognitive/radiant” component, so to speak. This “radiance” according to them has always been there. The idea seems to be that once one has “relinquished” the tendency to “attach” labels of “I-ness and my-ness” to “things”, this “brightness” of the mind becomes “manifest”. This seems also the idea of a consistent number of teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition. According to them, this “bright” mind is obscured by defilements and Buddhist practice aims to “remove” them, to reveal the innate (not original) luminosity. So once all defilements are “removed”, the mind is completely pure and sees reality-as-it-is. For these teachers, this “pure mind” has been here since beginning-less time.

Regarding what you say in the last response... my understanding is that "the world is eternal" and "the world is non-eternal" are wrong because they are partial, see for example https://suttacentral.net/en/ud6.4, where these views are compared to the famous blind men and elephant situation. So if we think about this partiality, then we can understand why the cyclic process of the universe can be said to be "beginningless", without admitting its "eternity". Possibly the same reason is about spatial infinity (Actually the Rohitassa Sutta is, like the one of the elephant, one of my favourites). Anyway I think that I will read some Ven. Nanavira writings. He seems quite interesting, by the way (until now I mostly ignored him due to his "negativistic" stance on both Nibbana and "life", so to speak :thinking: ). )

Thank you for the insights! :anjali:
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:23 pm ...
Hello Sam Vara,
Yeah, it is difficult to explain the concept when in fact it is not very clear even to me. My idea is that according to Buddhism at a level of analysis of reality there are indeed “beings”. There is indeed a “self”, which is the empirical self. So there is a “unifying” point in our experience… but only because we do not really see reality as It really is. At a “coarse level” there is indeed the unity. In the same way at a “macroscopic level” water has indeed a temperature (but at atomic level there is no temperature, so “temperature” is not a property that has meaning to all scales). But maybe (see also the second and third paragraphs of the answer to SDC) at awakening we “see” the “unobstructed consciousness”: a consciousness without a “perceived center”, with no perspective. In this case the “experience” cannot be taken as “unified”, because it is impossible to “unify” a limitless mind. To use the wave-ocean analogy. At a coarse level, droplets of water associated to a wave seems to be “of” a wave. However, waves do not really exist at all scales of analysis. At a microscopic level, waves cannot be “distinguished” by the rest of the ocean. So the same water that seemed to be “of” a wave, now is not “special” anymore. It is not different from the other waves of the ocean.

The wave analogy is IMO apt for another reason. A wave is a dynamical and conditioned process. But it still has of course its "individuality". You can distinguish the single wave from what is outside it. Again, the wave is changing and the content of water inside it is also continuosly changing. So speaking about waves is not incorrect. What is incorrect is saying that it is "something" we can distinguish from the ocean at all level of analysis. https://suttacentral.net/en/ud6.4 Here there is the famed metaphor of the elephant and blind men. "The wave is something distinct" is a partial view. It is not really "wrong", but it becomes wrong when we think that it is true at all levels (this is IMO the problem of atta. Such a "self" is not there because it should be "found" at all levels of analysis). "The wave does not exist" is again partial. It is true that it is not really "separated" from the ocean, but at the same time we cannot deny that it is there. In the same way, the mistake of the eternalist is maybe the lack of recognition of "emptiness", s/he sees the way as a "well defined thing". However saying that "there is no self" can lead to a dangerous misunderestanding (at least in the hearers). In fact https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60 here we read:
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’

emphasis mine
It seems that a group of annihilationists held the view that if something is not enduring, then it does not exist (they held that "there is no this world"). So while it is incorrect to hold that the waves "exist" it is also incorrect to say that they do not exist without qualification. They exist as a dynamic process. Their identity is not fixed but "fuzzy", ambiguous. The same can IMO be said regarding "the self". While it is true that no "atta" "exist", saying that "there is no atta" can be a cause of confusion.

Maybe, the “unobstructed consciousness” makes no difference between the droplets of the ocean. It cannot be considered “unified” because it has no limits. This is different from the “transcendentalist” point of view: it is not that all water is “one”. It is not that the “limitless” mind is “unified” to a self. It has no “unifying” label. As in Zen Buddhism, “not-two” is not “one”.

So, while the arguments that try to disprove the “transcendental self” by the analysis of experience fail because according to the “transcendentalists” we cannot find the subject of experience (as I said above in the first paragraph). For both them and Buddhism the “center” cannot be found. So, maybe the “real proof” arrives with experience

This is only my opinion, of course ;)

:anjali:

Edit... Just to clarify "unobstructed consciousness" refers to the "liberated consciousness", not to a "cosmic consciousness".
auto wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:06 pm

The unconditioned is beyond our grasp because it rises autonomously. You can't will it happen, it is empty of self. From a self-view these sensations rise randomly, by change and probably.
In order to see something new, you need get lost first. These sensations are everfresh, new.



Hello auto,

I agree that it is empty of a self. But I do not think that the unconditioned can be said to "rise", since "rising" is a temporal activity. IMO it being timeless is "indipendent".

"In order to see something new, you need get lost first", yeah true ;)

:anjali:
Last edited by boundless on Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:36 pm
binocular wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:25 pm You want to talk about the true, indentical subject,
Not really. Apart from it being a good candidate for selfhood, I don't have much to say about it at all. As far as your posts are concerned, I've mainly pointed out that you seem to be confusing it with objects of consciousness.
What use is there in a self that one can never know ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:26 am
What use is there in a self that one can never know ...
None whatsoever. "Use" refers to objects or our consciousness, and in particular how they relate to our desires. But there is use in the concept of such a self, in that it has helped me to clarify how to construe what the Buddha said, and therefore how to practice.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by aflatun »

SDC wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:52 am
boundless wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:21 pm P.S.
Thanks for the elaboration about samsara. Even though I need further reflections on this issue,
I now understand how a temporal infinity (no beginning and no end for the cycles of the universe)
can be compatible with the "imponderability".
...

I cannot remember where, perhaps aflatun does, but Ven NN mentions something about impermanence is in regard to that infinity. That experience can be infinite yet impermanent, i.e. that infinity is always available even if it isn't being considered. So you can see why assuming permanence at the foundations of what is fundamentally both infinite, therefore impermanent, creates all sorts of problems. A whole other can of worms, but something to consider.)
In keeping with our current theme of digging through the brain to find sources for things remembered (and failing :tongue: ) these come to mind:
Ven. NN wrote:This is not all, there are further implications of one’s ignorance of the infinite structure—namely, permanence. The uninstructed worldling confuses the notion of infinity (no beginning, no end) with the notion of eternity, or rather identifies the two. In this way, a present experience is regarded as eternal or permanent. What a puthujjana does not see is that eternity implies infinity, but the infinity does not imply eternity. [7] Because of the nescience in regard to this, the puthujjana’s experience of infinity assumes permanence. In other words, his citta is regarded as permanent; he regards his Self as permanent. If one would be able to see the infinity without eternity, or even to see it as impermanent, the notion of Self, and everything else that depended upon it, (which required the notion of permanence), would cease without a remainder. Knowing infinity as something present (i.e. arisen) but impermanent (for the very reason that it has arisen on its own accord), clears the mind of any obstructions, any superimposed interferences with the infinite structure.
Notes on AN 1.51


And footnote 7:
Ven. NN wrote:7. The reader might notice that Ñāṇavīra Thera in ‘Fundamental Structure’ (op.cit. p. 107) refers to the endurance of a thing as ‘eternal’. This structural ‘eternity’ is what is meant here by ‘infinity’. It is just how one decides to designate these terms. If we were to choose the term ‘eternal’ to describe the property of the structure, we would additionally have to qualify it by saying: “A thing endures for ever. A thing is eternal… until it ceases.” I, personally, prefer ‘infinite’ so that the distinction between the inherent nature of the arisen experience (infinity) becomes apparent from the puthujjana‘s appropriation of it (eternity).
Notes on AN 1.51

Apologies for over sharing, but some other possibilities from some recorded talks (my notes/transcripts, caveat emptor):

Discerning the Mind

12:20 (Seeming infinity of mental states)

Ven. NN: It doesn't matter, even if it stays forever, its still impermanent. You know that it will have to cease. So it might like, last forever, infinitely, so to speak, there is no end in sight when you look at it, but the fact that its arising is manifest means that's why it will cease. So infinite things, are impermanent. They will come to an end, with their infinity. So when the new thing arises, the new mind arises, new infinity arises, then that infinity is also impermanent...

Other dude: That's another thing yeah. Everything that...well, these things that arise, they always arise with a sense of being forever...

Ven. NN: Yeah...they arise with infinity. They arise...because there is no end in sight, there is no end in terms of the possibilities...and that's what's mistaken as forever. But actually you can have an infinite range of things, and then that's taken away, and then you don't have an infinite range of things anymore. So that's how infinity is impermanent. So yes I think I said that in one of my essays. If basically...if a person would be able to discern infinite from permanent...

Other dude: Or see...

Ven. NN: Well discern the difference and then you will recognize "Ah. Actually permanence comes from me. The assumption of permanence. The assumption of forever." Infinite its kind of...everything is infinite in that sense, because everything arises with infinite amount of possibilities. When it arises. But when it ceases, it ceases with infinite amount of possibilities. And when a new thing is manifested, or rather a different thing is manifested, also. So everything arises in that, like infinite structure of possibilities, like infinite mind, infinite ...infinite permutations...like, there is no end in it. You can be seeking out, and trying to encompass them all, but you won't. There will always be more, to more and more, to more and more... until it ceases. So the whole thing, the entire domain, the entire domain of infinity from the past to the future, that's impermanent. That ceases. On a particular level, yeah, things last forever, in that infinite sense, until they cease on the general level, which is where they cease. So that's why its another mistake to look for impermanence in actual cessation of things. When you look for them and you want to see their destruction and say "ah, that's impermanence." No, that's just another arisen thing with infinite possibilities. You're just witnessing a phenomenon, an arisen phenomenon of destruction. And that has arisen. So that's what I mean when I say before, or I say often...things are not impermanent because you see them cease. Things are impermanent because they have arisen in the first place. So their manifestation means, that's why they're not in your control. Because they are manifested. You can't even conceive "you" creating anything, "you" manifesting anything. Impossible. And even when you think of you creating something, if you look closely, whatever you're kind of working with in your mind in terms of you...that was given beforehand. So you always come in second.


The Uncertainty of Impermanence 00:00 (Our inability to step out of experience)

Other dude: So anicca applies to the point of view. Would you say? Rather than to things, like the book or your lamp...

Ven. NN: If you want to apply, or rather you can say anicca can apply to both, through the point of view. So if you want to apply anicca to the things, as it sometimes might have been done, you need to, you have to apply it only to those things upon which your point of view depends, upon which your sense of self depends... upon which the center of your experience depends. Basically upon things that you took as mine. But its not anicca...will never be understood in its nature, if you try to approach it, think about it, as some sort of law of physics or whatever, whereby everything is impermanent...thus, everything is constantly changing...thus, everything will come to an end. That might be true in a theoretical sense, but in terms of freeing you from suffering, that understanding simply won't do. Because anicca results in freedom from suffering when you see your own sense of self, your own center of experience, undermined by it. But if you look look at the random things that you don't care, you've absolutely no emotional connection to whatsoever, its simply irrelevant to you, you can see them as impermanent as much as you like, it won't make a big difference. And that's the thing, as I said before, people associate impermanence with witnessing the destruction of the things. Witnessing its ending means "ah, its impermanent." But that can never be applied to your own point of view. Because that would require you to see your own seeing as impermanent, basically in order to see that you have to see your own seeing, ending. You have to see the end of your own seeing...Well its impossible. That would require you to step out of your experience as a whole-the five aggregates-and then see them disappear. And then say "OK they are impermanent." But that's simply inconceivable, because you can't step outside of them. There is no outside of them. When you think about outside of the five aggregates, that experience as a whole is within the five aggregates. So then it becomes clear that the impermanence the Buddha was teaching about that does pertain to the five aggregates and freedom from the whole thing, cannot possibly be the impermanence of "Oh, I just seen a thing being destroyed, thus its impermanent." That's a worldly impermanence. So in that sense, as I think we discussed before, anicca, its much more than what's thought of as impermanence. Or rather whatever translation is found it will probably need to be explained heavily, because people already have deeply rooted notions of impermanence, permanence, whatever else.

...

4:05 (Infinity, the "point of view" and the impermanence of the structure of experience)

Other dude: So by saying...experiencing that point of view...by seeing it phenomenologically...you can't say that it is permanent or impermanent...because that would just be an assumption. Because you'd have to step out of that point of view to be able to see: "oh it began now."

Ven. NN: ...Exactly yeah. Permanent or impermanent is applied to it (my comment: the center of experience) secondarily, as an assumption on top of it, while in reality what your experience shows you is basically, there is that center of experience, and that's it.

Other dude: There's a sense of infinite, always being there...

Ven. NN: Always being there, infinite kind of, infinite kind of appearance in terms of the infinite possibilities...which means infinite possibilities of its being there which means being there infinitely. But that is what's confused as lasting forever. But no matter how far the thing reaches-there is no end in sight-if that whole structure is swept away...it means none of it can remain standing. Thus you don't apply the idea of anicca to things individually or things that you can gather through your senses, you apply it to the structure of your senses.

Other dude: The point of view? And...?

Ven. NN: And the very root of it. If that's abandoned on that level through seeing that you have no control, no mastery over it-you certainly have nothing to do with its arising-you realize for that reason...well I don't even want to say for that reason it will come to an end. Because again it will induce people to think "Ah I will witness the end." You can't even conceive of that. Basically, its better to say: "For that reason, it will never be mine." When you see it as truly impermanent, as truly arisen on its own, independent of you, its inconceivable for you to have any say in it, its just there. For that reason, it will never, ever, be yours, even in a remote...the wildest of fantasies. You can't even access it even in that theoretical idea of ownership. Impossible. When that realization pervades your mind-through and through and through and through-you will simply stop appropriating anything, no matter what arises on what level or what sense, how or what experience...the idea of taking it up is gone. And that's all it takes.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by aflatun »

Someone just sent me this, talk about synchronicity :rofl:

Press play for infinity

"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless »

aflatun wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:49 pm ...
Hello aflatun,

:rofl: see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal Also the videos related to fractals you find on the net are fantastic :jumping:

By the way thanks for sharing the dialogue ;)

I noted that notions of "emptiness", "infinite possibilites" are well explored in Mahayana. Also in that context "infinite possibilities" seems related to an "idea" of "infinite freedom", "openness", i.e. a very "positive" concept (possibly the most radical expression of this tendency is the Avataṃsakasūtra, which however I know only by "secondary literature").The approach seems weel outlined by this quote of D.T. Suzuki: "Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities."

Much less in the suttas. Reading the suttas I understand impermanence as a lack, as a "negative". In fact as we saw earlier in the suttas the idea seems to put an end to this (otherwise endless) process. The idea in the suttas is to stop it, whereas in Mahayana I cannot avoid to see a sort of tendency to "glorify" the same process (when correctly understood as "empty", of course).

The only thing in common that I find is that both see the illusion of the "persistence" of the self as the main cause of suffering. When the beginningless and endless continuity of the process of the cosmos is seen as "empty" of a "persisting" self, then liberation is possible :thinking:
But again,the way this "empty" process is presented seems quite opposite between Theravada (and "early Buddhism" in general) and Mahayana.

But maybe it is only that I am thinking to much :(


:anjali:
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by aflatun »

boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm Hello aflatun,

:rofl: see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal Also the videos related to fractals you find on the net are fantastic :jumping:
Nice, thanks for that!
boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm By the way thanks for sharing the dialogue ;)
Of course, I highly recommend his talks, rather then listen to music I often listen to those, over and over and over...
boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm I noted that notions of "emptiness", "infinite possibilites" are well explored in Mahayana. Also in that context "infinite possibilities" seems related to an "idea" of "infinite freedom", "openness", i.e. a very "positive" concept (possibly the most radical expression of this tendency is the Avataṃsakasūtra, which however I know only by "secondary literature").The approach seems weel outlined by this quote of D.T. Suzuki: "Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities."

Much less in the suttas. Reading the suttas I understand impermanence as a lack, as a "negative". In fact as we saw earlier in the suttas the idea seems to put an end to this (otherwise endless) process. The idea in the suttas is to stop it, whereas in Mahayana I cannot avoid to see a sort of tendency to "glorify" the same process (when correctly understood as "empty", of course).

The only thing in common that I find is that both see the illusion of the "persistence" of the self as the main cause of suffering. When the beginningless and endless continuity of the process of the cosmos is seen as "empty" of a "persisting" self, then liberation is possible :thinking:
But again,the way this "empty" process is presented seems quite opposite between Theravada (and "early Buddhism" in general) and Mahayana.

But maybe it is only that I am thinking to much :(
It's OK to think too much, we all do it! We can take this up elsewhere if you like as I don't want to bomb the thread any more then I already have, but in very general terms I agree with you, those seem to be the tendencies of the respective traditions, especially if our baseline for Mahayana is some forms of East Asian Buddhism, especially modern incarnations thereof like Suzuki (If we looked at Classical Indian Mahayana I think we would come away with a different picture!): But I find when you take it on an author by author basis comparisons become more meaningful and common ground more obvious.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by SDC »

aflatun wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:49 pm ...
:bow:

...for those transcriptions.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Sam Vara »

boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:03 am
Yeah, it is difficult to explain the concept when in fact it is not very clear even to me. My idea is that according to Buddhism at a level of analysis of reality there are indeed “beings”. There is indeed a “self”, which is the empirical self. So there is a “unifying” point in our experience… but only because we do not really see reality as It really is. At a “coarse level” there is indeed the unity. In the same way at a “macroscopic level” water has indeed a temperature (but at atomic level there is no temperature, so “temperature” is not a property that has meaning to all scales). But maybe (see also the second and third paragraphs of the answer to SDC) at awakening we “see” the “unobstructed consciousness”: a consciousness without a “perceived center”, with no perspective.
Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto »

boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:03 am
auto wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:06 pm

The unconditioned is beyond our grasp because it rises autonomously. You can't will it happen, it is empty of self. From a self-view these sensations rise randomly, by change and probably.
In order to see something new, you need get lost first. These sensations are everfresh, new.



Hello auto,

I agree that it is empty of a self. But I do not think that the unconditioned can be said to "rise", since "rising" is a temporal activity. IMO it being timeless is "indipendent".

"In order to see something new, you need get lost first", yeah true ;)

:anjali:
Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless »

aflatun wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm

Nice, thanks for that!
boundless wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm By the way thanks for sharing the dialogue ;)
Of course, I highly recommend his talks, rather then listen to music I often listen to those, over and over and over...
Yeah, I understand he is very interesting :smile:
aflatun wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm
It's OK to think too much, we all do it! We can take this up elsewhere if you like as I don't want to bomb the thread any more then I already have, but in very general terms I agree with you, those seem to be the tendencies of the respective traditions, especially if our baseline for Mahayana is some forms of East Asian Buddhism, especially modern incarnations thereof like Suzuki (If we looked at Classical Indian Mahayana I think we would come away with a different picture!): But I find when you take it on an author by author basis comparisons become more meaningful and common ground more obvious.
Regarding the "thiniking too much" problem... as I said in my introduction I am only a student of Buddhism, for now (I cannot consider myself a "buddhist"*. Yet I am very drawn to Buddhism and find a lot of inspiration in it - I hope this is not a problem for my staying here :embarassed: ). But it really helps to see that in fact "thinking too much" is quite common here, even among who is more advanced in the practice and in faith, so to speak.

Regarding East Asian Buddhism I agree that it is generally more "life-affirming" than other forms of it. At the same time however I find concepts like "non-abiding Nirvana" (which is accepted in all forms of Mahayana afaik) quite difficult to reconcile to what we find in the Suttas. But I agree that it is better to discuss it in an other thread! (actually, I thought to open one about this issue in the DharmaWheel forum).

:anjali:

*Well... according to this quiz https://thedhamma.com/areyoubuddhist.htm, in some sense I am a "buddhist" :tongue:
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am

Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
Yeah, I agree!

Regarding the wave analogy, I agree that it has its limits. But if you apply it to "the percieved world" ("loka"), then IMO it is better. In my view if there is a "self" of sorts, then also the "(its) world" must be unified. But if it is not unified, then to posit a "self" existing at "all levels" is quite problemtic (according to Advaita, the Self is "one", so the entire "ocean", so to speak is "unified". IMO Buddhism accepts the idea that we are like waves in the ocean, but sees the ocean as not a "single unifieid thing"!).

Anyway, the trascendental argument is the strongest one. And in fact I do not think that it can be really refuted. It is here that "faith" comes in :thinking: (and as I said to aflatun I am not really strong in faith, being still a "seeker" :embarassed: (yet))

:anjali:
auto wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am


Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
Hi,

I admit that it is unclear to me what you are suggesting. Anyway I try to answer.

Regarding the question. I think that answering "in the toe" is better (to be more precise it "arises" in consciousness, as a result of the "change" we percieve in the toe). But I say that answering "in the wall" is completely wrong!

So are you suggesting that the "unconditioned" exists as a "state of mind" freed form contidioning? A state of mind, without a percieved "center" (so no "sense of self"), maybe :thinking:


:anjali:
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto »

boundless wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:38 pm
auto wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am


Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
Hi,

I admit that it is unclear to me what you are suggesting. Anyway I try to answer.

Regarding the question. I think that answering "in the toe" is better (to be more precise it "arises" in consciousness, as a result of the "change" we percieve in the toe). But I say that answering "in the wall" is completely wrong!

So are you suggesting that the "unconditioned" exists as a "state of mind" freed form contidioning? A state of mind, without a percieved "center" (so no "sense of self"), maybe :thinking:


:anjali:
Things are conditioned because of attachment. Condition is nonexistent, superposition. During the contact an attachment ceases to be. If you hit the wall then it depends if you do it knowingly or you did it accidently.

If you do accidently then that is unconditioned phenomena. If you do it knowingly, then you can't hurt yourself unless you are pretty deluded.
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless »

auto wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:53 pm
Things are conditioned because of attachment. Condition is nonexistent, superposition. During the contact an attachment ceases to be. If you hit the wall then it depends if you do it knowingly or you did it accidently.

If you do accidently then that is unconditioned phenomena. If you do it knowingly, then you can't hurt yourself unless you are pretty deluded.
Thank you for the elucidation!

:anjali:
Post Reply