Buddhism and not self

[satori8]

Buddhism seems to be quite radical in the premise of a not-self. Christians believe in a soul that goes to heaven or hell. Hindus believe we all have a jiva which can be realized as atman and then be one with Brahman. Kabblists and Gnostics believe we have a divine spark which can be realized by overcoming darkness. However, Buddhists believe there is no self, and clinging to the notion of a self leads to suffering.

However I have read that Buddhists believe a stream of consciousness does transmute after death. Which explains various realms one could travel to, but the human realm is the desired one, because this is the only one one can achieve nirvana. Then like traveling to candlestick to candlestick, the flame is snuffed out when one achieves nirvana.

My question is, what is the stream of consciousness that transfers? If it is not self, what really is it? The definition of stream of consciousness, is very vague to me.

 

[Secret Chief]

Clinging does indeed lead to dukkha. Not self is not no self. But don't get hung up on words!

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

 

[satori8]

Thank you for the article. Yes I did know that when Buddha was asked about a self, he did not answer. When asked about God, he did not answer. Yet, it does appear some Buddhist schools have answered, esp say the Mahayana Buddhists believe in not self very strongly.

I can agree on two things, clinging to self is probably going to be a false self, because of the nature of mind and clinging, and also ego so strongly wants to survive the transmigration. Still I would like to know what does transfer. I know it wont be me, however, in the process, because 'me' does not really exist and is a product of thoughts and emotions. It would just be nice to know what is real about me. LOL.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Like Magog said, many confuse the concept of anatman, calling it 'no-self', but it's properly translated as 'not-self'. One letter makes a huge difference. The idea is that, what we think we are, we actually are not, because what we think we are, is conditioned and dependent on other things, as well as having an end. So no soul/spirit. As far as the stream of consciousness, or mindstream as it's sometimes called, it depends on what school you're asking. In Zen, and any school highly inspired by Yogacara, there are eight consciousnesses, the eighth being called the alaya-vijnana, or storehouse consciousness. It's this that's passed on from incarnation to incarnation.

 

[Secret Chief]

You'll have to decide for yourself (self!) what is real about you.

I'm of the opinion self is a useful label for the process of me.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It would just be nice to know what is real about me.

According to the tathagatagarbha teachings, like as found in the Lotus Sutra and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, our "real self" is nothing less than the Buddha-nature found within all sentient beings. Everything else is just "dust on the mirror" to use a Zen phrase.

 

[satori8]

But even clinging to the concept of Buddha nature could be detrimental, couldn't it?

It makes me think of, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

But even clinging to the concept of Buddha nature could be detrimental, couldn't it?

It makes me think of, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

Yeah, the Zen masters said that enlightenment itself could be an obstacle on the path, if one was attached to the idea.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no true notion of transmutation of "self" or "consciousness " that requires discernment.

I like water analogies the manner of how does a wave transmute whatever it is that makes it a wave when it's essence is of no distinction from that of the ocean?

 

[satori8]

There is no true notion of transmutation of "self" or "consciousness " that requires discernment.

I like water analogies the manner of how does a wave transmute whatever it is that makes it a wave when it's essence is of no distinction from that of the ocean?

True I can see one ocean, many waves, but its all one ocean.

But still Buddha did give the analogy of one flame, but many candlesticks. When we look at this analogy, it comes from one flame, but the one flame does become many flames in the process.

If it could only remain one flame, what is the purpose for his analogy having all the separate candlesticks?

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no true "safe" concept. Any and all can be misused.

The sense of self simply is. It is to some degree an illusion, albeit a functional one. And it flows from a person to another.

There is no true purpose in that, although we have many opportunities of building one while in our flow.

 

[DreadFish]

Still I would like to know what does transfer. I know it wont be me, however, in the process, because 'me' does not really exist and is a product of thoughts and emotions. It would just be nice to know what is real about me. LOL.

Before I read the rest of the thread I just had to answer this first.

So, if you really want to know what's real about you, why not find out? You won't find it in online articles, its right in front of you to look at

I recommend the "Who am I?" method of practice which consists of asking the question to direct your mind to, and keep in focused on, the sense of "me" or "I" that one feels. Ramana Maharshi popularized the practice and it exists in a "Buddhist" form as a Hua Tou. Intellectual speculation can make for a lot of mental debris and confusion. Hence why the Buddha advised against speculation on a number of issues. Asking a question that cuts to the heart of the matter, "who does all this information pertain to?" is very effective IMO.

 

[DreadFish]

True I can see one ocean, many waves, but its all one ocean.

But still Buddha did give the analogy of one flame, but many candlesticks. When we look at this analogy, it comes from one flame, but the one flame does become many flames in the process.

If it could only remain one flame, what is the purpose for his analogy having all the separate candlesticks?

If I remember right, the candle stick analogy is referring to birth and rebirth. The next "life" is lit because of the conditions of the previous "life", like as one candle flame lights the next candle flame. When the causes of becoming are put out (nirvana, cessation), then there are no more flames to light more candles.

 

[SageTree]

esp say the Mahayana Buddhists believe in not self very strongly.

Two quick glimpses for variance of explanation in the Mahayana teachings:

Shentong (Other-Emptiness) & Jonang (A school which holds this view)

:namaste

 

[satori8]

Before I read the rest of the thread I just had to answer this first.

So, if you really want to know what's real about you, why not find out? You won't find it in online articles, its right in front of you to look at

I recommend the "Who am I?" method of practice which consists of asking the question to direct your mind to, and keep in focused on, the sense of "me" or "I" that one feels. Ramana Maharshi popularized the practice and it exists in a "Buddhist" form as a Hua Tou. Intellectual speculation can make for a lot of mental debris and confusion. Hence why the Buddha advised against speculation on a number of issues. Asking a question that cuts to the heart of the matter, "who does all this information pertain to?" is very effective IMO.

Oh boy this is a toughie. I have explored this in depth, read, spoke to people, meditated, you name it, and still I am mystified. Like for instance, i know me in this body is not permanent. Attached to it is mind, which is not permanent. And I know I have an ego, and this ego-self I have created is impermanent too, and unreal. IOW, I am thoughts and emotions, and fleeting ones at that. When I attach to something, the something may be real, but it is not permanent, therefore it becomes unreal in how I perceive the object. But still, I explore, and i see 'buddha nature' and transfer of 'something' which can be rebirthed, and I wonder how I can understand what that something is. I dont know if I will grasp it. It may take me much longer. I mean, Ive developed some wisdom. At least I know my ego is not a real self. But getting to the buddha nature, and understanding what essence transfers, is what Im looking at.

Its the quest to not die. What can I say?

 

[YmirGF]

Oh boy this is a toughie. I have explored this in depth, read, spoke to people, meditated, you name it, and still I am mystified.

It's ok, it's not an idea, per se, to "get". There is a certainty found in being that sufficiently fills gaps in understanding. Until the core of being is directly experienced, explanations will remain perplexing.

Like for instance, i know me in this body is not permanent. Attached to it is mind, which is not permanent.

Granted, I often feel as if I am speaking to people who have "lost their minds" when in discussions such as this, but the idea that mind is impermanent remains an assumption about reality.

And I know I have an ego, and this ego-self I have created is impermanent too, and unreal.

I beg to differ. Though the ego is impermanent it is also very real. People do ego a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

IOW, I am thoughts and emotions, and fleeting ones at that.

Well, realistically, "you" are a great deal more than a mere pile of fleeting thoughts and emotional responses. Though it is true that all too many condescend to make themselves appear so. Just sayin'...

When I attach to something, the something may be real, but it is not permanent, therefore it becomes unreal in how I perceive the object.

Perhaps you need to look at things a bit differently then. A hurricane is very real, but far from a permanent weather condition.

But still, I explore, and i see 'buddha nature' and transfer of 'something' which can be rebirthed, and I wonder how I can understand what that something is.

Admittedly, that is a tough nut to crack and you may have to go beyond the confines of Buddhism to fully appreciate that reality.

At least I know my ego is not a real self.

How real do you need "self" to be?

But getting to the buddha nature, and understanding what essence transfers, is what Im looking at.

Its the quest to not die. What can I say?

More accurately it sounds like a quest that wishes to stop change. I'm not sure you will find much success with that.

 

[satori8]

Thank you for the input. Im not afraid of change. I have a son who just graduated, and daughter who will graduate in two years. They are no longer babies and I accept that. I think with Buddhism, it has been teaching me how to learn about myself, what is real and not real. I know ego is 'relatively real,' but I also sense its unrealness, aka impermanent nature. I know I said dont want to die, but I do believe my 'little me' will not go on. Maybe ill be in for a big surprise later. In the meantime I just try to learn as much as I can before I go, and lead a good life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

True I can see one ocean, many waves, but its all one ocean.

But still Buddha did give the analogy of one flame, but many candlesticks. When we look at this analogy, it comes from one flame, but the one flame does become many flames in the process.

If it could only remain one flame, what is the purpose for his analogy having all the separate candlesticks?

It's true we see seperate candlesticks and seperate flames yet all still remains undifferanced by way things are inter-related, each connecting by which nothing is truly seperated one from another and indistinguishable as there is no true separation.

A very simple illustration would be several candles on a table in a room. There is a relationship with the table the candles sit upon. The floor that holds the table. The oxygen in the room. The person who walks across the floor and lights the candles. Everything in the room and every action within the room is interconnected and not truly seperate. We see separation, and it's not erroniousness to perceive it that way, yet this seperateness is illusory in light of how things are actually intertwined and related in many ways so as our perceptions in seeing many candles, flames and such will come under a light alongside the intellect that perceives separation, yet acknowledging there is no separation to be
discerned.

If it's confusing. Try lighting candles in a room directly. :0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

If I remember right, the candle stick analogy is referring to birth and rebirth. The next "life" is lit because of the conditions of the previous "life", like as one candle flame lights the next candle flame. When the causes of becoming are put out (nirvana, cessation), then there are no more flames to light more candles.

It is. It's rather surprising how useful the illustration can be as a learning tool that can be used directly. :0)