• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is disavowal of self an easy way out?

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
There's a lot less to confront if there is no self.

(At the risk of annoying Buddhists) I'm inclined to think it's an easy way out, perhaps even lazy.

Am I mistaken? Why?
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
The only annoying part is that a superficial read of Buddhist teachings leads so many folks to the same misconceptions.

There is no self in the ultimate sense; meaning that self is not eternal and unchanging. Buddhism does not deny the existence of self, contrary to popular misconception. The teaching states that self is a temporary combination of aggregates, dependently originating from causes and subject to conditions, and ultimately ceasing to exist as an individual entity. That is somewhat different from saying that it never exists at all.

And the fat statue guy is NOT the Buddha.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
There's a lot less to confront if there is no self.

(At the risk of annoying Buddhists) I'm inclined to think it's an easy way out, perhaps even lazy.

Am I mistaken? Why?
Yes, it's the easy way out. Fortunately, it's not the Buddhist's "no-self."

It's not even "nihilism."
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
It depends what is meant by self, I guess.

I've been practising Buddhism since I was 13, lol, but my views are considered as pretty unorthodox by many Theravadins and Western Buddhists, but I don't mind.

What is this self that was denied by Buddha? Has what is the self of modern Hinduism changed from the pre-Buddhist Upanishadic self that Buddha denied, and that of the Jain self? How do they tie into the Western perception of "self"?


Also, how the skandhas relate to the self, and if these are construed as self by other paths.

The way some construe not-self, to me, is one thing that falls into extremes. I find it a bit.. funny. It's also worth noting that whilst Buddha denied atta (the self), Buddha also critisied nathatta (the idea of there is no self). This has taken a "all thoughts of self or non-self come from a preoccupation of self" view, but I take a more Mahapaninirvana sutra view on it myself.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
And the fat statue guy is NOT the Buddha.
Lol, this drives my wife and me nuts. We always go over and point it out to staff members who sell them. My wife even got one to take the sign down and replace it. :D
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Thank you for the response Engyo.
Is it your view that the doctrine of Anattavada is not a Buddhist teaching or that it is misrepresented?
Or am I heading in a completely wrong direction?
(BTW I was reading about the doctrine in a book by a neuropsychologist not a religious)
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Thank you for the response Engyo.
Is it your view that the doctrine of Anattavada is not a Buddhist teaching or that it is misrepresented?
Or am I heading in a completely wrong direction?
(BTW I as reading about the doctrine in a book by a neuropsychologist not a religious)
I think your author took a quick look at something-or-other on Buddhism and thought he/she had grasped the entire concept. Quite possibly the author of what he/she read or studied did the same.

The "self" being 'denied' is something more akin to the Christian concept of "eternal soul" than the way the word "self" is generally used in english. I believe that is what Odion was referring to, at any rate.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Yes, it's the easy way out. Fortunately, it's not the Buddhist's "no-self."

It's not even "nihilism."

"Few, if any, neuroscientists believe that there is anything corresponding to a self or ego distinct from a multiplicity of mental states". From a neuroscience perspective, according to Broks, the self is a hollow fabrication and there is no more to the self than a sequence of events.

How do you regard this view?
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
I think your author took a quick look at something-or-other on Buddhism and thought he/she had grasped the entire concept. Quite possibly the author of what he/she read or studied did the same.

The "self" being 'denied' is something more akin to the Christian concept of "eternal soul" than the way the word "self" is generally used in english. I believe that is what Odion was referring to, at any rate.

Thank you again. If without too much trouble you could point me to a reasonably concise on-line resource that explains this from a Buddhist pov it would be really helpful.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There's a lot less to confront if there is no self.

(At the risk of annoying Buddhists) I'm inclined to think it's an easy way out, perhaps even lazy.

Am I mistaken? Why?

No self is not the ignorance or denial of a self, nor is the acknowledgement of any abiding self. Too dualistic a view in which you miss the whole enchilada with cheese and jalapenos.


BTW, GRRRR >>>>:mad: <<<< I'm so annoyed right now.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
"Few, if any, neuroscientists believe that there is anything corresponding to a self or ego distinct from a multiplicity of mental states". From a neuroscience perspective, according to Broks, the self is a hollow fabrication and there is no more to the self than a sequence of events.

How do you regard this view?
This is precisely in accord with Buddhist teachings, IMHO. If you research the Five Aggregates, amongst other parts of the teaching, this agrees very well with what I understand the Buddhist teaching to state.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Found the quote I've been looking for. "People and subjects-of-experience exist as a feature of the way we use our language, but in no other way." (Broks, 2003, p 218)

I think this is a cop out. No-self requires me to deny my experience of being. It is easier to explain myself away as a phantom than engage with the great intelligence.

I hate copying and pasting but I can't write anything that would come close to this:-
To the despisers of the body will I speak my word. I wish them neither to learn afresh, nor teach anew, but only to bid farewell to their own bodies - and thus be dumb. "Body am I, and soul" - so says the child. And why should one not speak like children? But the awakened one, the knowing one, says: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body&#8221;. The body is a great intelligence, a multiplicity with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd. An instrument of your body is also your small intelligence, my brother, which you call "spirit" - a little instrument and plaything of your great intelligence. "I," say you, and are proud of that word. But the greater thing - in which you are unwilling to believe - is your body with its great intelligence; which does not say "I," but performs it. What the sense feels, what the spirit perceives, is never an end in itself. But sense and spirit would like to persuade you that they are the end of all things: so vain are they. Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeks with the eyes of the senses, it Listens also with the ears of the spirit. Ever Listens the Self, and seeks; it compares, masters, conquers, and destroys. It rules, and is also the ego's ruler. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown wise man - it is called Self; it dwells in your body, it is your body. There is more intelligence in your body than in your best wisdom. And who then knows why your body requires just your best wisdom? Your Self laughs at your ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought to me&#8221;? it says to itself. "A by way to my purpose. I am the leading string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions&#8221;. The Self says to the ego: "Feel pain&#8221;! And then it suffers, and thinks how it may put an end thereto - and for that very purpose it is meant to think. The Self says to the ego: "Feel pleasure&#8221;! Then it rejoices, and thinks how it may often rejoice - and for that very purpose it is meant to think. To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will? The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will. Even in your folly and despising you each serve your Self, you despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wants to die, and turns away from life. No longer can your Self do that which it desires most: - create beyond itself. That is what it desires most; that is all its fervour. But it is now too late to do so: - so your Self wishes to perish, you despisers of the body. To perish - so wishes your Self; and therefore you have become despisers of the body. For you can no longer create beyond yourselves. And therefore are you now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt. I go not your way, you despisers of the body! You are no bridges for me to the Superman! Thus spoke Zarathustra.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
"Few, if any, neuroscientists believe that there is anything corresponding to a self or ego distinct from a multiplicity of mental states". From a neuroscience perspective, according to Broks, the self is a hollow fabrication and there is no more to the self than a sequence of events.

How do you regard this view?
Well, that's different. That there is nothing "corresponding to a self or ego distinct from a multiplicity of mental states" is not what I would call a disavowel of self, just a redefining of self in terms of mental states. Pota-to, po-tato...

Now we have something similar to the Buddhist's "no self," in that "self" gets redefined (in terms of aggregates).

Even "hollow fabrications" exist.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It might be interesting to know what makes something a "cop-out"? Is it just that it avoids some suffering?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
No.
I mean it as a failure to deal squarely with a difficulty. If there is no self one does not have to square up to it.

Thanks for the clarification! That's an interesting question. At the moment, I don't know how I would answer that.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Well, that's different. That there is nothing "corresponding to a self or ego distinct from a multiplicity of mental states" is not what I would call a disavowel of self, just a redefining of self in terms of mental states. Pota-to, po-tato...

Now we have something similar to the Buddhist's "no self," in that "self" gets redefined (in terms of aggregates).

Even "hollow fabrications" exist.

Saying clearly that there is no self is not a redefinition it is a denial.
If I say there is no Easter Bunny I am not redefining the Easter Bunny I am denying it.

Sure hollow fabrications exist. They are by definition empty. As the author claims is the concept of a self.
 
Top