-
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 the self an illusion?
- Thread starter Polarbear
- Start date
apophenia
Well-Known Member
This has been debated here many times. In fact I think there is a recent thread with just this title. And there are various translations of sayings of buddha that talk about self, or Self, and also the argument that he didn't say there was no self, he was describing how we incorrectly identify dependent arisings as self ... yada yada yada.
So I will present the idea another way - illusion is the self.
There. Roll with that.
So I will present the idea another way - illusion is the self.
There. Roll with that.
Disciple of Christ
Member
The self is what and why would it project anything? What purpose would it serve? Who or what is it trying to impress? Let me clarify, in order to be a dependent arising it must be existing in order to arise and then project itself.
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
hmmm. ineffable. inscrutable.
because it is what (that is just a guess)
whatnots and stuff
clay ?
that's much clearer. thanks.
Just so you know, I wasn't proposing any theories of self. I don't think there is much one can say about it which makes much sense. Like awareness. Not much you can say about it.
When I said 'illusion is the self', it was a shorthand way of saying 'if the self is an illusion, then I guess illusion is the self'. A= B therefore B = A.
Whatever it is, I would never leave home without it.
The more important question is - are you happy with your self ? If so, proceed. If not, deconstruct and reconstruct.
Solve et coagula !
Buddha indicated how to deconstruct and reconstruct whatever it is you are. So did others. The technical points get a bit slippery. You have to let the clutch slip a bit. The self is the jelly which is so difficult to nail to a tree.
Dagonet
Cheese Frater
The self is an illusion in respect to the the universe as a whole, meaning we see things from a singular perspective that is split into a duality of positive and negative. Its like giving a grain of sand consciousness, if you were to do that the grain of sand would no longer see the beach,
he would see every other grain and say "well that's not me, that's someone else," forgetting the fact that they are all just part of the beach, and they all rely on one another to exist. If you took away the rest of the beach and left that one grain of sand there, he wouldn't be sand, he'd be
a pebble, or a piece of dust. So in this same regard we could consider the ego something made up by us or the Brahman to separate us from the whole thus making us forget that we are it, and the time is now.
he would see every other grain and say "well that's not me, that's someone else," forgetting the fact that they are all just part of the beach, and they all rely on one another to exist. If you took away the rest of the beach and left that one grain of sand there, he wouldn't be sand, he'd be
a pebble, or a piece of dust. So in this same regard we could consider the ego something made up by us or the Brahman to separate us from the whole thus making us forget that we are it, and the time is now.
Last edited:
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Just FYI, the concept (or non-concept?) of shunyata proceeds from dependent origination not indicating actual existence of its parts.
This is also a DIR.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
the refutations of soul notwithstanding ...(so how do the diamonds get stuck to my shoe, huh?), I love this &^%-ism from Douglas Hofstadter ...
" the soul is greater than the hum of its parts "
anyway, it's the fact that no-thing doesn't exist which makes it so relaxing, n'est-ce pas ?
.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I'm going to try to attempt to give this an answer that, hopefully, will be easily understandable to someone who may not be that up to date on Buddhist terminology and philosophy. The question shouldn't be "is the self an illusion", but "what is the self?" I say that because, if you're asking if what you consider a self is an illusion in Buddhism, the answer is yes, with a 'but'. What we generally consider our 'self', i.e., our likes and dislikes, our personality, our characteristics, our mindset, the idea that we exist independently of everything else, the idea that we have a part of ourselves, our ego, that exists eternally, is, in fact, not real. However, in some Mahayana thought, there is an eternal, true, 'self', but that is the dharmakaya, the eternal Buddha-nature that exists within all things. So, our true self, that self which is real, would be the Buddha inside us, but that self is covered by the illusion of what we think we are, which has been conditioned to think of itself in ways which is not real or true. I know I was kind of all over the place there, but I hope that helps.
AmerikanZen
Active Member
In some sense it is...I'm a beginner, So I'm not going to expound upon stuff I don't have experience with.
AmerikanZen
Active Member
For further information on that you read chapter 6 of What the Buddha taught its called Anatta doctrine of no soul or self.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
That is not a doctrine of 'no self'. It is a doctrine of 'not-self'. There is a crucial difference.
Buddha taught that the aggregates are not self. The doctrine is about the error of attributing self to the aggregates.
AmerikanZen
Active Member
Right, when you study the Anatta chapter, the Aggregates bring up the problem of Ego,Delusion, and the illusion "I" of the self.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
That's right. It's about what appears to be self. Like the individual frames in an animation, when perceived as a sequence, appear to be a talking duck. The five skandhas are like the projector and the film. We are hypnotised and fooled by the motion, and attribute personality to the talking duck.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Wow! I've been reading these posts....... all of your points seem (to me) to be highly sophisticated and complex, and only within reach of intellectual and refined minds. So questions beg, 'on the side' ... :- Is it possible for a simple mind to reach the highest states, and if so, does it help to bother about any of these questions? I know that this is 'beside the main point' of this thread, but....... HELP!
apophenia
Well-Known Member
No, you don't need to get into sophisticated mental constructs to practice meditation. Just the opposite really.
What tends to happen is, different kinds of experience lead to a search for ways to express them. Also, some people are intellectual by nature. That probably makes it harder in some respects, because of the tendency to analyse and theorise.
Buddha did say some stuff that is not intuitive or easy to grasp. But it is probably pointless considering his sayings unless you practice meditation. The meditation experience itself throws light on the language.
So just practice mindfulness meditation, is my advice.