No self ok now what

[Wu Wei]

I have been reading (which is a dangerous thing) more books about Buddhism and I have hit on the topic of Self. If there is no self then what is there and if you no longer think about the self as it applies to you...what do you think about as it applies to you and how would one describe, or define, themselves if there is no self

I understand Buddha taught that there is no autonomous entity defined as you (or me) and that the self is more ego than anything else (the skandas come into play here but I am currently reading them and trying to figure out how this applies to non-self and what is left after there is no self)

I also recently read that there is a difference of opinion of the self between Mahayana and Thereaveda

Beyond this point, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism differ on how anatman is understood. In fact, more than anything else it is the different understanding of self that defines and separates the two schools.

Basically (from here)

Very basically, Theravada considers anatman to mean that an individual's ego or personality is a fetter and delusion. Once freed of this delusion, the individual may enjoy the bliss of Nirvana.

Mahayana, on the other hand, considers all physical forms to be void of intrinsic self (a teaching called shunyata, which means "emptiness"). The ideal in Mahayana is to enable all beings to be enlightened together, not only out of a sense of compassion, but because we are not really separate, autonomous beings.

So once you realize there is no self…what is left? At this point it seems if there is no self then there is nothing (and I am more than willing to admit this is my lack of understanding speaking).

(Warning: limited understanding of quantum physics ahead about to be used as an example) Or, is this going along the lines of things like Quantum physics where pretty much everything is connected and nothing is really solid kind of thing

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between the Theravada and Mahayana understandings of Anatman.

The way I see it, interdependent origination is such a basic truth that while we certainly have a sense of self, it is both illusory and fragile. Realizing that and learning to be at peace with that realization is a major goal in Buddhism, because it frees up the mind to seek opportunities for constructive action.

In a way, the perception of the self is a veil of sorts. It makes it that much more difficult to resist faulty perceptions of "us vs them".

 

[idav]

So once you realize there is no self…what is left? At this point it seems if there is no self then there is nothing (and I am more than willing to admit this is my lack of understanding speaking).

(Warning: limited understanding of quantum physics ahead about to be used as an example) Or, is this going along the lines of things like Quantum physics where pretty much everything is connected and nothing is really solid kind of thing

I appreciate the understanding coming from those two schools of thought. I dont think no self means no thing, but no self means then being every thing as the self was illusory to begin with.

IMO that does go in line with what we are finding in quantum mechanics, that there isnt necessarily a separateness to factually speak of, unless its a semantical exercise in perspective.

 

[Wu Wei]

I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between the Theravada and Mahayana understandings of Anatman.

The way I see it, interdependent origination is such a basic truth that while we certainly have a sense of self, it is both illusory and fragile. Realizing that and learning to be at peace with that realization is a major goal in Buddhism, because it frees up the mind to seek opportunities for constructive action.

In a way, the perception of the self is a veil of sorts. It makes it that much more difficult to resist faulty perceptions of "us vs them".

Believe me I am not making lite of this by the quote that is to follow but it seems to be where my understanding is at the moment.

If the self is a veil of sorts and you get rid of that and you no longer see us vs. them then aren't you here

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

And thereby at a collective self

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, people exist. But the boundaries separating specific people are illusory and unstable. Nevertheless, we are still capable of discernment and action, which is plenty enough.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sometimes Wiki needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I recommend reading the talk page in this article, as well as the article itself. Anatta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The section on Skillful action is particularly interesting, and telling, to me. Also see dependent origination. Briefly, the skillful action section places the idea of self within the context of the Buddha's teachings on karma, which were the central theme. Dependent origination is not unlike quantum mechanics and/or quantum entanglement, if I understand those correctly.

 

[Jainarayan]

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together"

That is also a very Advaitin song lyric. Advaita has some influence in Buddhism, and vice versa. Shankara was "accused" of being a closet Buddhist.

 

[Wu Wei]

I appreciate the understanding coming from those two schools of thought. I dont think no self means no thing, but no self means then being every thing as the self was illusory to begin with.

IMO that does go in line with what we are finding in quantum mechanics, that there isnt necessarily a separateness to factually speak of, unless its a semantical exercise in perspective.

I keep seeing the "self was illusory" and I am trying to wrap my head around that but it is just not happening and I still end up with, if there is no self there is nothing, but from a Quantum physics view (and my view there is only slightly less limited than it is in Buddhism) It starts to make a little sense.

Yes, people exist. But the boundaries separating specific people are illusory and unstable. Nevertheless, we are still capable of discernment and action, which is plenty enough.

I am not arguing against this, I am actually trying to understand this and I realize it will take a lot of thought in my part and probably a leap of faith or two but if separations are an illusion that would mean (to me at this point) we are capable of occupying the same space.

 

[Wu Wei]

Sometimes Wiki needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I recommend reading the talk page in this article, as well as the article itself. Anatta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The section on Skillful action is particularly interesting, and telling, to me. Also see dependent origination. Briefly, the skillful action section places the idea of self within the context of the Buddha's teachings on karma, which were the central theme. Dependent origination is not unlike quantum mechanics and/or quantum entanglement, if I understand those correctly.

I am actually reading more than Wiki on the topic at the moment, but I will admit I am reading Wiki too. I will take a look at the links you gave me, thank you

That is also a very Advaitin song lyric. Advaita has some influence in Buddhism, and vice versa. Shankara was "accused" of being a closet Buddhist.

Are you talking about Ravi Shankar? And didn't the Beetles study TM with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not arguing against this, I am actually trying to understand this and I realize it will take a lot of thought in my part and probably a leap of faith or two but if separations are an illusion that would mean (to me at this point) we are capable of occupying the same space.

You mean, in the physical sense?

Apparently not. It is however very clear (to me anyway) that we are all very tied to each other in perhaps more meaningful ways, including by ties of mutual social responsibility and duty, as well by a shared ecological environment.

Once we realize that, individual identity and goals are simply not that big a factor anymore.

 

[Wu Wei]

You mean, in the physical sense?

Apparently not. It is however very clear (to me anyway) that we are all very tied to each other in perhaps more meaningful ways, including by ties of mutual social responsibility and duty, as well by a shared ecological environment.

Once we realize that, individual identity and goals are simply not that big a factor anymore.

OK now that is making a little more sense. Also I may be overanalyzing this from a wrong point of view, i.e. the physical

 

[Jainarayan]

Are you talking about Ravi Shankar? And didn't the Beetles study TM with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

No, Adi Shankaracharya. He lived in the 8th century CE and was a proponent of, and writer on Advaita Vedanta.

Yes, The Beatles studied TM and Hindu philosophy. It stuck only with George Harrison. I don't know if it was Hindu philosophy or the acid when John Lennon was writing I Am The Walrus.

 

[Wu Wei]

No, Adi Shankaracharya. He lived in the 8th century CE and was a proponent of, and writer on Advaita Vedanta.

That makes more sense, sorry I was locked in Beetles mode

Yes, The Beatles studied TM and Hindu philosophy. It stuck only with George Harrison. I don't know if it was Hindu philosophy or the acid when John Lennon was writing I Am The Walrus.

John Lennon did acid who knew

Yeah I suppose that could have had something to do with it goo goo goo joob goo goo goo goo joob

 

[idav]

You mean, in the physical sense?

Apparently not. It is however very clear (to me anyway) that we are all very tied to each other in perhaps more meaningful ways, including by ties of mutual social responsibility and duty, as well by a shared ecological environment.

Once we realize that, individual identity and goals are simply not that big a factor anymore.

I like this but also the quantum reminds us that we are tied in ways not always seen or recognizable. Where even time and space become something entirely different.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ever hear of Stuart Hameroff? When I first heard him, my + mind = blown.

 

[crossfire]

I have been reading (which is a dangerous thing) more books about Buddhism and I have hit on the topic of Self. If there is no self then what is there and if you no longer think about the self as it applies to you...what do you think about as it applies to you and how would one describe, or define, themselves if there is no self

I understand Buddha taught that there is no autonomous entity defined as you (or me) and that the self is more ego than anything else (the skandas come into play here but I am currently reading them and trying to figure out how this applies to non-self and what is left after there is no self)

I also recently read that there is a difference of opinion of the self between Mahayana and Thereaveda

Beyond this point, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism differ on how anatman is understood. In fact, more than anything else it is the different understanding of self that defines and separates the two schools.

Basically (from here)





So once you realize there is no self…what is left? At this point it seems if there is no self then there is nothing (and I am more than willing to admit this is my lack of understanding speaking).

(Warning: limited understanding of quantum physics ahead about to be used as an example) Or, is this going along the lines of things like Quantum physics where pretty much everything is connected and nothing is really solid kind of thing

Yogacara perspective makes this easier to understand. There are eight modes of consciousness:
consciousness #1-5: sensory input
Conscious #6: mind, logical thinking
Consciousness #7: "I making" conceptual consciousness--inherently prone to fallacy
Conscious #8: "storehouse" consciousness.

In yogacara, anatta is the process by which the fallacious conceptual "I making" made by the 7th consciousness is logically refuted by the 6th consciousness: i.e., "this (concept) is not my self, that (concept) is not my self." Anything you can sense with your senses is not your self, as it ignores your mental capacities. Your logical and conceptual mind is not your self, as you don't disappear if you still the mental chatter. Your storehouse consciousness is not your self--nor are the contents of the storehouse.

There is really no satisfactory way to conceptualize "self" that will stand up to logical scrutiny--being everchanging and dynamic, any attempt to describe it will be incorrect within an eyeblink. It's conceptually untraceable. Accepting this frees you from clinging to erroneous conceptual concepts.

Here's a link to the Yogacara verses if you are interested in further reading:
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/BasicVersessontents.htm

 

[LuisDantas]

I like this but also the quantum reminds us that we are tied in ways not always seen or recognizable. Where even time and space become something entirely different.

I suppose it is possible. But I find it a bit too speculative for me to consider right now.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not arguing against this, I am actually trying to understand this and I realize it will take a lot of thought in my part and probably a leap of faith or two but if separations are an illusion that would mean (to me at this point) we are capable of occupying the same space.

I read somewhere that if all the mass of earth was to be compressed, we would be able to put it in one match box. I think yourself and me, if compressed will leave a lot of space even in a match-stick head. Can we ask Luis, Jai, and Idav to join us?

Are you talking about Ravi Shankar? And didn't the Beetles study TM with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Which Ravi Shankar? We had a sitar meastro and now we have a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar telling us the art of living. Were the Beetles able to levitate?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no self to arise to divide the mind into two ....the thinker about reality and the conceptual interpretation of that reality.

If you understood this, you would immediately cease posting anything more on this thread, as it is the 'I' that arises to ask questions and generally indulge in monkey chatter that prevents the understanding sought.

The sands of time are falling through the hour glass of life...don't waste life in endless talk about the walk...begin the walk.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There goes the RF. Well, we have to do something all the time even when self goes. Krishna said:

"Na hi kascit kshanam api, jatu tishthaty akarma-krit;
karyate hy avasah karma, sarvah prakriti-jair gunaih." BG 3.5

Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

"Karmendriyani samyamya, ya aste manasa smaran;
indriyarthan vimudhatma, mithyacarah sa ucyate." BG 3.6

One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.
(Somewhat sorry to bring in Krishna here, but it is only academics to illustrate a point. Even after enlightenment, the monk swept the floor and brought water.)