"No-Self" as "All-Self"

[wmjbyatt]

In discussing Buddhist ideas with a very dear friend, I ran into a problem. That friend had very fundamental issues with the doctrine of No-Self. He is a strong-willed and independent fellow who is and does. Eventually, I was able to explain No-Self in a way that sat well with him, but it was difficult.

After the conversation, I began to re-think the way No-Self is taught, and I realized that this problem that I had in communicating this idea to my friend is a problem that is probably very prevalent, especially among Americans. Indeed, it was actually my biggest hurdle in coming to terms with Buddhist teaching.

So I wrote something arguing that for a different casting of No Self. As someone who is, frankly, more Taoist than Buddhist (and what Buddhist influence I have is essentially Zen), I was wondering what the reaction would be to this casting by Buddhists. As such, your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

The post can be found here: A Selfish Buddha

Thank you always,
- Wm J Byatt

 

[Engyo]

I always have to interject into these discussions: We have certain problems with the difference in terms between english and the original languagues, for one.

But the biggest point I keep reiterating is this:

The Buddha did NOT teach that No Self ever exists. He taught that No permanent, unchanging, eternal Self exists. No(t)-Self is shorthand for this concept, and people tend to get caught up in the english implications of those two words, and forget about the "permanent unchanging and eternal" part of the equation.

There is also T'ien-T'ai's middle way concept between Self and No(t)-Self to consider, as well.

 

[Master Vigil]

I would also like to add to Engyo's post... that I never liked when people change things to make it "easier" for Americans (or anyone). Coming to the understanding of anatman was itself a VERY difficult, yet fruitful awakening for many around me. But I feel that was Buddha's intention. You find people (mostly non-buddhists), especially in America, have an incorrect understanding of Buddhism simply because it was taught to them incomplete. Does that make sense?

 

[wmjbyatt]

Absolutely, it makes sense. But is it not the Boddhisatva's duty/privilege to do everything they can to bring every living soul into realization? Why shouldn't, then, anyone teaching Buddha Dharma do everything in their power to be a more effective teacher? And does not a more effective teacher attempt to use a language and metaphorical construct with which the student at hand can more readily identify?

No matter how you teach these concepts, nobody can cheat their way into understanding. Every student must make the relevant realizations on their own, and those realizations will always be powerful. In teaching, all we can do is point the student in the right direction and try to help frame their minds for understanding. Does it not make sense to do that in a way that is culturally aware of the student's social situation and socio-normalized training?

 

[Engyo]

No matter how you teach these concepts, nobody can cheat their way into understanding. Every student must make the relevant realizations on their own, and those realizations will always be powerful. In teaching, all we can do is point the student in the right direction and try to help frame their minds for understanding. Does it not make sense to do that in a way that is culturally aware of the student's social situation and socio-normalized training?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I will say this. After 25 years of working to do what you describe, I'm no closer to knowing how to attempt to teach these concepts "in a way that is culturally aware of the student's social situation and socio-normalized training" than I was when I began. I become more and more convinced that it has far more to do with the student and their level of understanding, attitude, receptivity and so forth than the specific methods or words the teacher chooses.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

wmjbyatt that was a good piece of writing and the question of how best to convey Buddhism to a western mindset, or indeed any mindset, is always interesting. Where Engyo is coming from on this thread, well I think I recognise it.

"All Self" is not more true, or in any way "better" than No Self. The two ideas are the same, and Buddhism teaches this even in its teaching of No Self.

In a abstract sense no-self really is all-self. The problem is if you try to explain something like this in any way whatsoever - if you feel there is a need to explain it as a phenomenon, then it will certainly be interpreted in the wrong way.

If there is, as you say, a difference between not-self and all-self in technique then that difference is also a misunderstanding. Given your Taoist influence I can understand the perspective that these two differences are also (ultimately) the same, which is great, but that only makes sense to someone who already understands that perspective. Same with not-self. Not-self is a characteristic quality of trans-rational awareness. Without that awareness the concept is misleading because it will be attributed to something other than the actual experiential quality it is meant to point to.

Ah, this is the point I really want to make: I think the best way to communicate Buddhism is through actions. Actions still get misinterpreted but they're a heck of a lot clearer than words. If your friend is an is and does person then he will perhaps understand better if you be and do as a Buddhist.

The same could be said of Taoism, no?

 

[Master Vigil]

I think of it this way... I can give you an example of relativity in an analogy of the train and the flashlight.

If you have two people, one on a train going 50mph and one outside of the train standing on the platform. The person on the train throws a ball at 5mph. Now, to the person on the train, the ball is going 5mph, but to the person on the platform, the ball is going 55mph. This is relativity. However, if the person on the train turns on a flashlight, the light travels the speed of light. And to the person on the platform, the light travels the speed of light. Light does not hold to relativity.

Now, I've just broken down an INCREDIBLY complicated physics theory. Do you fully understand it? To a point where you can become a physics major?

Doubtful. The same goes for buddhism. You can explain it simply, and they may get the idea. But chances are, they won't completely understand it. And even worse, they won't be able to reiterate it's meaning fully to another.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In discussing Buddhist ideas with a very dear friend, I ran into a problem. That friend had very fundamental issues with the doctrine of No-Self. He is a strong-willed and independent fellow who is and does. Eventually, I was able to explain No-Self in a way that sat well with him, but it was difficult.

After the conversation, I began to re-think the way No-Self is taught, and I realized that this problem that I had in communicating this idea to my friend is a problem that is probably very prevalent, especially among Americans. Indeed, it was actually my biggest hurdle in coming to terms with Buddhist teaching.

So I wrote something arguing that for a different casting of No Self. As someone who is, frankly, more Taoist than Buddhist (and what Buddhist influence I have is essentially Zen), I was wondering what the reaction would be to this casting by Buddhists. As such, your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

The post can be found here: A Selfish Buddha

Thank you always,
- Wm J Byatt

One of the hardest ways to convey no-self is the teaching that we are products of ego and once dropped, self-disappears. Non abiding "I".

My approach is that I like to question say whenever I'm asleep and upon awakening ask, "Where is the self and where does it go?" Yet upon awakening one finds that "self" has returned. When the ego idea of "self" dissipates such as when sleep, the living body independent of "self" continues. Upon discovery one finds that "Both" are actually identical and the same, because self and no-self are indistinguishable and fully experienced wholly.

This is the best way at the moment in my case to approach what self-no self actually is. -NM-

 

[Arav]

I know I am not Buddhist, but I feel that I have one explaination. A Sage once said that the state in which there is no "I", that alone is the Self. In this he basically is saying that no-self is all-self. If you look at if from the sense of the "I", it goes away and that is called no self. BUt the absence of that "I" is the Self. Therefore, in this line of looking at it, No-Self is the Self.

Edit: For the exact quote, look at my Signature.

 

[joea]

Yes it is sometimes difficult to understand Buddha's teachings but I have always asked the question if there is no self, then what happens to our consciousness?...is it possible there is a thing such as the "unknowable self?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know I am not Buddhist, but I feel that I have one explaination. A Sage once said that the state in which there is no "I", that alone is the Self. In this he basically is saying that no-self is all-self. If you look at if from the sense of the "I", it goes away and that is called no self. BUt the absence of that "I" is the Self. Therefore, in this line of looking at it, No-Self is the Self.

It is a valid enough quote and intellectually understandable, yet there is still a dualism to contend with in that no-self viewed as all-self can only be approached while the "self" is realised. No-self is cogently devoid of all such attachments and recognition. So a question pops up on how can the two then be regarded as the same and undifferentiated because no-self simply does not recognize any such thing as an all-self, whereas the all-self recognises no-self as all-self. This is why it becomes so insanely hard to to understand, but rather than intellectualize no-self as self it's better understood by simply experiencing first-hand the relationship and interconnectedness of self/no-self rather than relying on words of explanation. You will find there is a consistency, but it's wordless. -NM-

 

[Arav]

So a question pops up on how can the two then be regarded as the same and undifferentiated because no-self simply does not recognize any such thing as an all-self

This is all mental spectulation, find the Self or drop the self and the answer will become visible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is all mental spectulation, find the Self or drop the self and the answer will become visible.

Actually it is dropping of ego where self/no-self drops. No dualism. -NM-

 

[Arav]

Actually it is dropping of ego where self/no-self drops. No dualism. -NM-

I repeat:

This is all mental spectulation, find the Self or drop the self and the answer will become visible.

Also, dualism and non-dualism are all of the mind. They in themselves are dual. Reality is not dual or non dual, it simply is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I repeat:

This is all mental spectulation, find the Self or drop the self and the answer will become visible.

Also, dualism and non-dualism are all of the mind. They in themselves are dual. Reality is not dual or non dual, it simply is.

I fully agree that reality is not dual or non-dual of which reality, simply is. The conversation should stop at this as we are in agreement here and is for all intents and purposes can be regarded as the best intellectualization possible on this.

I have to ask out of curiosity though as to why then did you attach "or" then on your previous written post? (Of which I had highlighted) What did you mean by "or"?

To explain, I took your first response whereas the "visible" answer can only approached by "finding self" or "dropping self" a dualism in the the way I interpreted it, as opposed to my response regarding dropping of ego where self/no-self loses that duality and just is. You seem to understand this though based on your last posting. Methinks this was two differing approaches to what appears as the same realization here. -NM-

 

[Arav]

I have to ask out of curiosity though as to why then did you attach "or" then on your previous written post? (Of which I had highlighted) What did you mean by "or"?

I used "or" because they appear different, but they are the same. I can say "Find the Self" or "Lose the self" and I am saying the same thing. The "or" is just there to seperate, but that does not necissarily imply duality. Both ways lead to the same thing. Its like saying you can look at the "sun" or "sol", your doing the same thing either way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I used "or" because they appear different, but they are the same. I can say "Find the Self" or "Lose the self" and I am saying the same thing. The "or" is just there to seperate, but that does not necissarily imply duality. Both ways lead to the same thing. Its like saying you can look at the "sun" or "sol", your doing the same thing either way.

I appreciate the explanation very much Arav. Thanks.

 

[Arav]

I appreciate the explanation very much Arav. Thanks.

No Problem. I enjoied our discussion.

 

[SageTree]

Bump this thread. Good talks people.

:namaste
SageTree