Which is Your True Self?

[godnotgod]

not a quote of Bruce Lee.....but it could have been

now THAT guy was a PERSON!

If his mind had been preoccupied with 'I', 'me', and 'myself' during a fight, he would have been dead long ago. Instead, he became one of the greatest fighters because he was focused on what was right in front of him at all times, from one moment to the next, without thought of 'self'.

 

[crossfire]

In post #114, you stated that:

"Self" is empty of inherent nature of its own.

IOW, what we call 'self' is empty of inherent self-nature; ie; 'self' being a fabrication of the mind due to ignorance of the Law of Dependent Origination, which has twelve causal links the first causal link being ignorance. IOW, due to ignorance (ie conditioning), we see a world of separate 'things', where no such 'things' actually exist. Such 'things' co-arise interdependently, and are part of all other such 'things'. The confusion lies in the fact that we mistake 'form' for 'things', and that includes mental forms, such as 'self', which we think to be real. The Dalai Lama actually equates 'no-self' with 'emptiness':

"It is only through generating such an insight and penetrating into the nature of reality that we will be able to dispel this fundamental misperception. By this insight, or wisdom, I am referring to what is known in Buddhist terminology as the understanding of emptiness or no-self. There are diverse interpretations of what is meant by the terms emptiness, no-self, selflessness, and identitylessness in the Buddhist teachings. However, here I am using these terms to refer to the emptiness of intrinsic existence. Grasping at the opposite—that things and events possess some kind of intrinsic or independent existence—is the fundamental ignorance. The profound insight that arises with the realization of the absence of any such intrinsic existence is known as the true path."

The Dalai Lama on dependent origination | Wisdom Publications

The Heart Sutra sums up the emptiness of all 'forms', perceived as 'things', by stating:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

IOW, all forms co-arise due to Dependent Origination, and are thus empty of inherent self-nature.

We see a 'whirlpool' which takes on the form of a whorl, but in reality, is simply whirling water, which we mistake for the 'thing' called 'whirlpool', where no such 'whirlpool' actually exists.

(Response to the rest of your post to follow)

I am not a metaphysical idealist. Your mileage may vary.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not a metaphysical idealist. .

Neither am I, nor is the Dalai Lama, whose quote I posted.

Come, now. You can do better. The argument that the self is illusory is pretty clear, once you digest it's contents.

But I will say this: That from the POV of conditioned awareness, the self is real without question; but from the POV of awakened consciousness, it is fiction. It is this now-awakened consciousness that is the true reality.

 

[crossfire]

Neither am I, nor is the Dalai Lama, whose quote I posted.

Come, now. You can do better. The argument that the self is illusory is pretty clear, once you digest it's contents.

But I will say this: That from the POV of conditioned awareness, the self is real without question; but from the POV of awakened consciousness, it is fiction. It is this now-awakened consciousness that is the true reality.

Perhaps I could get your definition of illusory? Thank you.

 

[crossfire]

In post #114, you stated that:

"Self" is empty of inherent nature of its own.

IOW, what we call 'self' is empty of inherent self-nature; ie; 'self' being a fabrication of the mind due to ignorance of the Law of Dependent Origination, which has twelve causal links the first causal link being ignorance. IOW, due to ignorance (ie conditioning), we see a world of separate 'things', where no such 'things' actually exist. Such 'things' co-arise interdependently, and are part of all other such 'things'. The confusion lies in the fact that we mistake 'form' for 'things', and that includes mental forms, such as 'self', which we think to be real. The Dalai Lama actually equates 'no-self' with 'emptiness':

I agree that phenomena are dependently co-arisen, but I don't think that the fact they are dependently co-arisen makes them unreal or illusory.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree that phenomena are dependently co-arisen, but I don't think that the fact they are dependently co-arisen makes them unreal or illusory.

Because it is not apparent to the ordinary mind that phenomena dependently co-arises, it thinks there are separate 'things' which have an inherent self-nature, making them 'real'. But when the ordinary conditioned mind is transcended and awakened mind comes into play, it is then seen that all phenomena dependently co-arises, and because that is the case, it is then also seen that there are no separate 'things' which have an inherent self-nature. Such 'things' are, in reality, forms, seen as 'things'. These forms, being empty of self-nature, are transient actions of the entire universe. They only seem real because they are accessible via the five senses, that is to say, via perceptual reality. So on the level of ordinary consciousness, they are real, but on the level of awakened consciousness, they are not. When you are dreaming, on that level of reality, you may dream you are a dragon-slayer, and if you were asked if you really were a dragon-slayer, you would emphatically respond in the affirmative. However, upon awakening, when asked the same question, you would respond that, of course you were not a dragon-slayer, and that your experience as such was only a dream; an illusion. What makes it very difficult for most to see that this 'material' world of 'things is illusory, is because, unlike the sleep-dream state, where the dream imagery vanishes upon awakening, the world of 'things' does NOT vanish, further reinforcing the belief that these empty forms of appearances are real.

Quantum Physics is now telling us that what we used to think to be material 'particles', are now understood to be standing waves, appearing as solid particles, due to energy fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. IOW, all known 'particles' are actions of the fields within which they are detected as such.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."

Albert Einstein

See here:

The Particle: The big flaws of the atom model

In addition, the old materialist paradigm says that this is a real material universe, composed of atoms. Quantum Physics says that this so-called 'material' world is, in reality, 'a superposition of possibilities'.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps I could get your definition of illusory? Thank you.

That which seems real to the mind and/or to the senses, but whose true nature is empty of self-nature.

 

[crossfire]

Because it is not apparent to the ordinary mind that phenomena dependently co-arises, it thinks there are separate 'things' which have an inherent self-nature, making them 'real'.

I disagree with this definition and/or requirement of being "real." See the three marks of existence: impermanence, non-substance based- (anatta,) and unsatisfactoriness (dukkha.)

 

[crossfire]

That which seems real to the mind and/or to the senses, but whose true nature is empty of self-nature.

I disagree that anatta constitutes illusory. I am not a metaphysical idealist.

 

[Thief]

If his mind had been preoccupied with 'I', 'me', and 'myself' during a fight, he would have been dead long ago. Instead, he became one of the greatest fighters because he was focused on what was right in front of him at all times, from one moment to the next, without thought of 'self'.

ok ...not bad......
in the moment and spirit of the fight......there is only the fight

and afterward......only one standing

 

[godnotgod]

I disagree that anatta constitutes illusory.

Are you sure you are not conflating 'identity' with 'self'?

"Anatta means ‘no self’ and the doctrine of anattà is the Buddha’s most unique and radical teaching. We usually assume that beyond our changing body, mind and experience is an unchanging and unique ego or self. Having identified this self as ‘me’ we then identify other things as ‘mine’ – ‘My spouse’ ‘My property’, ‘My religion’, ‘My country’, etc. This, according to the Buddha, is the cause of much of the distress and pain humans inflict upon themselves and others through greed, fear, ignorance, hatred and self-deception. The Buddha says,

‘Body is not self, feelings are not self, perception is not self, mental constructs are not self and consciousness is not self…When one sees this one becomes detached from these things, being detached the passions fade, when the passions have faded one is free, and being free one knows one is free’ (Samyutta Nikaya 3. 66).

One sometimes hears it said that the purpose of Buddhism is to destroy the self. This is not correct simply because there is no self to destroy.* The Buddha taught that when the idea of a permanent metaphysical self or soul is seen to be an illusion, then one will cease to suffer and also cease to inflict suffering on others."

Anatta - Dhamma Wiki

*What cannot be destroyed is the true nature of our Being, which is emptiness, or Sunyata, prompting Alan Watts to declare: "You are none other than the Indestructible Sunyata".

If you can realize this, you will be free.

 

[dfnj]

Are you sure you are not conflating 'identity' with 'self'?

"Anatta means ‘no self’ and the doctrine of anattà is the Buddha’s most unique and radical teaching. We usually assume that beyond our changing body, mind and experience is an unchanging and unique ego or self. Having identified this self as ‘me’ we then identify other things as ‘mine’ – ‘My spouse’ ‘My property’, ‘My religion’, ‘My country’, etc. This, according to the Buddha, is the cause of much of the distress and pain humans inflict upon themselves and others through greed, fear, ignorance, hatred and self-deception. The Buddha says,

‘Body is not self, feelings are not self, perception is not self, mental constructs are not self and consciousness is not self…When one sees this one becomes detached from these things, being detached the passions fade, when the passions have faded one is free, and being free one knows one is free’ (Samyutta Nikaya 3. 66).

One sometimes hears it said that the purpose of Buddhism is to destroy the self. This is not correct simply because there is no self to destroy. The Buddha taught that when the idea of a permanent metaphysical self or soul is seen to be an illusion, then one will cease to suffer and also cease to inflict suffering on others."

Anatta - Dhamma Wiki

I've always been afraid the moment you get rid your metaphysical self you instantly amplify the pain and suffering because you are more attuned to it.

 

[godnotgod]

I've always been afraid the moment you get rid your metaphysical self you instantly amplify the pain and suffering because you are more attuned to it.

If there is no longer a concept of the self, then whose pain and suffering is it?

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm actually pretty goofy in real life. If I catch a buzz I get even goofier. I used to be pretty uptight online, but I don't think I am anymore.

 

[Nakosis]

One sometimes hears it said that the purpose of Buddhism is to destroy the self. This is not correct simply because there is no self to destroy.* The Buddha taught that when the idea of a permanent metaphysical self or soul is seen to be an illusion, then one will cease to suffer and also cease to inflict suffering on others."

This seems antithetical to Christianity. There's the thought of reuniting with family and loved ones in Heaven.

Do you think Jesus from the NT was a self or no-self guy?

 

[godnotgod]

This seems antithetical to Christianity. There's the thought of reuniting with family and loved ones in Heaven.

Do you think Jesus from the NT was a self or no-self guy?

Firstly, he was not a Christian; he was a Nazarene, a sect of the Essenes, whose teachings did NOT include blood sacrifice, bodily resurrection, nor a virgin birth, all of which were overwritten onto the authentic teachings of the Nazarene, Yeshua, by Paul and Rome as a clever device to convert tens of thousands of pagans into the new religion.

Yeshua was a no-self guy. Evidence?

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

IOW, Yeshua is saying he is not a product of history in Time and Space, where a 'self' would experience Existence; instead, he is pure Being which does not exist in Time and Space, and which has no history or memory.

In Buddhism, the spiritual Awakening to Absolute Joy is always in the Present Moment, and not in some future heaven after death. Buddhists call the Christian scenario 'the long way home'. There is no such 'reuniting' since there was never a separation to begin with. Such 'separation' is an illusion.

 

[crossfire]

Are you sure you are not conflating 'identity' with 'self'?

No, I am not. I see anatta a closely related to sunyata--empty of an abiding essence--not based upon "substance." Anatta applies to both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, whereas impermanence and dukkha apply to conditioned phenomena:

Dhammapada XX:

277-279

When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
When you see with discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
​

*What cannot be destroyed is the true nature of our Being, which is emptiness, or Sunyata, prompting Alan Watts to declare: "You are none other than the Indestructible Sunyata".

Actually, I disagree with Alan Watts on this point--he is making sunyata a "thing," and not heeding the "emptiness of emptiness."

 

[Thief]

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

no...not really....

before Abraham.......I AM! (God)

to say I have been with you always .......personifies a belief
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.....

if you abide as such.....you ARE that law
and that law has been with us since the dawn of our formation

 

[godnotgod]

No, I am not. I see anatta a closely related to sunyata--empty of an abiding essence--not based upon "substance." Anatta applies to both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, whereas impermanence and dukkha apply to conditioned phenomena:

Dhammapada XX:

277-279

When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
When you see with discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
​

Actually, I disagree with Alan Watts on this point--he is making sunyata a "thing," and not heeding the "emptiness of emptiness."

I think you misunderstand. He is saying that your true nature is 'The Industructible Sunyata'; not necessarily a 'thing', but a state of Being, that being 'empty of self-nature'. He's just saying that you are none other than That.

Do you agree that if something is empty of inherent self-nature, then it is devoid of 'self'?

 

[crossfire]

I think you misunderstand. He is saying that your true nature is 'The Industructible Sunyata'; not necessarily a 'thing', but a state of Being, that being 'empty of self-nature'. He's just saying that you are none other than That.

Do you agree that if something is empty of inherent self-nature, then it is devoid of 'self'?

"Indestructible Sunyata" does not make sense outside of making it into a "thing."