Thread: Buddhist notion of the self

He's just telling people what the culture is about.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

I'm not quite sure I understand Buddhist metaphysics. From my point of view, the self can mean two things:
1. Habitual patterns of thought, perception, and experience. This includes memory of past thoughts, perceptions, and experiences. For example: I am my memories (which can change), my habitual thoughts (I enjoy reading, playing sports) (I have XYZ beliefs). However, all these things can change and therefore there is no enduring self.
2. The person who perceives perception of these things itSelf. The thinker awareness of thoughts. "I am not the thought. I observe/perceive the thought".

Chew on those changes... Its close to the flavor of gum I chew

The" person who percieves" is merely a temporary assignment of value that perception gives itSelf, a assignment that It can get lost in...IE- believe itSelf to be

Originally Posted by tommo

None of the texts of Buddhism are supposed to be taken seriously at all. Listen to some Alan Watts talks on Buddhism. He's studied many religions, including Buddhism and he explains that anyone who knows what Buddhism is about doesn't even read the books, unless it's just for fun, because most of the history is just made up anyway. Or maybe history is not the best word to use, I mean all the examples etc, I forgot what they're called, accounts of teaching etc.

Just going to point this out, Alan Watts was a bit of a hypocrite. He ended up becoming an alcoholic and divorcing once (or twice). Perhaps a discussion of Watts deserves another thread. I became a very disillusioned with reading ANYTHING by a spiritual "teacher" after discovering that he was a hypocrite. He sounded great on paper. But it's all about practice.

However, I do agree that a lot of the books written about Buddhism are not meant to be taken seriously. Hence the phrase, "Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself". I think the whole purpose of Buddhist koans is to get you to think so hard that you give up thinking about them (or realize the limits of language) and switch your attention to the practice of meditating.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Chew on those changes... Its close to the flavor of gum I chew

The" person who percieves" is merely a temporary assignment of value that perception gives itSelf, a assignment that It can get lost in...IE- believe itSelf to be

I came to a realization similar to this today. We can't really separate the perception from the perceiver. We are nothing more than a collection of perceptions. We are what we perceive.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Just going to point this out, Alan Watts was a bit of a hypocrite. He ended up becoming an alcoholic and divorcing once (or twice). Perhaps a discussion of Watts deserves another thread. I became a very disillusioned with reading ANYTHING by a spiritual "teacher" after discovering that he was a hypocrite. He sounded great on paper. But it's all about practice.

Well, what does it matter? He isn't a hypocrite. Life is a game, that's the whole point, why does it matter if you drink too much or divorce someone?
Plus, everything, or at least most of what he said is still true, even if he didn't end up destroying his ego. Also, I'm not really sure how much of that is true. I read in to it and all I could find was one woman researching his life and that was apparently something she found out.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

However, I do agree that a lot of the books written about Buddhism are not meant to be taken seriously. Hence the phrase, "Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself". I think the whole purpose of Buddhist koans is to get you to think so hard that you give up thinking about them (or realize the limits of language) and switch your attention to the practice of meditating.

Koans, that's the word I was looking for. And that describes what I was trying to say well. Thanks.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, what does it matter? He isn't a hypocrite. Life is a game, that's the whole point, why does it matter if you drink too much or divorce someone?
Plus, everything, or at least most of what he said is still true, even if he didn't end up destroying his ego. Also, I'm not really sure how much of that is true. I read in to it and all I could find was one woman researching his life and that was apparently something she found out.

Koans, that's the word I was looking for. And that describes what I was trying to say well. Thanks.

I'm going to make a separate thread for a discussion of Alan Watts. I thought the words he was saying were really deep until I realized that he was a hypocrite. I think the whole notion of anyone preaching discipline over one's mind and then becoming an alcoholic is a bit fishy.

Link?

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, what does it matter? He isn't a hypocrite. Life is a game, that's the whole point, why does it matter if you drink too much or divorce someone?
Plus, everything, or at least most of what he said is still true, even if he didn't end up destroying his ego. Also, I'm not really sure how much of that is true. I read in to it and all I could find was one woman researching his life and that was apparently something she found out.

Firstly you don't want to destroy your ego, if you did you would go insane. You just want to realize what the ego is and to be aware of it. You can't function in society without at least some ego.

The whole point of all this stuff is to stop creating suffering for yourself and others. Non-violence. You don't need to destroy anything to find peace, it is right here.

But the fact is everything matters. Every single aspect of every single event. It all has an effect. If you drink too much you will cause yourself a lot of suffering. Divorce not only causes suffering for oneself but also for others. Now in some cases a divorce is the right move, the fact that he was divorced does not make him a hypocrite but being an alchoholic does. If you have issues with drugs you are not free, I know this first hand.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/alan-w...ocrite-113905/

Originally Posted by stonedape

Firstly you don't want to destroy your ego, if you did you would go insane. You just want to realize what the ego is and to be aware of it. You can't function in society without at least some ego.

The whole point of all this stuff is to stop creating suffering for yourself and others. Non-violence. You don't need to destroy anything to find peace, it is right here.

But the fact is everything matters. Every single aspect of every single event. It all has an effect. If you drink too much you will cause yourself a lot of suffering. Divorce not only causes suffering for oneself but also for others. Now in some cases a divorce is the right move, the fact that he was divorced does not make him a hypocrite but being an alchoholic does. If you have issues with drugs you are not free, I know this first hand.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/alan-w...ocrite-113905/

So ego death is a desirable state of mind, but only temporarily? I'm not really sure what the "goals" of Buddhism really are. Is it elimination of suffering through the attainment of Nirvana (ego death?)?

In my view, it isn't ego death. It is seeing the ego as the illusion that it is. It is an invention in order to survive. It isn't the self. That is what the point is in my view. But there is a knack or skill in holding the ego in a state of suspension where you can see around and through it moment to moment. This moment to moment living outside the ego becomes a flow, like a beaded necklace of each successive moment threaded on the string of the life-stream. It is desirable to immerse one self in the flow as much as possible during meditations and sleep, but hanging out in the world it will suffice to let the ego form enough in order to not act like a babbling idiot shitting in your pants. Not that that would ever happen, that is what the ego fears will happen. That is the ego saying "you need me or else you will be an incompetent fool!" The ego is not the same thing as the mind, yet they are very similar.

The quote from Buddhist scriptures regarding the nature of self are good. I heard other quotes where the Buddha said that the belief in a separate individual independent permanent self is erroneous. The self is like a point created by many lines criss-crossing. The point is dependent on the lines, but the lines are always changing. According to the Tibetan teachings of Dzogchen, the true nature of mind is not individual but Universal. Without conceptual thought, but directly experiencing content-less awareness, the nature of mind is like boundless space. It is called Rigpa or Calm Abiding. This is the true self, but it isn't individual, it is the self of all. You die into it. All things that you percieve and all thoughts you believe in are all manifestations of Rigpa, or your true nature. It is as if you are a dream character in your own dream. Maybe you are dreaming you are a butterfly. Now you aren't really a butterfly, that is a dream. The objects in your dream are as much a manifestation of your mind as your self as the butterfly is.

Buddha was attempting to reform Hinduism. He greatly influenced Patanjali who wrote the Yoga Sutras. Anyway, in Hinduism they teach that there is a permanent self that is indestructable and that you are god. Buddha observed that this line of thought was not helpful in seeing past the ego. He observed that Hindu Yogis were even more egotistical than the common man. He decided rather than people trying to become one with the Universe by becoming bigger humans (Gods) that it was far easier to just get the ego death over with. But both are true, but Buddhism has a deeper insight, because the Buddha was so cool. It is a paradox, the no-self is your true self. But it isn't yours or mine. It cannot be owned. You can allow it to flow through you if you hold your ego aside.

Yes the buddha did not teach anything about "ego death", but rather seeing through the nature of the ego and becoming free of its control over your life. It is about realizing the transparent nature of the self image and its illusion of solidity, which causes the "world" to appear separate from "me". However he went into much greater detail about perceptions far beyond this, such as the fallacy of "existence or non-existence", and even "neither existence nor non-existence". He was very thorough in his repudiation of the current systems of his day and was quite involved with the intensely metaphysical aspects of their theories and philosophies. It is almost impossible for the modern westerner to follow his teachings as written in the pali canon, due to our disconnect from this background - which was entirely immersed in jainism and other vedic systems of thought. Even the word which is constantly used in the pali canon to indicate a liberated being, "arahant", is from the jain tradtion, as are the concepts of karma and dharma and dhyana and so forth. The teaching of Siddartha Guatama was not even the first teaching of "anatman", or no-self. However it was and still remains the most popular and widely known.

Dzogchen particularly embraced the practices of dream yoga, in terms of employing trekcho and togal in a more all-encompassing way. Dream yoga was one of the famed six yogas of Naropa, who was one of the forefathers of all tibetan buddhism, by way of the mahasiddhas. There are specific steps and practices employed in dream yoga to realize the illusory nature of the dream world, which subsequently helps to realize the illusory nature of all objects of perception and phenomena of the mind itself, including perception of the physical world. Eventually the practice results in a 24-7 lucidity which is unbroken even in the deepest sleep (during delta brain waves). At that point awareness has returned to its source, and the basis or "ground" is all that remains. Once that occurs, there is no longer any discrepancy or barrier between the observer and the observed - and therefore infinitely wondrous things become possible. All events become the synchronicity of an awakened being in an awakened world, and mahamudra (the "great symbol") is established.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Firstly you don't want to destroy your ego, if you did you would go insane. You just want to realize what the ego is and to be aware of it. You can't function in society without at least some ego.

The whole point of all this stuff is to stop creating suffering for yourself and others. Non-violence. You don't need to destroy anything to find peace, it is right here.

But the fact is everything matters. Every single aspect of every single event. It all has an effect. If you drink too much you will cause yourself a lot of suffering. Divorce not only causes suffering for oneself but also for others. Now in some cases a divorce is the right move, the fact that he was divorced does not make him a hypocrite but being an alchoholic does. If you have issues with drugs you are not free, I know this first hand.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/alan-w...ocrite-113905/

I am completely insane. I let go of myself. I let go of my attachment. I let go of my attachment to love. With nothing to lose I am not afraid of anything. Everything leads to death. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you have or what you are when you are dead. Love is everything. It is all I want. I am not attached to it though. I am not afraid to lose it. That is what makes me completely fucking insane. I love you guyz <3

If you are not attached to love that gives you the freedom to love unconditionally.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Firstly you don't want to destroy your ego, if you did you would go insane. You just want to realize what the ego is and to be aware of it. You can't function in society without at least some ego.

That is why people seeking ego-death need people who have already gained it to guide them. Otherwise they do seem insane. One needs to learn how to reincorporate in to their society.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The whole point of all this stuff is to stop creating suffering for yourself and others. Non-violence. You don't need to destroy anything to find peace, it is right here.

I agree, destroying is the wrong word. You need to see past it, and really see past it.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But the fact is everything matters. Every single aspect of every single event. It all has an effect. If you drink too much you will cause yourself a lot of suffering. Divorce not only causes suffering for oneself but also for others. Now in some cases a divorce is the right move, the fact that he was divorced does not make him a hypocrite but being an alchoholic does. If you have issues with drugs you are not free, I know this first hand.

I disagree, if you are free, you are free to do whatever you want. Drinking lots of alcohol is not wrong.

It's worthwhile making a distinction between reincarnation in the Hindu sense (transmigration of the soul) and rebirth as taught by the Buddha, but "reincarnation is bullshit" and "The Buddha taught what I want him to have taught" is not the way to draw the distinction. From a lay perspective, reincarnation may as well be true--it's a reasonable approximation for most intents and purposes. Reincarnation and, specifically, the idea of atman, "ultimate self" or the soul becomes an obstruction only in pursuit of right view and nirvana. For the lay person with little spiritual practice who is just trying to 'be good' and praise Buddha, it's good enough to understand that you may be reborn as a deity or a weasel based on your actions in this life. Moreover, understanding that we are more-or-less reincarnated lays the foundation for a deeper understanding of no-self and interdependent co-arising.

A couple of analogies often used to describe the succession of rebirths in Buddhism:

1. Our past lives are like a stack of dice. Each rests upon those beneath it, but there is no string connecting them nor any core element transferred up the stack from one to the next.

2. Our lives are like the flame of one candle used to light another. The new flame undeniably relies on the previous for its nature and existence, they are in a sense the same flame, yet again there is nothing that has passed from one to the other, just a continuity of cause and effect establishing identity between them.

Originally Posted by Vajrakilaya

Yes the buddha did not teach anything about "ego death", but rather seeing through the nature of the ego and becoming free of its control over your life. It is about realizing the transparent nature of the self image and its illusion of solidity, which causes the "world" to appear separate from "me". However he went into much greater detail about perceptions far beyond this, such as the fallacy of "existence or non-existence", and even "neither existence nor non-existence". He was very thorough in his repudiation of the current systems of his day and was quite involved with the intensely metaphysical aspects of their theories and philosophies. It is almost impossible for the modern westerner to follow his teachings as written in the pali canon, due to our disconnect from this background - which was entirely immersed in jainism and other vedic systems of thought. Even the word which is constantly used in the pali canon to indicate a liberated being, "arahant", is from the jain tradtion, as are the concepts of karma and dharma and dhyana and so forth. The teaching of Siddartha Guatama was not even the first teaching of "anatman", or no-self. However it was and still remains the most popular and widely known.

Dzogchen particularly embraced the practices of dream yoga, in terms of employing trekcho and togal in a more all-encompassing way. Dream yoga was one of the famed six yogas of Naropa, who was one of the forefathers of all tibetan buddhism, by way of the mahasiddhas. There are specific steps and practices employed in dream yoga to realize the illusory nature of the dream world, which subsequently helps to realize the illusory nature of all objects of perception and phenomena of the mind itself, including perception of the physical world. Eventually the practice results in a 24-7 lucidity which is unbroken even in the deepest sleep (during delta brain waves). At that point awareness has returned to its source, and the basis or "ground" is all that remains. Once that occurs, there is no longer any discrepancy or barrier between the observer and the observed - and therefore infinitely wondrous things become possible. All events become the synchronicity of an awakened being in an awakened world, and mahamudra (the "great symbol") is established.

What are you referring to when you talk about "existence and non-existence". Elaborate please.
Also, when referring to the "illusory nature of the world", would that be considered solipsism, dualism, or idealism?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's worthwhile making a distinction between reincarnation in the Hindu sense (transmigration of the soul) and rebirth as taught by the Buddha, but "reincarnation is bullshit" and "The Buddha taught what I want him to have taught" is not the way to draw the distinction. From a lay perspective, reincarnation may as well be true--it's a reasonable approximation for most intents and purposes. Reincarnation and, specifically, the idea of atman, "ultimate self" or the soul becomes an obstruction only in pursuit of right view and nirvana. For the lay person with little spiritual practice who is just trying to 'be good' and praise Buddha, it's good enough to understand that you may be reborn as a deity or a weasel based on your actions in this life. Moreover, understanding that we are more-or-less reincarnated lays the foundation for a deeper understanding of no-self and interdependent co-arising.

A couple of analogies often used to describe the succession of rebirths in Buddhism:

1. Our past lives are like a stack of dice. Each rests upon those beneath it, but there is no string connecting them nor any core element transferred up the stack from one to the next.

2. Our lives are like the flame of one candle used to light another. The new flame undeniably relies on the previous for its nature and existence, they are in a sense the same flame, yet again there is nothing that has passed from one to the other, just a continuity of cause and effect establishing identity between them.

I heard an example I liked when I was reading "The Monk and the Philosopher". I paraphrase here: "Buddhism believes in the conservation of consciousness (reincarnation) like science believes in the conservation of matter. Consciousness nor matter can neither be created nor destroyed. They can only change forms".

Originally Posted by kidjordan

What are you referring to when you talk about "existence and non-existence". Elaborate please.
Also, when referring to the "illusory nature of the world", would that be considered solipsism, dualism, or idealism?

It is idealism. It is that all that exists is mind. There is a tree, there is a car, there is your mother, but they are all mind. Not YOUR mind, but just mind. You are also an expression of this mind. It is not not YOUR mind, but it is not your mind. It is just THE MIND that we all experience. But solipsism is just that you can't be certain if there is a tree, a car, or your mother, because that is OUTSIDE your mind. It is definitely YOUR mind, and it is the dualist perception that what is outside of it one cannot be sure of. So solipsism is a dualist version of idealism.

Dream yoga is so powerful because one gets to work with this non-dualistic mind directly to see how all things are impermanent manifestations of this mind. They come from it, when they are present they still are this mind, and when they are no longer they dissolve back into this Mind. A lucid dreamer knows that everything in the dream is a manifestation of the mind. And it is important to have this skill because, as the Buddha said: "Even though all phenomena are transitory and having no permanent self nature having arisen from the Mind, they continue to manifest constantly." That is, that Nirvana is not some void, but it is a sublime lucidity that allows one to live in the World, and die and still see that everything is just the mind, like a lucid dream. PanENtheist, Monist, Idealist.

Originally Posted by tommo

I disagree, if you are free, you are free to do whatever you want. Drinking lots of alcohol is not wrong.

It does damage the body. I'm not talking about binge drinking, I'm talking about drinking all the time. Your body just can't do it, same with being a heavy smoker or a heroin addict. it's physically bad for you in a debilitating way and is an addiction, not what you want or are choosing to do of your own will. This is hypocritical of a non-violent philosophy or one that aims to end suffering. Being a drug addict(which an alcoholic is) is not freedom.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

It is idealism. It is that all that exists is mind. There is a tree, there is a car, there is your mother, but they are all mind. Not YOUR mind, but just mind. You are also an expression of this mind. It is not not YOUR mind, but it is not your mind. It is just THE MIND that we all experience. But solipsism is just that you can't be certain if there is a tree, a car, or your mother, because that is OUTSIDE your mind. It is definitely YOUR mind, and it is the dualist perception that what is outside of it one cannot be sure of. So solipsism is a dualist version of idealism.

Dream yoga is so powerful because one gets to work with this non-dualistic mind directly to see how all things are impermanent manifestations of this mind. They come from it, when they are present they still are this mind, and when they are no longer they dissolve back into this Mind. A lucid dreamer knows that everything in the dream is a manifestation of the mind. And it is important to have this skill because, as the Buddha said: "Even though all phenomena are transitory and having no permanent self nature having arisen from the Mind, they continue to manifest constantly." That is, that Nirvana is not some void, but it is a sublime lucidity that allows one to live in the World, and die and still see that everything is just the mind, like a lucid dream. PanENtheist, Monist, Idealist.

I have permanent dream characters that represent all these different aspects of myself. They told me I am a part of them they are a part of me. Last night I killed all of them though, hundreds of them. I killed every last one of them.

Originally Posted by stonedape

It does damage the body. I'm not talking about binge drinking, I'm talking about drinking all the time. Your body just can't do it, same with being a heavy smoker or a heroin addict. it's physically bad for you in a debilitating way and is an addiction, not what you want or are choosing to do of your own will. This is hypocritical of a non-violent philosophy or one that aims to end suffering. Being a drug addict(which an alcoholic is) is not freedom.

In what way do you not choose it?
I smoke cigarettes. I chose to start smoking.
I could choose to quit, but I don't.
Sure, there's the addiction which makes it hard to quit, no doubt. But if I wanted to, I could choose to not smoke.

The same applies to every addiction. I know that sounds like the almost cliche "I could if I wanted to, but I don't so I won't".
But it is true. One always has the choice. Even if there is some chemical reaction playing a part in the decision.

We all die someday, and if we are aware that we don't die than we are not doing violence to ourselves. Plenty of people of power do things like smoke and drink, but they do it prayerfully. They even eat meat, they even hunt and kill in order to eat. But this is not violence. However, being addicted to tobacco whether you choose to or not does rob you of your vital force. Not that you die later, but that you don't live now. You operate on a minimum. That is why when people try to quit smoking they get very restless, because they are feeling their original energy level which they have been repressing for a long time. They can't handle their natural energy level and they get restless and irritable. Smoking really is a fool's pleasure. I don't care what anyone says. It is a pleasure, but a weak stupid one, it is meant to be a prayer, and not done habitually. That said, many great people have been addicted to smoking, and that was the limit they placed on their greatness. Not that it is inherently bad to take in a toxin intentionally, but to limit your vitality until real vitality makes you uncomfortable. Not that there is anything wrong if you choose to make your circulation bad and have heart problems and become impotent sooner or later, but that is a foolish choice for the pleasure of feeling your weak inhalations. The real pleasure is feeling your breathing, that is why people smoke. And only under-breathers are addicted to smoking. As for drinking, if you can handle it there is nothing wrong with it, but if it is and addiction, if there is a chemical dependency that is stronger than your freewill power, than it is foolish. It is not bad, just foolish. If it hurts other people, then it is bad. Yes, you can choose to stop smoking or drinking even if you are addicted if you have very very very strong willpower, but unless you actually make that choice, than saying that you COULD quit if you wanted to, but you choose not to, is part of the addiction. It is not just a chemical addiction, it is a mental addiction, and the mind is stronger than the body if you are intelligent. Then the mental addiction will be the stronger one, as in your case. If you are wise and not just intelligent, you will see that both your mind and your body can deplete your spirit or replenish it, and even though you have a choice, the wise will always choose to replenish their spirit. If you are not wise than both will master you and you will remain their slave while you rationalize that you are free. Go without tobacco for only three weeks, since you have the choice, you can always smoke after three weeks if you choose. What will you be missing? This is a challenge.

How about smoke one cigarette a day, at night, after you get all your business done and eat your dinner? And when you smoke that time, make it a conscious choice to smoke and do nothing else. Don't talk, don't think, just smoke. Feel the smoke, feel the breath. Taste it. Suck on it. Feel your lungs. Watch the smoke float up to the heavens. This is not a foolish way to smoke.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

I have permanent dream characters that represent all these different aspects of myself. They told me I am a part of them they are a part of me. Last night I killed all of them though, hundreds of them. I killed every last one of them.

No you didn't. Because they never existed in the first place. They were a part of your mind. They just became what they always were. You didn't kill anybody and nobody died.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Go without tobacco for only three weeks, since you have the choice, you can always smoke after three weeks if you choose. What will you be missing? This is a challenge.

I agree with what you're saying there, I just wanted to point out that three weeks is the time to get rid of the physical addiction. The mental addiction is likely to go on forever, if you aren't happy that you don't smoke. That's why you see people who have "quit" smoking long ago, hiding from their families to take breaks and smoke and ridicule themselves. Sorry to go off topic but I have quit smoking and I did it in a time when I was addicted. I did this with the help of a book, which I've read out of curiosity, when I still wanted to smoke but I was afraid that I would never quit. I'm not sure if I should post the title here (many would think that I'm advertising it) so if anyone's interested, pm me and I will respond.