Buddhist notion of the self

[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 these things. The thinker of thoughts. "I am not the thought. I observe/perceive the thought".

[tommo]

It's both. Fundamentally, the ego is the thing which gives you those thoughts; what you enjoy doing, thinking about etc. The ego is the part of you which you think is you. It's quite simple.

[StonedApe]

It's the second, the first is a bunch of assumptions about the self. So if your talking about the Self, the higher self or whatever it's the second. You are a thing, not a bunch of thoughts about a thing, even if you chose to identify with those thoughts. Buddhists attempt to cultivate a way of seeing the truth, of becoming enlightened, free from delusion and ego. The first thing you describe is ego and the second the self. In life, particularly in our culture, we become identified with beliefs and thoughts, with the things that we like. We lose connection with who we really are and this causes immense suffering wich we then project and recreate in each activity in an attempt to destroy reality because we start to think that it is the cause of all this suffering, all these problems.

[DrunkenArse]

The second is illusion.

[StonedApe]

if so, is anything not illusion?

[DrunkenArse]

Nope. The first one comes closer to not being an illusion though. Those are "atomic" illusions. The second is a "composite" illusion created from the first.

[Raphael]

Go meditate under a Bodhi tree for 49 days, only then will you find the truth.

[Vajrakilaya]

27. 'In what ways, Ānanda, do people regard the self? They equate the self with feeling: "Feeling is my self", or: "Feeling is not my self, my self is imperceptible", or: "Feeling is not my self, but my self is not imperceptible, it is of a nature to feel." 28. 'Now, Ānanda, one who says: "Feeling is my self" should be told: "There are three kinds of feeling, friend: pleasant, painful, and neutral. Which of the three do you consider to be your self?" When a pleasant feeling is felt, no painful or neutral feeling is felt, but only pleasant feeling. When a painful feeling is felt, no pleasant or neutral feeling is felt, but only painful feeling. And when a neutral feeling is felt, no pleasant or painful feeling is felt, but only neutral feeling. 29. 'Pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently-arisen, bound to decay, to vanish, to fade away, to cease — and so too are painful feeling and neutral feeling. So anyone who, on experiencing a pleasant feeling, thinks: "This is my self", must, at the cessation of that pleasant feeling, think: "My self has gone!" and the same with painful and neutral feelings. Thus whoever thinks: "Feeling is my self" is contemplating something in this present life that is impermanent, a mixture of happiness and unhappiness, subject to arising and passing away. Therefore it is not fitting to maintain: "Feeling is my self." 30. 'But anyone who says: "Feeling is not my self, my self is imperceptible" should be asked: "If, friend, no feelings at all were to be experienced, would there be the thought: 'I am'?" [to which he would have to reply:] "No, Lord." Therefore it is not fitting to maintain: "Feeling is not my self, my self is imperceptible." 31. 'And anyone who says: "Feeling is not my self, but my self is not imperceptible, my self is of a nature to feel" should be asked: "Well, friend, if all feelings absolutely and totally ceased, could there be the thought: 'I am this?'" [to which he would have to reply:] "No, Lord." Therefore it is not fitting to maintain: "Feeling is not my self, but my self is not imperceptible, my self is of a nature to feel." 32. 'From the time, Ānanda, when a monk no longer regards feeling as the self, or the self as being imperceptible, or as being perceptible and of a nature to feel, by not so regarding, he clings to nothing in the world; not clinging, he is not excited by anything, and not being excited he gains personal liberation, and he knows: "Birth is finished, the holy life has been led, done was what had to be done, there is nothing more here." 'And if anyone were to say to a monk whose mind was thus freed: "The Tathāgata exists after death", that would be [seen by him as] a wrong opinion and unfitting, likewise: "The Tathāgata does not exist...,both exists and does not exist..., neither exists nor does not exist after death." Why so? As far, Ānanda, as designation and the range of designation reaches, as far as language and the range of language reaches, as far as concepts and the range of concepts reaches, as far as understanding and the range of understanding reaches, as far as the cycle reaches and revolves - that monk is liberated from all that by super-knowledge, and to maintain that such a liberated monk does not know and see would be a wrong view and incorrect. - from the Mahānidāna Sutta

[StonedApe]

Nope. The first one comes closer to not being an illusion though. Those are "atomic" illusions. The second is a "composite" illusion created from the first. I disagree. Isn't there something that is percieving? Is my eye not seeing the things on this page? I think I understand what you are saying, but I would call it form rather than illusion. Form is fleeting but it is real, or at least that is what I believe.

[DrunkenArse]

I'm not saying that there's nothing that is percieving, I am a materialist after all. I'm saying that anything that you perceive, even "you", is an illusion as you perceive it. So there is a perception of an eye that's seeing things on the page but it being "you" doing the seeing is an illusion. "Self" is a convenient illusion that let's us tie all the other illusions together. "? likes red", "? dislikes spaghetti" and "? is reading right now". As for form, we can say that there's a body. Or an eye. Or even this purely electronic page. I wouldn't give "self" that much reality though. It's really just a perceived attribute of a body.

[InvisibleWoman]

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 these things. The thinker of thoughts. "I am not the thought. I observe/perceive the thought". Buddhist notion of the self notion of the self the self " "

[Arra]

I was in an intense spiritual group for 5 months of my life in Costa Rica. They practiced getting rid of the ego pretty much 24/7. The Self, what you are apart from the ego, was not very well defined, but it was some kind of eternal oneness, 'Love' they sometimes called it, and 'God' other times. They would use lowercase 'self' to refer to the ego's self, and uppercase 'Self' to refer to the higher self. Basically, all of the 'ego' stuff that isn't the Self is negative, including the stuff that feels good, since you're dependent on it to be happy. So the goal, although they might deny it if I were to phrase it with this wording, was to get rid of every thought. But at the same time, they trired not to view the ego as negative, but instead tried to view it as some 'lost child crying out for love'. No thought or feeling was valid there. They sometimes compared themselves to Bhuddists, but they didn't believe in reencarnation or any of the other Bhuddist baggage. And the scary thing is, if this notion of the Self doesn't exist, their goal might be reinterpreted to be death. Come to think of it, the guy who ran it would often claim that "meditation is practicing dying". He may have gotten it from somewhere.

[DrunkenArse]

Sounds like a bunch of new-age garbage to me. Specifically, it sounds like trying to say that the things that I do that are good are because I'm some sort of god or star child (oh please God anything other than some hairy ape that's going to rot in the ground one day) and the things that I do that are bad are not really "me". Of course what is really meant by the "higher self" is "me" and what is meant by the "lower self" is that portion of "me" onto which I project all the stuff that reminds me that I'm really just some hairy ape that's going to rot in the ground one day.

[tommo]

I was in an intense spiritual group for 5 months of my life in Costa Rica. They practiced getting rid of the ego pretty much 24/7. The Self, what you are apart from the ego, was not very well defined, but it was some kind of eternal oneness, 'Love' they sometimes called it, and 'God' other times. They would use lowercase 'self' to refer to the ego's self, and uppercase 'Self' to refer to the higher self. Basically, all of the 'ego' stuff that isn't the Self is negative, including the stuff that feels good, since you're dependent on it to be happy. So the goal, although they might deny it if I were to phrase it with this wording, was to get rid of every thought. But at the same time, they trired not to view the ego as negative, but instead tried to view it as some 'lost child crying out for love'. No thought or feeling was valid there. They sometimes compared themselves to Bhuddists, but they didn't believe in reencarnation or any of the other Bhuddist baggage. Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. That's Hinduism. Buddhists separate themselves from Hindus for the very fact that they don't believe in any of that supernatural bullshit. That "intense spiritual group" sounds like a crock of shit. It's possible that you misunderstood it of course.

[DrunkenArse]

Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation. That's Hinduism. Buddhists separate themselves from Hindus for the very fact that they don't believe in any of that supernatural bullshit. The vast majority of Buddhists believe in reincarnation and the Buddha mentioned it in quite a few sermons.

[tommo]

Not real Buddhists.

[Descensus]

No true scotsman hurp durp

[tommo]

harr harr. Buddhism contains nothing to do with reincarnation.

[Vajrakilaya]

harr harr. Buddhism contains nothing to do with reincarnation. Thats actually quite wrong. Originally the entire point of buddhist practice was to end the cycle of rebirth, to attain parinirvana. It was described by the buddha as the deathless, the ageless, the birthless. Later mahayana buddhists would revise the goal and decided the point is to be a bodhisattva and continue to be reborn endlessly so they could help all other sentient beings attain nirvana before they did so themselves.

[tommo]

roflcopter. The point of Buddhism was to end suffering, not rebirth. You have clearly taken whatever you have read way too literally. It is a well known fact that Buddhists are seeking ego death. Destruction of the illusion of the self. So why would they believe that a persons soul goes in to another body? Hint: That's a rhetorical question.

[juroara]

You do realize there is no such thing as one buddhist faith/religion/practice?

[tommo]

You do realise you have almost no idea about anything based in reality? Including how to phrase questions. (Mine is phrased as so for comic effect obviously)

[DrunkenArse]

Tommo, I will be as quick as anyone to point out that Juroara's connection to reality is at times dubious at best. (edit: although at other times, she's pretty sharp) You're way off base on this one though. The Buddha directly and literally addressed reincarnation many times. It is a part of religious Buddhism whether you like it or not. That is part of reality.

[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.

[DrunkenArse]

Ok. So real Alan Wattsists don't believe in reincarnation.