I was reading a book called “Buddha’s Ancient Path” and there was a discussion of the question “What is it that is aware of…?” Fill in the blank however you want, sounds, thoughts, colors, whatever. The point made is that whatever is aware of something now is not the same as whatever was aware of something in the past or will be aware in the future. This is the essence of what Buddhism calls No-self.
Often, the idea of a Self contains the implication that there is something unique about me that persists throughout this lifetime. This notion is implied when an adult looks at a childhood picture and proclaims “that is me”. The belief is that there is some essence from the child that has threaded its way through to the adult and is the same between the adult and child.
I think the part that many people unconsciously consider to be this essence of Self boils down to that which is aware. Buddhism says that consciousness itself is ever changing and therefore cannot be Self.
Another way of looking at this is that I might accurately consider that which is aware to be myself, but that Self is born and dies in each moment of consciousness. That is what is meant by No-self.
Often, the idea of a Self contains the implication that there is something unique about me that persists throughout this lifetime. This notion is implied when an adult looks at a childhood picture and proclaims “that is me”. The belief is that there is some essence from the child that has threaded its way through to the adult and is the same between the adult and child.
I think the part that many people unconsciously consider to be this essence of Self boils down to that which is aware. Buddhism says that consciousness itself is ever changing and therefore cannot be Self.
Another way of looking at this is that I might accurately consider that which is aware to be myself, but that Self is born and dies in each moment of consciousness. That is what is meant by No-self.
posted by:
|
Washington, D.C.
|
-
Re: No-self
Mon, July 21, 2008 - 11:29 PMDon't have time to write fully, but I will offer this:
There is a constant that doesn't change...and I feel there is a mixing of 'selfs' in this writing in the sense of making a distinction between 'true self', but yes that there truly is 'no-self'. It all depends on how one is percieving and how that perception is being addressed. -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:39 AMI think the idea of the "true self" is completely different from the idea of "no-self". Both terms belong within a context. True self is in the context of a culture which seems to require falseness. no'self is in the context of the mind creating an image of self for the purpose of creating a feeling of safety and permanence....
but the constant that doesn't change? I don't see how that's possible.
-
-
Re: No-self
Tue, July 22, 2008 - 9:53 PMIt's always great when someone brings up this subject - thanks. Personally, I think it takes a long time to realize that we are but an instrument played by the shifting energies of the universe - nothing more, and the concept of and belief in the Self is nothing other than the colossal mindfuck. Yet, the whole ball of wax has such a hypnotic affect about it and is undeniably an ongoing miracle we endlessly lose ourselves in then reemerge without the slightest hint of foresight or reason. -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 1:34 AMl think we are always self, even when the we think we are not, when we don't see the sun, its still there, its just a case of temporary mistaken identity, but there is a potential of a shift back, to the weight being totally immersed in being again, rather than becoming, and actually, l think that is what everyone is searching for, no matter how misguided, because its who we are, but the mind cannot own this, because the mind only deals in past events and future possibilities, and this does not lend itself to past events and future possibilities, and the mind trying to own this is like the baby trying to give birth to the mother but it will try, in my case anyway, and, WOW.......how great to be spiritually evolved, looks a bit odd though ,somehow, to me, people acting like Buddhas, nicer than people acting tough though,
>and the concept of and belief in the Self is nothing other than the colossal mindfuck.<
True, to a point, but also the mind does have the potential of unmasking itself, maybe after years searching in vain for that which cannot be attained , and then out of shear humility and exhaustion bows down to the fact that this is all their ever was, and nothing needs to be done, because l was always who l really am, self, non separation, god, awake, whatever, and never was this, not me, who has been searching for me. -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 9:40 AM>True, to a point, but also the mind does have the potential of unmasking itself, maybe after years searching in vain for that which cannot be attained <
if you put this idea in bolte-taylor's terms, she'd say it's the left brain that gives up, which gives the right brain an audience (attention which is usually very much involved in maintaining the left-brain storyline.)
admittedly, i like the idea that so-called '"enlightenment" is just a matter of brain configuration, something we all have at hand, but usually ignore. i dislike the idea that that right brain is inaccessible unless one meditates, or fasts, or does practices, tho obviously it might happen that way. but making it a "requirement" to "attain" is just putting more cart before the horse, imo - another storyline to be maintained.
-
Re: No-self
Thu, July 24, 2008 - 1:01 AMAppreciate that response, though I'd say there is never ever anything to unmask, and that the assuming, believing, hoping or thinking that such were possible is but the unfolding of our process in a particular moment in time.
-
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:40 AMor
we are but an instrument played by the shifting energies of the universe - nothing less, -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 9:42 AM>or we are but an instrument played by the shifting energies of the universe - nothing less,<
:-)
-
-
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:17 AMI've heard that time is of the essence...to thine own self be true....not to believe everything I think (boy, is that good advice!!)...and to keep it simple, silly.
Present time is a gift, laughter is the great healer. Love is all there is. The devil is in the details. God is in the details. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
Love is all there is. Perhaps I am and thou art Love getting to experience itself...or not, as the case may be.
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 8:32 AMOr self is just an organizational tool of the mind that took itself too seriously, the original pinocchio. -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 9:41 AM>Or self is just an organizational tool of the mind that took itself too seriously, the original pinocchio.<
that's how i read it. -
-
Re: No-self
Wed, July 23, 2008 - 1:26 PMor maybe we are all a figment of our own imagination,
-
-
-
Re: No-self
Thu, July 24, 2008 - 12:59 PMLots of interesting replies here.
For my own part, I am not so much interested in whether or not there is a self, or what that might be. I was intrigued by the Buddhist idea of no-self because it more-or-less sidesteps those questions addressing rather the effect of believing in a permanent unchanging self.
