Is the self an illusion?

[Polarbear]

Is the self an illusion according to Buddhism?

[apophenia]

This has been debated here many times. In fact I think there is a recent thread with just this title. And there are various translations of sayings of buddha that talk about self, or Self, and also the argument that he didn't say there was no self, he was describing how we incorrectly identify dependent arisings as self ... yada yada yada.

So I will present the idea another way - illusion is the self.

There. Roll with that.

[Disciple of Christ]

Originally Posted by apophenia

This has been debated here many times. In fact I think there is a recent thread with just this title. And there are various translations of sayings of buddha that talk about self, or Self, and also the argument that he didn't say there was no self, he was describing how we incorrectly identify dependent arisings as self ... yada yada yada.

So I will present the idea another way - illusion is the self.

There. Roll with that.

The self is what and why would it project anything? What purpose would it serve? Who or what is it trying to impress? Let me clarify, in order to be a dependent arising it must be existing in order to arise and then project itself.

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by Disciple of Christ

The self is what

hmmm. ineffable. inscrutable.

and why would it project anything?

because it is what (that is just a guess)

What purpose would it serve?

whatnots and stuff

Who or what is it trying to impress?

clay ?

Let me clarify, in order to be a dependent arising it must be existing in order to arise and then project itself.

that's much clearer. thanks.

Just so you know, I wasn't proposing any theories of self. I don't think there is much one can say about it which makes much sense. Like awareness. Not much you can say about it.

When I said 'illusion is the self', it was a shorthand way of saying 'if the self is an illusion, then I guess illusion is the self'. A= B therefore B = A.

Whatever it is, I would never leave home without it.

The more important question is - are you happy with your self ? If so, proceed. If not, deconstruct and reconstruct.

Solve et coagula !

Buddha indicated how to deconstruct and reconstruct whatever it is you are. So did others. The technical points get a bit slippery. You have to let the clutch slip a bit. The self is the jelly which is so difficult to nail to a tree.

[DreadFish]

What is the self that it may exist or not?

[Dagonet]

The self is an illusion in respect to the the universe as a whole, meaning we see things from a singular perspective that is split into a duality of positive and negative. Its like giving a grain of sand consciousness, if you were to do that the grain of sand would no longer see the beach,

he would see every other grain and say "well that's not me, that's someone else," forgetting the fact that they are all just part of the beach, and they all rely on one another to exist. If you took away the rest of the beach and left that one grain of sand there, he wouldn't be sand, he'd be

a pebble, or a piece of dust. So in this same regard we could consider the ego something made up by us or the Brahman to separate us from the whole thus making us forget that we are it, and the time is now.

[Shuddhasattva]

in order to be a dependent arising it must be existing in order to arise and then project itself.

Just FYI, the concept (or non-concept?) of shunyata proceeds from dependent origination not indicating actual existence of its parts.

This is also a DIR.

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

the concept (or non-concept?) of shunyata proceeds from dependent origination not indicating actual existence of its parts.

the refutations of soul notwithstanding ...(so how do the diamonds get stuck to my shoe, huh?), I love this &^%-ism from Douglas Hofstadter ...


" the soul is greater than the hum of its parts "




anyway, it's the fact that no-thing doesn't exist which makes it so relaxing, n'est-ce pas ?

.

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'm going to try to attempt to give this an answer that, hopefully, will be easily understandable to someone who may not be that up to date on Buddhist terminology and philosophy. The question shouldn't be "is the self an illusion", but "what is the self?" I say that because, if you're asking if what you consider a self is an illusion in Buddhism, the answer is yes, with a 'but'. What we generally consider our 'self', i.e., our likes and dislikes, our personality, our characteristics, our mindset, the idea that we exist independently of everything else, the idea that we have a part of ourselves, our ego, that exists eternally, is, in fact, not real. However, in some Mahayana thought, there is an eternal, true, 'self', but that is the dharmakaya, the eternal Buddha-nature that exists within all things. So, our true self, that self which is real, would be the Buddha inside us, but that self is covered by the illusion of what we think we are, which has been conditioned to think of itself in ways which is not real or true. I know I was kind of all over the place there, but I hope that helps.

[AmerikanZen]

Originally Posted by Polarbear

Is the self an illusion according to Buddhism?

In some sense it is...I'm a beginner, So I'm not going to expound upon stuff I don't have experience with.