Question to Buddhists (and Adepts of Meditation)

[Magical Wand]

I like to read about Buddhist teachings and meditation stuff (since there is some scientific evidence indicating that mindfulness meditation is very beneficial, so it is worth learning and practicing it), but there is a teaching very hard to swallow which my rational mind just can't accept, and that is the claim that there is no "self."

Sometimes I try to interpret this claim as saying "enlightenment" simply means the capacity of not identifying oneself with the thoughts, emotions and other stuff. But it seems to me the claim is deeper than that. It is the claim that there is no self at all. There is no "me" inside the brain that controls (and observes) the thoughts and emotions.

So, my question is how do you make sense of that (if any at all)? Is there another interpretation that doesn't contradict basic experience?

 

[an anarchist]

but there is a teaching very hard to swallow which my rational mind just can't accept, and that is the claim that there is no "self."

I’ll let more informed Buddhist answer your question fully (I don’t think I could provide a satisfactory answer), but I’ll say one thing which might help. Think of the non self as the Holy Spirit. As Christians, we believe all believers have the Holy Spirit inside of us. It is one Holy Spirit, yet we all have it. It is a similar concept I think

 

[Secret Chief]

I like to read about Buddhist teachings and meditation stuff (since there is some scientific evidence indicating that mindfulness meditation is very beneficial, so it is worth learning and practicing it), but there is a teaching very hard to swallow which my rational mind just can't accept, and that is the claim that there is no "self."

Sometimes I try to interpret this claim as saying "enlightenment" simply means the capacity of not identifying oneself with the thoughts, emotions and other stuff. But it seems to me the claim is deeper than that. It is the claim that there is no self at all. There is no "me" inside the brain that controls (and observes) the thoughts and emotions.

So, my question is how do you make sense of that (if any at all)? Is there another interpretation that doesn't contradict basic experience?

It is a useful idea, the "self" certainly. The "self" you consist of today (or even in this moment) - is that the self that you were ten years ago? "Anatta" - this Buddhist notion - says no, that there is not a permanent, unchanging, autonomous, essential self. Anatta also precludes the notion of there being an eternal "self" - hence it is also claiming that there is no soul. (And why there is no entity to re-incarnate). Buddhism says that what we are is ever-changing and interdependent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I like to read about Buddhist teachings and meditation stuff (since there is some scientific evidence indicating that mindfulness meditation is very beneficial, so it is worth learning and practicing it), but there is a teaching very hard to swallow which my rational mind just can't accept, and that is the claim that there is no "self."

Sometimes I try to interpret this claim as saying "enlightenment" simply means the capacity of not identifying oneself with the thoughts, emotions and other stuff. But it seems to me the claim is deeper than that. It is the claim that there is no self at all. There is no "me" inside the brain that controls (and observes) the thoughts and emotions.

So, my question is how do you make sense of that (if any at all)? Is there another interpretation that doesn't contradict basic experience?

Meditation is a discipline. It's not something you sit down with for a few hours ,weeks,, days,, years,and achieve 'enlightenment' as an end to a means.

In other words it's not a pill or therapy, more than not, it is a way of reprogramming that can be practiced and carried over in your everyday life for which the results occur naturally and gradually as one becomes accustomed to the techniques and methods as they become integrated with everything you do and say.

 

[Magical Wand]

Meditation is a discipline. It's not something you sit down with for a few hours ,weeks,, days,, years,and achieve 'enlightenment' as an end to a means.

In other words it's not a pill or therapy, more than not, it is a way of reprogramming that can be practiced and carried over in your everyday life for which the results occur naturally and gradually as one becomes accustomed to the techniques and methods as they become integrated with everything you do and say.

I understand everything you wrote here. That doesn't answer the question, though. Unless "reprogramming" the mind makes you believe there is no self. But that doesn't solve the contradiction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I understand everything you wrote here. That doesn't answer the question, though. Unless "reprogramming" the mind makes you believe there is no self. But that doesn't solve the contradiction; only makes you irrational.

Who said there is no self?

 

[Magical Wand]

Thanks for the response.

It is a useful idea, the "self" certainly.

It seems to be more than a simple idea, though. I directly experience the self. There is an observer inside the brain "seeing" the thoughts (regardless of whether it is being carried by them or not). No?

The "self" you consist of today (or even in this moment) - is that the self that you were ten years ago?

That it is impermanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Some people say all the atoms of the human body are eventually replaced in some years. That doesn't mean there is no human there, it seems to me. The same may apply to the self.

"Anatta" - this Buddhist notion - says no, that there is not a permanent, unchanging, autonomous, essential self. Anatta also precludes the notion of there being an eternal "self" - ... Buddhism says that what we are is ever-changing and interdependent.

It seems sometimes autonomous (when the mind is not in auto-pilot). Even though it is influenced by thoughts and emotion, it has some control over them.

Anyway, that's the claim, right? I want to know how do you make sense of that claim. Do you agree with this teaching? Do you know you have no self?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Magical Wand]

Who said there is no self?

See: Question to Buddhists (and Adepts of Meditation)

 

[Left Coast]

Thanks for the response.



It seems to be more than a simple idea, though. I directly experience the self. There is an observer inside the brain "seeing" the thoughts (regardless of whether it is being carried by them or not). No?



That it is impermanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Some people say all the atoms of the human body are eventually replaced in some years. That doesn't mean there is no human there, it seems to me. The same may apply to the self.



It seems sometimes autonomous (when the mind is not in auto-pilot). Even though it is influenced by thoughts and emotion, it has some control over them.

Anyway, that's the claim, right? I want to know how do you make sense of that claim. Do you agree with this teaching? Do you know you have no self?

Thanks for your time.

As @Secret Chief mentioned, the idea is not that there is absolutely no self in the conventional sense, but more that there is no eternal, unchanging "self." The thing we label as our self is contingent, interdependent, and ever-changing.

 

[Magical Wand]

As @Secret Chief mentioned, the idea is not that there is absolutely no self in the conventional sense, but more that there is no eternal, unchanging "self." The thing we label as our self is contingent, interdependent, and ever-changing.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[firedragon]

I like to read about Buddhist teachings and meditation stuff (since there is some scientific evidence indicating that mindfulness meditation is very beneficial, so it is worth learning and practicing it), but there is a teaching very hard to swallow which my rational mind just can't accept, and that is the claim that there is no "self."

Sometimes I try to interpret this claim as saying "enlightenment" simply means the capacity of not identifying oneself with the thoughts, emotions and other stuff. But it seems to me the claim is deeper than that. It is the claim that there is no self at all. There is no "me" inside the brain that controls (and observes) the thoughts and emotions.

So, my question is how do you make sense of that (if any at all)? Is there another interpretation that doesn't contradict basic experience?

The idea of self is a false idea with no reality, and it results in harmful thoughts of ego, selfishness, desire, greed or craving or thanha, attachment, hatred, and other things. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world. Thats the concept of Anatta or Anatman. This is not in conflict with your idea of self but in conflict of other theologies who believe in a perpetual self that is carried from this life to another to which self is what we gather various things out of "Thanha" or "greed".

The concept of Anatta is to get rid of that clinging passion or obsession humans have to me, myself and life. You have conflated this with awareness. Buddhism is all about awareness. You spoke of meditation. Meditation is a tool to increase your awareness. In Zen Buddhism they call it, having a mind like a diamond.

The buddhist concept is that, there is no this, or that, but understanding the void in between is all that is. So dont go to extremes of thinking I have a soul that is carried form this life to another as in Hinduism, and neither should you go to the other extreme and become an extreme materialist. Anatta does not mean you have no "me" inside the brain or maybe you would call this consciousness. Upadhaana pachchayaa bhavo means "through clinging the process of becoming is conditioned", thus it is the getting rid of clinging you have to understand this as, not the other extreme of getting rid of awareness and consciousness. This is called Madhyama Prathipadha.

You dont have to agree with this, but you should understand it.

Peace.

 

[Martin]

Thanks for the response.



It seems to be more than a simple idea, though. I directly experience the self. There is an observer inside the brain "seeing" the thoughts (regardless of whether it is being carried by them or not). No?



That it is impermanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Some people say all the atoms of the human body are eventually replaced in some years. That doesn't mean there is no human there, it seems to me. The same may apply to the self.



It seems sometimes autonomous (when the mind is not in auto-pilot). Even though it is influenced by thoughts and emotion, it has some control over them.

Anyway, that's the claim, right? I want to know how do you make sense of that claim. Do you agree with this teaching? Do you know you have no self?

Thanks for your time.

Your question about the observer is a good one. A Buddhist would probably say that there is observation, but no observer.
They might refer you to the Bahiya Sutta passage, "In reference to the seen, only the seen... there is no you there.."
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
They might also observe that self-view is a fetter, an obstacle to awakening.

More generally, the implication of teachings like anatta and shunyata is that there are no things, only processes. No entities or essences, only activities.

 

[Martin]

The idea of self is a false idea with no reality, and it results in harmful thoughts of ego, selfishness, desire, greed or craving or thanha, attachment, hatred, and other things. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world. Thats the concept of Anatta or Anatman. This is not in conflict with your idea of self but in conflict of other theologies who believe in a perpetual self that is carried from this life to another to which self is what we gather various things out of "Thanha" or "greed".

The concept of Anatta is to get rid of that clinging passion or obsession humans have to me, myself and life. You have conflated this with awareness. Buddhism is all about awareness. You spoke of meditation. Meditation is a tool to increase your awareness. In Zen Buddhism they call it, having a mind like a diamond.

The buddhist concept is that, there is no this, or that, but understanding the void in between is all that is. So dont go to extremes of thinking I have a soul that is carried form this life to another as in Hinduism, and neither should you go to the other extreme and become an extreme materialist. Anatta does not mean you have no "me" inside the brain or maybe you would call this consciousness. Upadhaana pachchayaa bhavo means "through clinging the process of becoming is conditioned", thus it is the getting rid of clinging you have to understand this as, not the other extreme of getting rid of awareness and consciousness. This is called Madhyama Prathipadha.

You dont have to agree with this, but you should understand it.

Peace.

Good explanation, though I think anatta does mean there is no "me" inside the brain/mind.
Also, could you explain what you mean by "awareness"?

 

[Martin]

As @Secret Chief mentioned, the idea is not that there is absolutely no self in the conventional sense, but more that there is no eternal, unchanging "self." The thing we label as our self is contingent, interdependent, and ever-changing.

I think anatta does challenge the assumption of a "conventional" self. I say that because self-view and conceit ("I am") are fetters.
Fetter (Buddhism) - Wikipedia
And of course the suttas repeatedly say that the aggregates (mind-body) should not be regarded as "me" and "mine".

 

[firedragon]

Good explanation, though I think anatta does mean there is no "me" inside the brain/mind.

Your prerogative..

Also, could you explain what you mean by "awareness"?

I mean vipassana. Some had called it abhinavguptha in hinduism.

 

[firedragon]

And of course the suttas repeatedly say that the aggregates (mind-body) should not be regarded as "me" and "mine".

Which sutra are you referring to specifically.

 

[Martin]

Which sutra are you referring to specifically.

Here's one example:

SuttaCentral

 

[firedragon]

Here's one example:

SuttaCentral

Do you understand what that Sutra's name, Anattha lakkhana means?

 

[Twilight Hue]

See: Question to Buddhists (and Adepts of Meditation)

Oh. The real you.

 

[Secret Chief]

It seems to be more than a simple idea, though. I directly experience the self. There is an observer inside the brain "seeing" the thoughts (regardless of whether it is being carried by them or not). No?

That is the handy, useful, intuitive, day to day understanding certainly.

That it is impermanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Some people say all the atoms of the human body are eventually replaced in some years. That doesn't mean there is no human there, it seems to me. The same may apply to the self.

Again, this is our mundane understanding yes. Entities, not processes. Like nonself, impermanence is a fundamental Buddhist idea. And because of impermanence, all things (including mental concepts) are empty of inherent, abiding selfhood.

Your atoms comment is key. But the process is not years. The whole universe is contantly changing, "you", "me", the weather, Mount Everest, the Milky Way...It is a matter of perception and time. Why should the rest of the universe consist of constantly changing energy/matter, but not humans? Clearly, we do. This must therefore include such notions we have of "observer", the "mind", the "self" - where do they reside and how can they buck the trend of the total interdependence and change occuring in the rest of the universe? If one accepts that a person ("bounded" by the skin) consists of constantly changing atoms (drinking, eating, digesting, urinating, defaecating, breathing, body repairing, etc etc etc) then no thing or concept (observer, mind etc) can be fixed or separate from the rest of the universe because the "place" these (whatever they may actually consist of) are meant to reside (our body) does not have fixed, independent selfhood. You consist of certain atoms (matter/energy) right now. Where were all those atoms yesterday, last year, when you were born, before you were born, at your death, after your death? (Ignoring notions of a Big Bang etc) they have always existed and always will; it's just that some of them briefly constitute "you." The handy illusion of an abiding self (able to observe thoughts) is hard to lose, given its usefulness and it being seemingly self-evident (haha). Thus we think we have a separate self, separate from the rest of the universe. The claim of Buddhism, of anatta, is that we are not and that in a less relativistic way, we are empty of selfhood. When we watch a film, we know it is not a real moving image, we know it is a series of quickly presented still images (or has it gone all digital?!) but having this knowledge does not cause the illusion to immediately disappear.

Anyway, that's the claim, right?

That there is no selfhood, yes.

Do you agree with this teaching?

Yes, I do.
If one does not accept it as being true then one is rejecting Buddhism. It is one of the three essential foundations. (And as I noted, one of the others being impermanence).

Do you know you have no self?

My understanding is that anatta is a more accurate description of a fundamental aspect of all (apparent) things and hence is a vehicle for the practice of living.