Buddhism and the 'self' (not that again!)

[punkdbass]

The most important knowledge that transformed everything for me was that the emptiness is not devoid of the power of discernment

(No worries about the nickname haha I honestly can't remember exactly why I created my account with such an awful name lol I know I was really young and really into punk music and bass guitar... who knows ha)

Interesting, I have never really thought of this point before. It's an interesting thought experiment.. try to imagine little cells or bacteria interacting with each other - it would appear to us that the reason they can interact is because they have some level of "power of discernment." Think of your immune system.. it would appear to us that our immune system's cells have some "level of discernment" in which they know which types of cells to fight, save, heal, etc. It would "appear" to us that our stomach and kidneys have some sort of "level of discernment" in order to do what they have to do. It reminds me of a post I read in the Hinduism DIR in which a member essentially said that everything is energy. All that exists in energy (or "Brahman" if you will). And "consciousness" is an inseparable trait of energy. Here is a snippit of their quote:

Awareness and energy are inseparable, were there is energy there will be self, were there is consciousness there is energy.
Consciousness is to energy, as sweetness is to sugar.
Energy is to consciousness, as water is to wettness.

This simply put means their is one universal pan-organistic body called the universe/Energy.
& there is only one universal spirit. This also forms the basis of an older philosophy called Sankhaya.

It's interesting, but perhaps its the Taoist or Zen Buddhist in me coming out but I still hesitate to say, with conviction, that energy has "consciousness." It could simply be us projecting our views of how human life works into all other phenomena, such as energy. What I mean is, we strongly think human beings have "consciousness," and perhaps we are merely projecting these views into the concept of "energy" when we contemplate it. Can we ever truly know energy is conscious? Maybe.. but it certainly isnt a conviction for me by any means. Perhaps what appears to us in energy as a "level of discernment" is merely just the in-explainable "Tao" naturally expressing itself. Who knows, interesting post nontheless.

 

[punkdbass]

After reading atanu's post, I realized something. We're all here, trying to get to the point of a specific Buddhist doctrine, that of anatta, and unless it's something we've attained, we can only argue it from the opposite position. In other words, we're trying to get to the bottom of egolessness by trying to argue from the position of ego. Unless one has attained and experienced it, all we can do is use words and ideas that will never fully convey the point.

Good point, what we really need is an enlightened one to point us the way! lol and I think most of the members in the Buddhism DIR have some level of faith in the Buddha's ability in being able to point us there.

But I don't think it's as black and white as you're implying. If we all essentially have innate Buddha Nature or a "seed of Buddha-hood potential," at all times, then I think it's possible for us, despite being still largely in the position of ego, to have moments of clarity and insight in which we can share useful thoughts that can help point others to the path of Liberation. I don't think its a matter of this or that (you're either completely Buddha or completely ego).. I think every being has many experiences in which they get in touch with their inner Buddha nature before they become completely liberated. And I think such experiences can be helpful, despite still being largely in the realm of ego-consciousness, for helping to point others to the path of Liberation.

 

[Ablaze]

And in the process the all pervading nature of the emptiness ( which is not impermanent and which is not devoid of power of discernment) gets veiled. The most important knowledge that transformed everything for me was that the emptiness is not devoid of the power of discernment.

Emptiness is not a thing in Buddhism. There is no "the" before it. Emptiness refers to emptiness of self. Everything is empty of a self (i.e., not self-existent) due to being interdependently originated.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Good point, what we really need is an enlightened one to point us the way! lol and I think most of the members in the Buddhism DIR have some level of faith in the Buddha's ability in being able to point us there.

But I don't think it's as black and white as you're implying. If we all essentially have innate Buddha Nature or a "seed of Buddha-hood potential," at all times, then I think it's possible for us, despite being still largely in the position of ego, to have moments of clarity and insight in which we can share useful thoughts that can help point others to the path of Liberation. I don't think its a matter of this or that (you're either completely Buddha or completely ego).. I think every being has many experiences in which they get in touch with their inner Buddha nature before they become completely liberated. And I think such experiences can be helpful, despite still being largely in the realm of ego-consciousness, for helping to point others to the path of Liberation.

I agree, and I think this is why we have so many answers that don't seem to exactly correspond to each other. Like I said earlier, we're all on different points of the path, and speak from our own experiences. This doesn't mean any of us are right or wrong.

 

[atanu]

(No worries about the nickname haha I honestly can't remember exactly why I created my account with such an awful name lol I know I was really young and really into punk music and bass guitar... who knows ha)

Interesting, I have never really thought of this point before. It's an interesting thought experiment.. try to imagine little cells or bacteria interacting with each other - it would appear to us that the reason they can interact is because they have some level of "power of discernment." Think of your immune system.. it would appear to us that our immune system's cells have some "level of discernment" in which they know which types of cells to fight, save, heal, etc. It would "appear" to us that our stomach and kidneys have some sort of "level of discernment" in order to do what they have to do. It reminds me of a post I read in the Hinduism DIR in which a member essentially said that everything is energy. All that exists in energy (or "Brahman" if you will). And "consciousness" is an inseparable trait of energy. Here is a snippit of their quote:



It's interesting, but perhaps its the Taoist or Zen Buddhist in me coming out but I still hesitate to say, with conviction, that energy has "consciousness." It could simply be us projecting our views of how human life works into all other phenomena, such as energy. What I mean is, we strongly think human beings have "consciousness," and perhaps we are merely projecting these views into the concept of "energy" when we contemplate it. Can we ever truly know energy is conscious? Maybe.. but it certainly isnt a conviction for me by any means. Perhaps what appears to us in energy as a "level of discernment" is merely just the in-explainable "Tao" naturally expressing itself. Who knows, interesting post nontheless.

I must put a note that I am not trying to equate Brahman with Sunyata here. It is for record, in response to your post.

Nicely put. I agree with you.

As per Vedanta, Brahman (the so-called ground of reality) is neither a being nor a non being, neither consciousness nor non consciousness, and neither existent nor non existent and -- yet its revealed characteristics is existence (life energy), consciousness (awareness) and bliss (unbroken). Further, on this immutable nature of existence-consciosness-bliss all objects take birth and vanish. So we call nature as Mother.

 

[Ablaze]

It's an interesting thought experiment.. try to imagine little cells or bacteria interacting with each other - it would appear to us that the reason they can interact is because they have some level of "power of discernment." Think of your immune system.. it would appear to us that our immune system's cells have some "level of discernment" in which they know which types of cells to fight, save, heal, etc. It would "appear" to us that our stomach and kidneys have some sort of "level of discernment" in order to do what they have to do.
[...]

Can we ever truly know energy is conscious? Maybe.. but it certainly isnt a conviction for me by any means. Perhaps what appears to us in energy as a "level of discernment" is merely just the in-explainable "Tao" naturally expressing itself. Who knows, interesting post nontheless.

"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise." - Gautama Buddha | Śūraṅgama Sūtra

 

[DreadFish]

I do understand and appreciate that not everyone enjoys scriptures like I do. I don't expect that everyone should. (I do hope that a religious forum is the appropriate place for me to express my appreciation of scriptures.) Everyone is different, and everyone has different talents to offer.

The main things are: we are all in the same boat, and we all suffer. However, each of us are also individuals, with unique perspectives, and unique hang ups, all in various stages of development.

If my love of scriptures is that much of a distraction here, and anyone has a more appropriate place for me to share scriptures, say the word, point me to the appropriate place, and I'll go there.

I also do understand what you're saying, and its definitely not anything personal. I also appreciate that you have an extensive knowledge of them because there is definitely a place for it. My main thing is that is seems that most issues are being reduced to whatever the suttas say and I feel that simple text references are only so effective in discussion and teaching. IMO, there's a very real need for personal insight and commentary from meditation. I like the zen approach in that the sutras are used as a sort of map that you relate your own experiences to.

I think that, while it is important to reference the suttas when saying "buddhism teaches this", when answering people's questions, there needs to be a more personal explanation based on insight from experience. This is why I usually like to cite teachings given by meditation masters, especially zen and forest tradition theravada, who have dedicated their whole career to meditation and realized things beyond what they can read and "buddhism". Once the truth is reality, instead of idea, there is a different quality to it which is definitely not dependent on terminology and semantics.

So, that's just my two-cents.

 

[Ablaze]

I looked up anatta on Wikepedia and the first sentences of the Overview section are:

The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4]

However, if the word "soul" refers to any self that is eternal, permanent, immortal, ever-lasting, or any permutation thereof, Buddhism denies the existence of this soul.

 

[atanu]

Emptiness is not a thing in Buddhism. There is no "the" before it. Emptiness refers to emptiness of self. Everything is empty of a self (i.e., not self-existent) due to being interdependently originated.

Emptiness is not a thing in any school.

 

[punkdbass]

"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise." - Gautama Buddha | Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Haha thanks! Sometimes I really need to just stop contemplating things so much and realize the truth of my dang signature..

I looked up anatta on Wikepedia and the first sentences of the Overview section are:

The anattā doctrine is not a type of materialism. Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anattā as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4]

Interesting, this makes sense to me.. although I agree with Ablaze in that if you define this so called "soul" as something completely independent and unconditional (existing in and of itself)- then Buddhism does speak against such an "Absolute" idea. But if you define soul as the "the non material part of you that continues on after death" then I could see how Buddhism could accept such a term. For example, I often see in general Intro to Buddhism books that when one dies their Karma is not destroyed but continues on. So, going to back to my example, Karma is non-material in a sense and the Karma we develop in this life doesn't just magically disappear completely when we die -- it continues on in the eternal chain of cause and effect - just like the idea of a "soul" continuing on after we die.. I think I'm starting to get this a little more now haha

Perhaps that will help clear some confusion,

Namaste

 

[Ablaze]

Emptiness is not a thing in any school.

Then why do you reify it?

 

[George-ananda]

However, if the word "soul" refers to any self that is eternal, permanent, immortal, ever-lasting, or any permutation thereof, Buddhism denies the existence of this soul.

No, I don't think the soul is permanent and everlasting. That is more Abrahamic and maybe where I get misunderstood in the Buddhist DIR. A Causal/Soul/Self/whatever body is our reincarnating body on a higher plane that exists for multiple physical lives until Nibbana/Moksha.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

(No worries about the nickname haha I honestly can't remember exactly why I created my account with such an awful name lol I know I was really young and really into punk music and bass guitar... who knows ha)

Interesting, I have never really thought of this point before. It's an interesting thought experiment.. try to imagine little cells or bacteria interacting with each other - it would appear to us that the reason they can interact is because they have some level of "power of discernment." Think of your immune system.. it would appear to us that our immune system's cells have some "level of discernment" in which they know which types of cells to fight, save, heal, etc. It would "appear" to us that our stomach and kidneys have some sort of "level of discernment" in order to do what they have to do. It reminds me of a post I read in the Hinduism DIR in which a member essentially said that everything is energy. All that exists in energy (or "Brahman" if you will). And "consciousness" is an inseparable trait of energy. Here is a snippit of their quote:



It's interesting, but perhaps its the Taoist or Zen Buddhist in me coming out but I still hesitate to say, with conviction, that energy has "consciousness." It could simply be us projecting our views of how human life works into all other phenomena, such as energy. What I mean is, we strongly think human beings have "consciousness," and perhaps we are merely projecting these views into the concept of "energy" when we contemplate it. Can we ever truly know energy is conscious? Maybe.. but it certainly isnt a conviction for me by any means. Perhaps what appears to us in energy as a "level of discernment" is merely just the in-explainable "Tao" naturally expressing itself. Who knows, interesting post nontheless.

You may have a point. But results trump theor, by recognizeing the life in all as not different from life in the body. Unbounded compassion flows. Like water.

 

[Ablaze]

Emptiness is not a thing in any school.

Since it is not a thing, it is absurd to place a "the" in front of it, as if it were an entity, a ground of being, or any other such noun. To do so is to reify it, which the Buddha warned against doing. Emptiness (like not-self) instead refers to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena. This is how emptiness is understood in Buddhism, not as a ground of being or underlying substratum, but as a means of deeply comprehending inter-dependent co-arising.

 

[Ablaze]

No, I don't think the soul is permanent and everlasting. That is more Abrahamic and maybe where I get misunderstood in the Buddhist DIR. A Causal/Soul/Self/whatever body is our reincarnating body on a higher plane that exists for multiple physical lives until Nibbana/Moksha.

Besides being Abrahamic, it is also Vedic, and arguably Upaniṣadic.

 

[George-ananda]

Besides being Abrahamic, it is also Vedic, and arguably Upaniṣadic.

I know it's not Advaitan (non-dual Hinduism). All souls will merge in Brahman.

 

[Ablaze]

I know it's not Advaitan (non-dual Hinduism). All souls will merge in Brahman.

Will? Does that imply they haven't yet? And if so, how is that non-dual?

These contradictions are what the Buddha attempted to avoid by framing not-self in the negative.

 

[George-ananda]

Will? Does that imply they haven't yet? And if so, how is that non-dual?

No, all is Brahman even before. However the spark of Brahman encased in bodies are naturally in a state of illusion (Maya in Hinduism) believing they are separate. The whole game is to realize we are Brahman by not identifying with our ego but with our soul and eventually with Brahman.

 

[Avi1001]

I am sorry if that upsets some people, but seriously guys n girls, is there some conspiracy to keep Buddhism from being accessible and understandable going on here? ... You could seriously believe it from some threads here.

Interesting counterpoint to a parallel thread about JuBu's, where we speculate that Buddhism offers an accessible alternative to Kabbalah for spiritual minded Jews.

I guess we are often reminded of the irony of our lives.

Perhaps a message here is that we all struggle with accessibility in different ways, and life requires that we continually address that challenge .

 

[atanu]

Since it is not a thing, it is absurd to place a "the" in front of it, as if it were an entity, a ground of being, or any other such noun. To do so is to reify it, which the Buddha warned against doing. Emptiness (like not-self) instead refers to the inter-dependent co-arising of phenomena. This is how emptiness is understood in Buddhism, not as a ground of being or underlying substratum, but as a means of deeply comprehending inter-dependent co-arising.

Thank you for the correction. I do not know english grammar very well.

For us, it is THE THING -- not in any graspable way, but in a way that enables awareness of all grasping. Whatever is known directly or through report cannot be known unless there is the underlying power of discernment. We also call it Narayana -- the abode or Shiva -- the One without a Second. THERE IS NO SECOND. Else, Buddha should not come back to teach. The abode, the Narayana, is not different from Brahma Vihara teaching of Buddha, IMO. But that is not pertinent here.

I do not want to repeat again and again what I already noted as my understanding. I have found that many Buddhists, in this forum, could not answer as to what was the awareness connection between samsara (characterised by risings and setting) and nibbana (where there is no passing away or coming into being), if consciousness was caused solely by interdependent origination. And after being made aware of this, no Buddhist that I know in this forum has acknowledged this.

Denying an ego-soul again and again using that very ego-soul only helps to re-enforce it like concrete. And denying that there was no consciousness base to that ego soul is another big hurdle, IMO. In that case, the loss of ego and gain of Nibbana can never be discerned.