Bertrand Russell, non-self

[ChrisMa]

Came across the paragraph in Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy'. It gives quite a lucid explanation of the idea of non-self from a Western philosophical perspective:

"But some care is needed in using Descartes' argument. 'I think, therefore I am' says rather more than is strictly certain. It might seem as though we were quite sure of being the same person to-day as we were yesterday, and this is no doubt true in some sense. But the real Self is as hard to arrive at as the real table, and does not seem to have that absolute, convincing certainty that belongs to particular experiences. When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour', but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'. So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the same as the something which has some different experience the next moment."

I think he sums it up quite well. It's always nice to see converges between different traditions, people coming across the same realisations in different ways.

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris

[Jundo]

Came across the paragraph in Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy'. It gives quite a lucid explanation of the idea of non-self from a Western philosophical perspective:

"But some care is needed in using Descartes' argument. 'I think, therefore I am' says rather more than is strictly certain. It might seem as though we were quite sure of being the same person to-day as we were yesterday, and this is no doubt true in some sense. But the real Self is as hard to arrive at as the real table, and does not seem to have that absolute, convincing certainty that belongs to particular experiences. When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour', but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'. So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the same as the something which has some different experience the next moment."

I think he sums it up quite well. It's always nice to see converges between different traditions, people coming across the same realisations in different ways.

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris

Hi Chris,

Some overlaps with Buddhism (he had made a study of the Theravada, I believe ), but a little different too. When we realize the True Self that is yet is beyond all little selfs, we and the table, brown and Bertrand Russel are all something Wondrous and Grand, the whole universe and then some.

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[Jundo]

By the way, one of the funniest Buddhist cartoons I have come across in a long time ...

[Jishin]

Hi,

"Cogito, ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am" - René Descartes

Joke:

Descartes walks into a bar and orders a beer. When he is done, the bartender asks "another one?"

Descartes says "I think not" and promptly disappears. :-)

Valid point:

When not thinking then what?

Gassho, Jishin, ST

[Shoki]

Hi,

"Cogito, ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am" - René Descartes

Joke:

Descartes walks into a bar and orders a beer. When he is done, the bartender asks "another one?"

Descartes says "I think not" and promptly disappears. :-)

Valid point:

When not thinking then what?

Gassho, Jishin, ST

Actually when Descartes walked into the bar he said; "I drink therefore I am."

Gassho, Sat Today/LAH

James

[ChrisMa]

Interesting, I wasn't aware that he had an awareness of Buddhist teachings. It does make sense as his views are more in line with Anatta as taught by Theravada people.

Your choice of words reminds me of the non-self/True Self debate that happens from time to time between practitioners of various schools of Buddhism and Vedanta. Personally I think it's a distinction without a difference. Seeing through the small self (in a very direct, moment-to-moment, non-academic way) and seeing it as comprised of fleeting sensations, etc, reveals the great interconnected reality we're all a part of (whatever name we may give to it).

So for me it comes down to different ways of emphasing parts of experience in different traditions, but all fingers pointing to the same moon, so to speak.

I appreciate your emphasis on the fullness of emptiness, the great interconnected web of being, always in flux. Even if all paths lead to the same realisation naturally, I think it's helpful for those of us traversing it (or really not 'going' anywhere) to focus more on the vast, non-separate big Self rather than the absense of a solid small self (although in Zazen these two views are not at all separate). Hard to explain precisely why, but it seems like a healthier way to approach things.

Also, great cartoon. I don't often see Buddhist humour. I've never thought about this before but comedy and laughter can and should really have a place in Buddhist practice.

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris

[ChrisMa]

Hi,

"Cogito, ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am" - René Descartes

Joke:

Descartes walks into a bar and orders a beer. When he is done, the bartender asks "another one?"

Descartes says "I think not" and promptly disappears. :-)

Valid point:

When not thinking then what?

Gassho, Jishin, ST

Perhaps the more accurate way of putting it is: I think, therefore "I" am.

Where is the self outside of thought?

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris

[ChrisMa]

Actually when Descartes walked into the bar he said; "I drink therefore I am."

Gassho, Sat Today/LAH

James

Excellent stuff. I thought there was just one philosophy bar joke:

Three logicians walk into a bar.

The bartender asks: "Do you all want a drink?"

The first logician says: "I don't know."

The second logician says: "I don't know."

The third logician says: "Yes."

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris

[sosen]

nose-elf - that's going to keep me chuckling all day

less quoted but equally significant, Descartes also wrote "and what then am I? A thing that thinks"; this 'thingification' of the self as a function of thinking, is the fundamental separation of subject and object in Cartesian dualism. We come to this understanding intuitively by sitting zazen.

ideas about no-self - a bit like quicksand

_()_
sosen
st/lah

[ChrisMa]

nose-elf - that's going to keep me chuckling all day

less quoted but equally significant, Descartes also wrote "and what then am I? A thing that thinks"; this 'thingification' of the self as a function of thinking, is the fundamental separation of subject and object in Cartesian dualism. We come to this understanding intuitively by sitting zazen.

ideas about no-self - a bit like quicksand

_()_
sosen
st/lah

Very well said Sosen. The self isn't anywhere except for in thought.

Outside of thought there are just the sensations and phenomena. Thought tells a story that draws a line around part of reality and calls it 'I'.

In Zazen thoughts come and go. Awareness contains the thought and the silence, it contains all arising and passing phenomena inside and outside the body. The 'I' can be solid at times, and drop away at other times. But even when the thoughts are loud and the 'I' is solid, we stay aware of this. If there is awareness of something, it isn't 'me', it's just another phenomena arising in awareness.

So no grasping after self or non-self. Just awareness of what is, of all that is.

Hope that isn't too cryptic.

As you said, we know intuitively in Zazen. Beyond words and comparisons.

Gassho,

Sat Today,

Chris