There is No-Self ... or is there?

[Kaishin]

I had sent a few questions to Jundo. He asked me to post them along with his answers here. This is one of them.

... we are constantly told that one of the key tenets of Buddhism is the idea of anatman, no-Self. Yet some of the Mahayana sutras in the tathagatagarbha and Yogacara traditions seem to put for a notion that there IS indeed some element that is unchanging. In the former case, the idea of the Buddha-nature being a "seed" that always exists, waiting to bloom.

Well, you are exactly right. At certain points in Mahayana history, and in certain Sutras such as the Mahaparinirvana, a great Cosmic Self was claimed by some of those sutra authors ... maybe called the Dharmakaya Buddha, or Tathagatagarbha. Some feel that it was the creeping influence of Hinduism and "Bhrahma" as the Great Cosmic One that crept back into Buddhism.

This is a big topic, and I must head to bed now. I want to say a bit more.

UPDATE (2yrs later...6/24/2014): see http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...l=1#post130429

[Jinyo]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Hi Matt - I get snagged up on this question as well.

Will wait for Jundo to say more.

(I think it's partly to do with coming from a Christian background - despite being agnostic/veering towards aetheist - I can't quite let go of the notion (or even
perhaps the sense) of a soul.

It's complicated and a bit too tired to express this well just now.

To be continued ............

Gassho

Willow

[ghop]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Makes me think of the strawberry koan...

"A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.

Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!"

Whether we call it no-self or Self, we're lucky to be here. Gather up all the sweetness you can.

gassho
Greg

[Jundo]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

This is a big topic, and I must head to bed now. I want to say a bit more.

Okay, let me try to say a little more about a topic where sometimes not saying is best.

In a nutshell ...

As a general theme throughout all the Buddhist Suttas and Sutras ... the Buddha spoke of that which is liberating when one sees through the things of this world ... the things we name and mentally define and call "things", how we feel about them, how we define and feel about ourselves (as another thing we call "me"). However, he usually never really tried to clearly describe what this liberating whatever is when we stop naming/categorizing/defining & "thing-ing" ... cause how can one clearly name/categorize/define something that is precisely about stopping the naming/categorizing/defining & "thing-ing"? :shock:

Everyone basically agrees that it is very liberating to get through to this place or view or whatever where there are not all these separate, often dissatisfying and conflicting "things" ... and that what is then is some Wholeness, Peace, Oneness of some kind. All the Buddhists basically are on the same page up to here.

However. generations of Buddhist philosophers and teachers ... for a couple of thousand years ... then tried nonetheless to do their best to describe and define what this Nameless, Wholeness, Peace, Oneness is (if, by the way, "is" is even an applicable verb, cause one of the points of disagreement was whether this 'whatever' "is", or "is not", both "is and is not", neither "is nor is not" or ... something even beyond all those categories! :shock: Reminds me of Bill Clinton trying to describe sex ... "It depends on what 'is' is :roll: ). For example, does "it" exist, or is "it" beyond existence, or something else? Also, does "it" include and somehow embody the "things" or is it completely beyond the "things" which are just total illusion? Is it forever and ever 'permanent' or is it simply timeless beyond all thought of 'permanent and impermanent'? Is it (assuming 'it' even applies as a description) a Thing of sorts ('Thing' with a capital 'T', so as not to confuse it with things). What exactly is this Nirvana/Liberation/Buddhaness?

And so, to make a long story short ...

At certain times in Buddhist history, some of those Buddhist philosophers (especially in Mahayana Buddhism) wrote Sutras in which they started to describe and refer to the Whatever that is Peaceful and Whole as ... well, some kind of Cosmic Wholeness or All Pervading Buddha Nature that is Perfect, Permanent ... maybe even a Universal God, a Holy Godhead of sorts. Sometimes they called this Buddha Nature/tathagatagarbha or the Dharmakaya or Vairochana Buddha (Buddha with big 'B') or many other names (here is a picture of ol' Vairochana with some of his entourage):



... (although, in all fairness, even then most of the philosophers said that that the names and descriptions really were still just pointing to the reality beyond names and descriptions!)

Anyway ... to cut to the chase ... in Zazen ... we sit in/as/through-and-through that Wholeness, Peace, Oneness ... right in/as/through-and-through this world of sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly "things" ...

... we sit in/as/through-and-through Buddha Nature & the Dharmakaya & Vairochana Buddha all combined! ...

... all while not worrying too much, and "giving no nevermind" to names and descriptions and the "thinginess" of whatever the heck we are doing! (assuming, of course, that "we" and "doing" are even good words for what we are doing! :wink: )

Clear as a bell? 8)

Gassho, J

[Neika]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Couldn't possibly be any clearer.

[Omoi Otoshi]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

As a general theme throughout all the Buddhist Suttas and Sutras ... the Buddha spoke of that which is liberating when one sees through the things of this world ... the things we name and mentally define and call "things", how we feel about them, how we define and feel about ourselves (as another thing we call "me"). However, he usually never really tried to clearly describe what this liberating whatever is when we stop naming/categorizing/defining & "thing-ing" ... cause how can one clearly name/categorize/define something that is precisely about stopping the naming/categorizing/defining & "thing-ing"? :shock:

Everyone basically agrees that it is very liberating to get through to this place or view or whatever where there are not all these separate, often dissatisfying and conflicting "things" ... and that what is then is some Wholeness, Peace, Oneness of some kind. All the Buddhists basically are on the same page up to here.

Thank you for this Jundo,

I have also come to the conclusion that trying to define this no-self is an exercise in futility. We can study the sutras and we can describe and contemplate our experiences, but I think it's impossible to deduct any true description regarding this True self, Unborn, Dharmakaya, Buddha nature, Dzogchen or whatever we try to label it as. We desperately want something unchanging to hold onto, but in Samsara, everything is changing, there is no refuge. Or rather, as Ngak'chang Rinpoche said "Buddhism is always the refuge of no-refuge - it is complete. It is open – it is not closed. And it is wakeful – it is not hiding in some way. Sang-gyé kyab-su ché: I establish confidence in the actuality of complete, open wakefulness."

We may experience emptiness, the absence of inherent separate existance in ourselves and everything we perceive with our senses. There may be a feeling of inseparability, interconnectedness, wholeness, oneness, freedom, at-homeness, perfection and so on. But to me, it doesn't exist as such. When glimpsing this state, it feels as if this is who I really am, so I like to call this egoless awareness my true self. But at the same time, I try to keep in mind that it is only another view, not the truth, nothing permanent, nothing to cling to. Emptiness easily leads to nihilism. Buddha nature in my opinion is the same as emptiness, but seen from a positive viewpoint. A potential more than an absence. The other side of the two sided coin. But Buddha nature may easily lead to the opposite extreme view, eternalism, atman. Was reality ever born? If it wasn't born, can it still be called permanent? Can reality be impermenent? Can reality be impure? Can reality be aware? It seems to me as if these questions do not apply. Only mind can be aware. What is mind? Mind is everywhere. I don't know more than that.

When we drop all identification with our views, there is only Suchness, things as they are, as mind perceives them, reflected by the mirror of the mind without distortion. In my current view, that is about as close to the truth of no-self as we may come.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Jinyo]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Jundo, Greg, Pontus - thankyou.

Sometimes (well often :roll: ) I need reminding that it's pointless to try and pin down the ineffable in words.

.... and someplace - on another thread - Shokai mentioned to be wary of getting stuck down rabbit holes

Gassho

Willow

[Shokai]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

I (if "I" trully exists) or if exist is even the right verb to use :roll: , thoroughly, enjoy reading how each of us endeavors to put things in a nutshell. And, I look out the window to see squirrels that would just love to get hold of those nuts. :shock: :lol:
What was it Forest's mother said; "Stupid is as stupid does!" (having trouble with that one too) or is it better to say "life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get." :roll:
Whether we "are" or "are not" here, at this present moment it is incumbent upon us to be thankful and rejoice by grabbing that last strand of the strawberry bush, moment by moment; life goes on. And, as My aunt Minnie (who lived to be 103 in spite of herself) used to say, "And, If it doesn't, who cares!"

[Shokai]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Thank you Jundo, i really enjoy your history lessons

And thank you Willow, as i told you yesterday, "You are too kind!"

[Kaishin]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Jundo, thank you for your additional comments!

_/_

[disastermouse]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

People talk about the danger of emptiness, but I think the danger is thinking that it's all empty while still subtlety holding one's self as quite real.

Chet

[Omoi Otoshi]

There is No-Self ... or is there?

Yes, I agree. There is no danger in emptiness. There is danger in wrong view, in being stuck in a view of self and emptiness.

What is right view?
That has to be found in one's own practice I believe.

Our idea of No-self, Unborn, Buddha, Nirvana is always delusional, but right view may provide some framework for integrating our experience and understanding. Through Shikantaza, through practice, we not only manifest, we actualize and realize, make real in our lives, that which we cannot label, that which was always there to begin with, is everywhere and everything without beginning. In actualizing this non-existant No-self, this fundamental nature, we are Buddha. When integrating and abiding in this freedom from selfishness and dukkha in ordinary life, we are Buddha in all aspects of life, on or off the Zafu.

No-self, Unborn, Buddha, Nirvana is not an idea, not a concept, neither is it the truth, in my opinion. It is the cure, the medicine. Intellectualize about it and you're not taking the medicine as prescribed!

Here's a Koan!

Perhaps there are some of the multitude of beings who because of faith in Buddha’s words arouse the concept of permanence, the concept of joy, the concept of self, and the concept of purity. It is not the inverted view; it is called Right View. Because why? The Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is the paramita of permanence, the paramita of joy, the paramita of self, and the paramita of purity. In regard to the Dharmakaya of the Buddha for those who make this positive view it is called Right View.

"What is not eternal is the Buddha-nature," replied the Patriarch, "and what is eternal is the discriminating mind together with all meritorious and demeritorious Dharmas."

"Your explanation, Sir, contradicts the Sutra," said Zhang.

"I dare not, since I inherit the 'Heart-Seal' of Lord Buddha," replied the Patriarch.

Gassho,
Pontus

[will]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

And practice/life/coming and going still goes on.

Oops. Where's my box of Buddha? I thought I left it here somewhere.

One may experience emptiness, but not Buddhism. Not two. I guess that's why they call it "practice". Practicing what? Exactly. Buddhism, goodness, flaws, and Karma.

Gassho

W

[threethirty]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

Thank you everyone, this is clear as mud... just as it should be

[Run_CMD]

Re: There is No-Self ... or is there?

My 2 cents :

No-Self :

'Self', as in me or you is a mental concept. Mental concepts have mental borders. That's why we can categorize and 'understand' the world. It's really divide and conquer. The problem is that reality doesn' thave any borders. When does the air you breathe become 'self'? If you drink your tea, at which moment does the tea become 'you' ?
Thinking is just a very powerfull survival tool which has allowed us to rise over animals and aspire for heaven.

At the same moment, man has 'fallen from heaven', which means, it has created a mental 'self', me and you. The concept of 'self', together with the concecpt of "death" gives rise to dangerous illusions. If I die, wher will I go? I want pleasure and good feelings, let the other selves suffer so I don't have to. I'm dead in a few years anyway ...

Enlightenment, as far as I understand, is simply the 'realisation' that I or me does not exist in reality. Once you start acting to this realisation, you become the buddha who wants to save all sentient beings from suffering, because you are all sentient beings!

Hence there is no self, as in 'Me' or 'You' or 'John'.


Self

There's a very important, paradoxical 'thought experiment' in science :

While you can doubt everything in the world, you can not doubt the fact that you are conscious. At the same time, you can prove anything in the world, except for the fact that you are consciouss.

You can doubt everything that exists, for example maybe the world around you is just created by a computer program, fed as digital data to your 'brain'. But you can't doubt you are conscious, can you ?
At the same time you can prove anything about the world, for example the earth revolves around the sun, electrons spin around the nucleus ans so on. But can you prove to me that you are conscious ?

So the only thing you can be sure of is that there is conscioussness. wether you name it Self, or me or God , the universe or 'some type of energy' is completely irrelevant.

Denying this fact that there is 'self', for me, is as delusional as believing that 'you' exist.

Hence there is 'self' as in 'conscioussness'.

....................................

Maybe 'self' is more complex than the universe itself, and can exist in as many forms and manifestations.