Selflessness in Buddhism.

[Lotus of the abyss]

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

[Cobie]

It means the 5 aggregates are not-the self, so there is a self.

 

 

Edited 51 minutes ago by Cobie

[Lotus of the abyss]

But I thought buddhism didn't have a self at all. Isn't the idea of there is no self a central idea in buddhism?

[Cobie]

 

44 minutes ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

… self … no self …

 

Nobody knows anything, because it is unknowable.  Remember, “take responsibility”; believe whatever you deep inside actually believe.  

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Cobie

[Krenx]

The Buddha did not say there is no self. The Buddha taught non self. If there was actually no self, none of us would be suffering. But we do suffer. It is more the process of attending to phenomena more honestly. We cling into a sense of self, and hold on to qualities of me, mine, myself not just conventionally speaking, but also internally. 

 

With ignorance, there is a self. 

 

With wisdom, the self gradually has to  dissolve. The Self does not hold water, it is not dependable, unstable. We see how things are unfit to be regarded as self. 

 

The "self" in Buddhism is defined as something that is "permeant", ever lasting, does not change. 

 

But as we go through phenomena, we realize things in the world are unfit to be regarded as "self", due to the impermenant and changing qualities.  

 

And so we attend to the nature of phenomena, and navigate skillfully to release ourselves from suffering. And that involves seeing anatta, non self. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Krenx

[Cobie]

All cultures spin elaborate fantasies around their core belief. Systems in isolation become more elaborate and complex. Exchange of ideas strips down again to the core basic principles. 

 

 

[Cobie]

"Becoming a Buddha is like ... You discover yourself, you don't get rid of yourself.”

 

(Yongey Mingyour Rinpoche - From Confusion to Clarity)
https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/55590-is-buddhism-a-complete-path/?do=findComment&comment=1025834 

 

 

Edited 49 minutes ago by Cobie

[Keith108]

14 hours ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Sounds like you have yourself a koan now! 

 

Seriously, it's a very good question to consider. If the Buddha taught the view of non-self, then what is reading these words, and what is typing them? This kind of question can't be answered philosophically or intellectually. The answer is instead "experienced". Give it a try!

 

And, to say there is no self is a big mistake, as it is to the say there is one. 

 

One thing is all things;

All things are one thing.

If this is so for you,

There is no need to worry about perfect knowledge.

The believing mind is not dual;

What is dual is not the believing mind.

Beyond all language,

For it there is no past, no present, no future.

(trans. R.H. Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics)

 

Just popped this off the Xin Xin Ming wiki page.  The verse talks about avoiding dual thinking (such as self and no self), and also an idea that has been going through a couple different threads about time, or the lack thereof. I like the last two lines, which suggest that the the 3 times of present past and future are empty. Even the present! Because as soon as we say "this is the present", it's gone. It's a very important concept when considering Buddhist teachings. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Keith108

[steve]

16 hours ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

 

Some great responses here.

 

Another way to think about it is that when we define who we are, my self, it is very difficult to do that without doing so in relation to others, or to arbitrary labels. Of course all of us feel that we "have" a self. It is natural as we are a limited perspective enclosed in a mobile bag of skin. I sometimes wonder if a tree experiences itself as a self somehow despite its intimate connection to the Earth. Certainly it reacts to stimuli and communicates with other trees... but I digress. We tend to identify our self with the roles we play in life but when we really look at it, that self has different characteristics depending on the relationship and those relationships change over time.

 

What is my self?

My name? My job? My relationship to others (husband, father, son, brother, etc...)? My education? My personality? My body? Which part of my body? Do I lose my self if I lose my leg or have a heart transplant? My mind? My brain? If I am my mind or my brain, can I exist without a heart, a gut, lungs, liver, and the air I breathe?  I can be a lover to one person and a parent or child to another, a boss to one and employee to another, which is really me? Is it all of the above, or something else? If it is all, how can you separate it from all others we have a relationship with? And how would I define myself in the absence of all those relationships? Has a self, or a person, ever existed independent of all other selves and their environment? These are some of the mental calisthenics we can go through trying to understand the question of what self means.

 

So when I try to pin down what my self is, ultimately it is difficult to do without including other people, my environment, my roles in relation to others, and so on. One exercise in many Buddhist traditions is to tell the student to go find their "self," quite literally, and to bring it back and show it to the teacher. They actually do that, try and try to figure out what exactly is the self and the teacher will respond to each answer. Even in disciplines like biology, sociology, psychology, etc... it is well established that to speak of organisms without the context of their environment and relationships is inaccurate and often misleading, as the two are intimately and inextricably connected. So it is often said in Buddhism that the self is an aggregate, made up of a variety of other things. And the deeper we look the more difficult it is to draw a box around what my self is.

 

If you really want an answer to questions like who am I, who does this, who knows that, and so on, the best way is to really do the work as described by any of the credible wisdom traditions. That work can include studying various texts, listening to teachers, and discussing with others but also very valuable to do some practice of personal investigation, such as meditation, self inquiry, or other spiritual exercises.