concept of "no-self"

[ahimsaman72]

this thread is one of the most beautiful threads I’ve seen in a while.

(but then, it’s one of the only threads I’ve looked at, in like a month)

Anyway, you have all done, and perhaps are doing, a most excellent job in exchanging your thoughts with each else.

Rock on my friends!!!
:bounce:

Glad you like reen’s thread! Reen has been most kind and respectful which is always a wonderful experience. I try to be kind and respectful although I fail at times. I enjoy mystical discussions tremendously nowadays. Share some thoughts of your own here.

Peace…

 

[Ahimsa]

love-bias:

whoops, sorry 'bout that: I edited my message.

apologies to ya freind.
–but you’re right about love. However, I don’t see how we can love if we don’t exist. Otherwise who loves whom?

Regarding others and not even myself: the ones I love, I most certainly believe in their individual existence. I would die to think that they don’t really exist. sob, sob

Maybe I should point back to what the Buddha actually said. He said one should live as if nothing was under your complete control – that is, ultimately, you cannot make the world into what you wish. The world will always disappoint in some way, shape, or form. If there were something that you could totally, completely control, then that would be a ‘self’. Since there is nothing that you can totally and completely put under your control, there is no ‘self’.

‘Self’ here does not refer to your sense of individual existence. If you lacked such a sense, then how could you function day to day? So your loved ones do exist! It’s just that even they can’t totally, completely control anything in this world.

 

[reen12]

Dear Ahimsaman72,

Now, here, truly, have I found a grand debater!

Rarely have I been able to engage
in such a skillful and knowlegeable exchange,
and I am most grateful to you. The difficulty
for me has been a kind of lonliness that goes
with such a God-given gift as intelligence. And it is God-given.
When I was much
younger…40 years ago…I thought everyone had
almost total recall. You are one of the few
individuals I have found in almost 60 years who
seems to have equal recall. My joy is unbounded!
[as a complete aside: I can’t dance to save myself;
maybe that’s why I so enjoy watching graceful
people. It’s a gift.]
And, so we know where we are, I am most
tempted by Buddhism…it’s why I raise such
a challenge. Would you consider keeping in
mind that I might possibly be capable of
role-reversal here? I could present myself as
a Buddhist and have a spirited exchange
with Christians. I wouldn’t, but I could.
By the by, you’re going to have to supply me
with a much clearer sense of no-self…how it
differs, say, from dissociation…or how about
a really annoying analogy…the human as
data-processor?
every best wish,
Maureen [reen12]

 

[reen12]

Dear love-bias,
I want to thank you for a hearty laugh. When I looked
at “location” where you put “Earth.” I wouldn’t have
thought of that in a hundred years as a reply.
Absolutey perfect. It’s made my day!
reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear Ahimsa,

I don’t understand the equation of “self” with being
in complete control of the world around you [or
any aspect thereof.]
Would you consider clarifying that for me?
I can’t seem to find a vantage point from which
I could posit that as a definition of “self.”
I hope that I have rendered the concept correctly.
Many thanks,
reen12

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

Dear Ahimsaman72,

Now, here, truly, have I found a grand debater!

Rarely have I been able to engage
in such a skillful and knowlegeable exchange,
and I am most grateful to you. The difficulty
for me has been a kind of lonliness that goes
with such a God-given gift as intelligence. And it is God-given.
When I was much
younger…40 years ago…I thought everyone had
almost total recall. You are one of the few
individuals I have found in almost 60 years who
seems to have equal recall. My joy is unbounded!
[as a complete aside: I can’t dance to save myself;
maybe that’s why I so enjoy watching graceful
people. It’s a gift.]
And, so we know where we are, I am most
tempted by Buddhism…it’s why I raise such
a challenge. Would you consider keeping in
mind that I might possibly be capable of
role-reversal here? I could present myself as
a Buddhist and have a spirited exchange
with Christians. I wouldn’t, but I could.
By the by, you’re going to have to supply me
with a much clearer sense of no-self…how it
differs, say, from dissociation…or how about
a really annoying analogy…the human as
data-processor?
every best wish,
Maureen [reen12]

Maureen, you are too kind in your remarks. I have indeed found you equally as valuable. Yes, as you said, you have some knowledge of Buddhism and I suspect you could perform the role-reversal .

The human as a data processor? I’ll have to think about that one.

As for clearer definition of “no-self” I’m afraid, dear friend, that I will have to let the words of Buddha stand for themselves. I am only a student of Buddhism with a basic knowledge. I don’t understand the deeper meanings as yet. So, I don’t mean to avoid further description, but would rather rely on authoritative sources to help in the discussion. I hope you don’t mind the external sources. Here are some quotes from Buddha:

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
*For free distribution only. *

*Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. *

*As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?” *

*When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. *

*“Then is there no self?” *

*A second time, the Blessed One was silent. *

*Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. *

*Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?” *

*“Ananda, if I – being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self – were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I – being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self – were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I – being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self – were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?” *

*“No, lord.” *“And if I – being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self – were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?’”

This was taken from www.accesstoinsight.org which is an admittedly Theravada website. I have found it the best Buddhist resource on the web. You can search by title or subject of the Pali Canon. It’s wonderful. See if this might help with your questions. If it raises more questions than answers, then you and I are in the same raft!

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

By the by, you’re going to have to supply me
with a much clearer sense of no-self…how it
differs, say, from dissociation…or how about
a really annoying analogy…the human as
data-processor?
every best wish,
Maureen [reen12]

Here is a short piece by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the concept of no-self.

*To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of “self” and “other,” he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not “Is there a self? What is my self?” but rather “Am I suffering stress because I’m holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it’s stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?” These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging – the residual sense of self-identification – that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that’s left is limitless freedom. *

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?

Again, I hope this helps.

You know, in seeing the Buddha’s response to the concepts of no-self, which is basically no response, I would have to say that if he was virtually silent on the issue, who am I to do otherwise with such a difficult concept?

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Dear Ahimsaman72,

Many thanks for the Theravada website. I’ve bookmarked it.
In your last post, I had to agree to some extent with
Gautama’s:

Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?
This, I think, is Buddhism’s strongest playing card, if you
will.
[While I have varying critiques to offer on the above, let
it stand for the moment.]

I remember being impressed by his refusal to answer
various questions put to him by saying that such
questions were not “useful.” *
The Theravada tradition is the one I find most
appealing. Did I understand you to say that you
practice shikantaza? [sp?]
Maureen [reen12]*

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

Dear Ahimsaman72,

Many thanks for the Theravada website. I’ve bookmarked it.
In your last post, I had to agree to some extent with
Gautama’s:

Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or whether or not it’s a self?
This, I think, is Buddhism’s strongest playing card, if you
will.
[While I have varying critiques to offer on the above, let
it stand for the moment.]

I remember being impressed by his refusal to answer
various questions put to him by saying that such
questions were not “useful.” *
The Theravada tradition is the one I find most
appealing. Did I understand you to say that you
practice shikantaza? [sp?]
Maureen [reen12]*
It is indeed a wonderful site.

You know, just when I think I’m smart - I read what the Buddha had to say, how he said it and feel pretty dumb.

It’s an absolutely valid point that if the answer to a question either caused more questions or confusion or wasn’t considered useful to the ending of suffering, it was not something Buddha wanted to discuss.

I started out with the Theravada tradition and practicing insight meditation. Then, I bought a book by Thich Nhat Hanh called, “Going Home, Jesus and Buddha as brothers”. I was so impressed with his insights that I started studying Mahayana and Zen in particular. His views meshed with my own pre-conceived notions. I found the compassion ideal the most attractive for me. I could embrace the idea that we are connected with the rest of our surroundings - with other creatures and our environment.

Most people do not like my views about compassion. Because my views of compassion (which are similar to the Zen) encompass all creatures and the environment. I adopted a vegetarian diet partly because of my views of sentient beings. If a lower creature was a sentient being and was involved in the cycle of birth and death, then it was only natural for me to extend my compassion and kindness upon them also (by not eating them).
Tibetans nor Theravadins follow a strictly vegetarian diet. It’s simply not practical. However, given the choice, I believe most would prefer it.

I still practice insight meditation, but also practice “just sitting” meditation or simply counting breaths. I have since bought books on meditation, other books by TNH, “The Art of Happiness” by the Dalai Lama and a very good read, “One Dharma” by Joseph Goldstein who talks about a non-sectarian Buddhist path emerging in the West which I am excited about. It will probably take another 200 years to develop, but the signs are there.

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Dear Ahimsaman72,

I don’t find your compassion toward all around you
unlikable…I remember last summer I coaxed a
fly off of the back screened porch for the same
reason. In fact, Ralph McInearny [sp] in the latest
issue of Crisis magazine treats a similar subject.

I am often overwhelmed momentarily when I
consider the suffering of those around me,
their fears and pain. That’s when I place them
all in God’s hands, because it’s all too much
for me.
And as for your compassion for inarticulate
creation, didn’t Jesus say that not a sparrow
falls to earth that His heavenly Father didn’t
know about it?
Sometimes I even say a prayer for all God’s
animals, that each will be treated with kindness
and compassion by human beings.
You know, I’ve been considering the exchanges
on this tread, appreciative of all of them.
I look heavenward, sigh, and place myself in
God’s loving care, asking Him to accept my
confusion and uncertainties, and just rest in Him, accepting
His assessment of my life, not mine.
God be with you, Ahimsaman72, bringing you
the understanding and clarity of thought I think you
so care about.
Maureen [reen12]

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

Dear Ahimsaman72,

I don’t find your compassion toward all around you
unlikable…I remember last summer I coaxed a
fly off of the back screened porch for the same
reason. In fact, Ralph McInearny [sp] in the latest
issue of Crisis magazine treats a similar subject.

I am often overwhelmed momentarily when I
consider the suffering of those around me,
their fears and pain. That’s when I place them
all in God’s hands, because it’s all too much
for me.
And as for your compassion for inarticulate
creation, didn’t Jesus say that not a sparrow
falls to earth that His heavenly Father didn’t
know about it?
Sometimes I even say a prayer for all God’s
animals, that each will be treated with kindness
and compassion by human beings.
You know, I’ve been considering the exchanges
on this tread, appreciative of all of them.
I look heavenward, sigh, and place myself in
God’s loving care, asking Him to accept my
confusion and uncertainties, and just rest in Him, accepting
His assessment of my life, not mine.
God be with you, Ahimsaman72, bringing you
the understanding and clarity of thought I think you
so care about.
Maureen [reen12]

And May God continue to bless you and keep you under His wings!

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Dear Participants,
A correction to my last post. The article in Crisis
magazine was written by Tom Howard not
Ralph McInerney [sp].
So much for near total recall !
Best wishes,
reen12

 

[puzzleannie]

Any Catholic who truly seeks an understanding of mysticism and infused contemplation originating in the “nada” or nothingness of St. John of the Cross, or the “Cloud of Unknowing” is urged to read those classics of Christian spirituality under the guidance of an orthodox Catholic spiritual director, and ignore teachings of other religions which can have, at best, only kernels and glimpses of the truth. Why on earth would you waste your time on non-Catholic spiritualities and deny the spirituality enjoined and gifted by Christ himself?

 

[ahimsaman72]

reen12:

Dear Participants,
A correction to my last post. The article in Crisis
magazine was written by Tom Howard not
Ralph McInerney [sp].
So much for near total recall !
Best wishes,
reen12

Best wishes to you Maureen…wherever you may go…

Peace…

 

[reen12]

Dear Puzzleannie,

If the thread dealt soley with Catholic mystics, I
would certainly appreciate your point. I guess I
accept the idea that truth, wherever it is found,
belongs, in some sense, to a Catholic. In addition,
how could I engage devotees of Eastern Religions without
being thoroughly acquainted with their world view?

Didn’t St. Paul say: I become all things to all
men. To say that I understand another’s world
view is not to say that I subscribe to it.
How can we evangelize the young if we don’t
know where they’re coming from? And I think
that a lot of young people are drawn to eastern
thought. If I hear them out…with respect…I may
have an opportunity to introduce them to
John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila. But many
of them, I think, don’t even understand the
basics of Catholocism, much less the difficult
and demanding works of the mystics of the
faith.

This is 2005. The truths of the Catholic faith are
timeless, but the time in which they have to be
announced are not timeless, they are bound by
the times that we live in. If one goes to a
large bookstore, check out the size of the
New Age section. Consider phrases like:
“Go with the flow” or “Live with it.” or “Follow
your bliss.” * This* is the generation that I think
needs Christ more than most of the last
several generations, because many of them
have been denied, by varioius circumstances,
hearing the Good News. And, by the by, I wish
to heaven we’d drop the word “gospel” and come
right out and say Good News! For that’s what
it is.
I do understand what you are saying. I invite
you to at least try to understand my position.
Why do you think that Catholicism has made
such little progess in the East? I think it is
because we need missionaries who both
understand eastern thought and have respect
for it…respect in the true Latin meaning of
the word, i.e., “to see” the thing at hand.
I wish that I had understood the above when
I was 25. I might have made a graceful
emisary for Christ, Who surley loves each
of those born into cultures so unlike what
used to be called Christendom.
Surely each individual in these different
cultures asks the same questions that
we ask about life. But how can we offer
them Christ’s answer “I am the way and
the truth and the life” if we don’t understand
the answers that their own cultures have
already provided to those questions?
St. Paul lived in the midst of Roman culture.
He didn’t have to study rhetoric or try to
understand people who accepted multiple,
false deities. We have to go one step farther
than he did, in a sense.
Why do I think St. Paul would understand
what I am saying? I hope that he would.
I’m counting on it.
Every best wish,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear Puzzleannie,

If the thread dealt soley with Catholic mystics, I
would certainly appreciate your point. I guess I
accept the idea that truth, wherever it is found,
belongs, in some sense, to a Catholic. In addition,
how could I engage devotees of Eastern Religions without
being thoroughly acquainted with their world view?

Didn’t St. Paul say: I become all things to all
men. To say that I understand another’s world
view is not to say that I subscribe to it.
How can we evangelize the young if we don’t
know where they’re coming from? And I think
that a lot of young people are drawn to eastern
thought. If I hear them out…with respect…I may
have an opportunity to introduce them to
John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila. But many
of them, I think, don’t even understand the
basics of Catholocism, much less the difficult
and demanding works of the mystics of the
faith.

This is 2005. The truths of the Catholic faith are
timeless, but the time in which they have to be
announced are not timeless, they are bound by
the times that we live in. If one goes to a
large bookstore, check out the size of the
New Age section. Consider phrases like:
“Go with the flow” or “Live with it.” or “Follow
your bliss.” * This* is the generation that I think
needs Christ more than most of the last
several generations, because many of them
have been denied, by varioius circumstances,
hearing the Good News. And, by the by, I wish
to heaven we’d drop the word “gospel” and come
right out and say Good News! For that’s what
it is.
I do understand what you are saying. I invite
you to at least try to understand my position.
Why do you think that Catholicism has made
such little progess in the East? I think it is
because we need missionaries who both
understand eastern thought and have respect
for it…respect in the true Latin meaning of
the word, i.e., “to see” the thing at hand.
I wish that I had understood the above when
I was 25. I might have made a graceful
emisary for Christ, Who surley loves each
of those born into cultures so unlike what
used to be called Christendom.
Surely each individual in these different
cultures asks the same questions that
we ask about life. But how can we offer
them Christ’s answer “I am the way and
the truth and the life” if we don’t understand
the answers that their own cultures have
already provided to those questions?
St. Paul lived in the midst of Roman culture.
He didn’t have to study rhetoric or try to
understand people who accepted multiple,
false deities. We have to go one step farther
than he did, in a sense.
Why do I think St. Paul would understand
what I am saying? I hope that he would.
I’m counting on it.
Every best wish,
reen12