I'm a bit rusty and would appreciate the members of this forum discussing this topic as, when I studied Buddhism many years ago I always had trouble understanding how to unattach from my 'self'. Especially when the world/society/friends etc see s as a 'self' with specific characteristics - Seonai who likes Italian food, doesn't like violence and wears outlandish clothes for example

Firstly there are a couple, probably more than a couple, of different interpretations of this. The first is that there is no self... period.. zip... nada.

The second one, that I favour, is that there is no distinct and seperate self, in that while there is something we identify as a self on the conceptual level it is totally interdependant with the environment it lives in. So it's something that exists as part of a whole not something that exists independantly of it's environment.

Either way trying to understand no-self while immersed in the world of self and other is a bit like a fish trying to understand no-water.

Look upon it as a question mark that you can use to examine and investigate your experience with, rather than a doctrine to be beleived or understood.

Hi seonai

this has the potential to become a very deep and complex topic.

However, for me who has been greatly influenced by the Mahayana and specifically the Nichiren tradition, perhaps it's less so then debating whether the Buddha taught a 'conventional self' and a 'relative self' (mundane and supramundane) or "transcendental self" or "higher self" as posited in there being no self in the five aggregates, for instance.

My own experience tells me that the theory of The Ten Worlds and that the self neither exists nor doesn't exist makes the most sense in practice. I'm no Buddhologist, so can't really elaborate on the finer points of the Dhammapada let alone the more obscure Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, etc.

If we take the example of the mind. Yes of course that exists. But at the same time has no colour, form or shape so can't actually be said to exist in reality. So it is with the self that craves attatchments and has a whole series of appetites and aversions. But we know that isn't' our 'real selves'. If we were to have a transplant of any vital organ, and even the brain, then we'd still have an idea of a separate self other than is defined by the mundane.

The thing is to be aware, or to observe, the mind. That is to see how these various phenomena arise and pass away as they are manifest and cease. The theory of the Ten Worlds (from hel_l to Buddhahood) shows how each of these Worlds or states are inherently interlinked and mutually possessed - none are permanent states unless we reach the permanent state of Buddhahood or enlightenment. But even Shakyamuni was still subject to the workings of the other nine Worlds but they had no control over him.

As Nichiren Daishonin once wrote in an answer to the question "what does it mean to observe the mind ?". "To observe the mind is to observe the workings of the Ten Worlds within it".

Thus it is with out attachments to those things that you define as a 'self' with "special characteristics". We reach a stage of knowing that these things are inherently 'empty' and transient and not of the 'real self'. It is when we realise this, that we also learn that attachment is delusiory as they these things neither last nor ultimately define ourselves. But rather we can use anything accumulated to create real value in our own lives and the lives of others without accrediting any special significance to them in themselves.

The most important thing to remember is the Buddhism doesn't exist outside of the everyday lives of common mortals. And it's that which is at the centre of our lives which is most important - our Buddhist practice - as that is of the ultimate, permanent value.

Wanted. One underused Buddhahod.

Is it perhaps better to see the self as impermanent, as in dependent origination? One of my first teachers in BKK and I started a discussion group there and she started a discussion called 'meditation on a Bkk bus' - in which it was discussed that one can 'practise' in the 'real' world as well as while being a monk. But I am thinking of how to practise Anatta in the 'real' world - does that make sense...?

Gosh Chutai I was posting at the same time as you - just saw your post !!!

Yes, I think if one observes the characteristics of what you assume to be self arise and pass away often enough one is less likely to identify with the self a something that is distict seperate and permanant.

It's quite profound Brucen and some of my best teachings came from monks at the Thai Temple in Wimbledon, London. Of course Ajhan Buddhadassa said that karma was every minute instead of every life... so many questions

I always refer to "The Course of Miracles" form that reading I learned a simple montra; Iam nothing, I mean nothing, I hold nothing, I am.

There's an excellent talk on The Self available from Ajahn Amaro. In summary, he explains that what we should understand is that what we normally think of as self - the five aggregates - is not some permanent, unchanging entity like a soul. It's all cause and effect. Unattaching from this illusion of a self is what every aspect of Buddhist practice is about, but ultimately it is meditation that dissolves the idea at the subconscious level.

Thanks so much Camerata, I have listened to half and will listen to the rest later, he explains things really well and I think I might be able to understand it from him...

As with he parable of the poison arrow. Whether there is something called a soul on some immutable, metaphysical level is irrelevant to the question of suffering. What is important is getting that arrow out, i.e. to cure the disease of suffering.

However, I'll listen to the Dharma/Dhamma talk by Acharn Amaro later. In the meantime there is this that may be of interest, from a Mahayana Sutra

"The Self of the worldly, which they say is the size of a thumb or a
mustard seed, is not like that. The concept of the Self of the worldly is also
not like that. In this instance, it is said that all dharmas [things, phenomena]
are devoid of Self. [But actually] it is not true to say that all dharmas are
devoid of the Self. The Self is Reality [tattva], the Self is unchanging [nitya],
the Self is virtue [guna], the Self is eternal [sasvata], the Self is unshakeable/firm [dhruva], the Self is peace [siva]; ... the Tathagata teaches what is true. Let the four divisions of the assembly strive meditatively to cultivate that."
(Tibetan version)

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/index.htm

One interpretation of anatta is that you will never be able to find anything that can truly be considered to be self.....BUT....the Buddha advised that we should have NO doctrine of self...and to me (and to some others) it seems that to say that there is no self really is having a doctrine of self...so....perhaps the best thing to do is to try to get to the point that the concept of self does not even arise as a concept. I know this doesn't really help in answering your question about how to accomplish this but I thought I would post it as yet another fairly commnly held view of what anatta is all about.

As to what can be done to help to shake the mistaken concept of self that we have developed....originally I started off from a scientific point of view by analysing the idea that my body is my self....fingernails and hair?...are you cutting part of yourself off when you trim these?...well, no. Appendix removed diminishes the self?...well, no. Amputated limbs diminishes the self...well, no. Loss of an eye, no...loss of an ear...no etc.etc.etc. For me it turns out that I can not rationally think that my body is my self. Attitudes?...they come and go......intelligence?...are smarter people more of a self than others?.....emotions...they come and go...even large portions of the brain can be removed without much effect.
Bottom line is I really can't find anything specifically which makes up my self....what makes more sense is that the FEELINGS OF SELF arise from a set of conditions and not from some discreet thing.......

Seems like the scientific approach points right to dependent origination....sort of....

One way to help free yourself from your doctrine of self (even in a worldly lifestyle) is to simply try to experience some feelings from the standpoint of "there is a feeling" as opposed to "I have a feeling"...or "I feel"....try to experience bodily sensations or thoughts as just things that happen rather than things that happen to or through somone. There's lots of approaches to this and sometimes I think that no two people in the world have the same approach.

Chownah

This post has been edited by chownah: 2007-11-30 20:59:04

Here's another one by Ajahn Brahm.

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2001_04_06.mp3

So what do you guys say the self is?
Is it a mental codification - a summary that is accorded a status apart from its components- composed of all those things that the mind relates to the satisfaction of its own needs?

Do animals have a 'self'? Do plants? Do amoeba? And what happens to the self when the amoeba splits in two? Does each of the 'offspring' have a self? And what happened then, to the original's 'self'?

Gawd... I just spent the last 40 years looking for my self now I need to lose it again??? I'm getting confused... I'll have to listen to those tapes again before I can say anything much

That in reality there isn't one.



Well if humans don't have one I think it's safe to assume amoebas don't either.

The buddha neither confirmed or denied the existence of amoebas. He did however die from some sort of amoebic dissentery if I am not mistaken. How ironic!

Sounds like a good approach to me. Holding onto a fixed view that "No Self means x" seems like it ould be counterproductive me as it's a difficult concept to understand intellectually. Which is why I think it's better to use it as a question mark with which to examine reality rather than a doctine to beleived.

in relation to Brucen and Chownah's post (above) does that mean that it's more a case of living each moment as it exists as opposed to worrying about thinking you have a 'self'. I sort of get that if I'm on the right track but I then don't understand if I say to my friend 'oh you know what I'm like' - does it mean that I actually don't have personality traits?

Personality is I think a result of kamma. Because you've done things a certain way in the past, reacted in certain ways, had certain charateristics, you've created the conditions for similar patterns to arise in the future. Each moment is conditioned by the previous moments and personality isn't exempt from that.

In the same way inanimate objects have certain charateristics that repeat according to patterns over time, leaves are like this, water is like that... nobody would say leaves or water has a personality though.

First I would say to not worry about it. Your view is that you have a self. You need not feel alone in this...we all do. If you want, you could just sort of keep in the back of your mind that your idea about your "self" are probably not correct....and then occasionally think about just what ARE the things that make me think of a self and are they really reasonable....are they really enduring or are they just a fleeting phenomena....am I some constant entity or do I exist only because of condiditons....etc. These queries I have suggested are what happens in my head and I'm not suggesting them specifically but rather as hint or suggestion of the kinds of thoughts that you might generate around the concept of self...you need to observe your own mental process in this regard to see the way forward and not try to copy mine or anyone elses because you are uniqely you so your path can not be a carbon copy of some else's path.

Again, don't worry about it. Don't set goals about overcoming any concepts, don't blame or criticize yourself for having these concepts, etc. etc.....just try to see how it is and the progress will happen by itself.....but of course it won't be instant....I guess.

Chownah

When asked about the existence of self, I heard a Zen monk once respond with a question: "Where is this so-called self? Please show it to us."

I am not an expert on Buddhism so I hope I am not misleading anyone here but I will try and convey my understanding. Please feel free to add or correct my interpretation.

I was feeling a bit hungry and seeing this roast chicken on tv reminded my how hungry I was.

The chicken was roasted to a nice golden brown and you can see the steam coming off it so it must have been just roasted and still warm!

Now I know that its just a picture of a chicken and if I broke the tv screen and put my hand inside there is no chicken!

But the chicken looked so real, all piping hot and steaming and I couldn’t help to salivate and feel a little rumble in my tummy.

But just as the chicken looked so real, it did not exist. Although the reactions in me like the tummy rumbling and mouth salivating was definitely real!

So you and me, we are just like the chicken!

We think we are real and we feel real but we really don’t exist!

The body don’t exist and the mind don’t exist. Nothing exist!

But I feel real! And when I poke myself real hard, I feel pain!

Still I know I really don’t exist! Nothing exist!

PS just don’t tell anyone you don’t exist in case they put you in that house with men in white coats!

And I like Italian food too!

I think you'll find that although no chicken exists inside your TV there was in fact a chicken in existance at the time and place that they filmed it. I'm sure the film crew had all the same reactions to it that you did, probably more intense.

Interesting analogy, and worth pondering, but I don't really reach the same conclusion as you. the chicken is real, but our perception of the chicken is not.

My view is that perhaps there is something real out there and when our senses register some sensations we "receive" from it our minds bring up a mental concept which we label "chicken".

The only way we have to experience anything are the five sense doors. The only thing we get in our existence is what comes through those doors. What we get makes us think that there is something out there that is real but there is no way to know for sure because all we have to work from is what impinges on our senses.

Chownah