Topic: Self and Not-Self

[Endless~Knot]

The theories of self and not self I find very intriguing paradoxes. In hinduism, there is theory of a self, as well as in many other spiritual paths. However, Buddhism speaks of a not-self, and says in their own special terms, to cling even to a notion of self would be false, we cannot know this hidden 'self' directly, therefore, its not self.

This is connected to the emptiness of the five skandas. If all forms are empty, self is empty too, therefore, it is not-self. Which if one does the work, they see this has some validity. Because its too easy to cling to a self, a higher self, an 'other self' yet still, could be accidentally replacing (or thinking they are), the ego with another 'self.' But buddhism says, that clinging to self isnt a true self, cause self and notion of is empty, so not-self. It makes sense in a way, for this to occur. Because as we still deal with mind here, and we still must function with ego in some capacity, we're going to deal with trap of this.

So I have this thing say, when we say we must align with source, or true self, how do we do it, if the notion buddhists have portrayed of not-self is factual? All forms are empty, they managed to present that as actual. If all is impermanent, where is a possible permanent self, which might have the divinity to be able to pull off a good move of continuity beyond this life? There does seem to be hope, however, because somehow lamas are born where they want to be in tibet. Somehow, they have to admit the consciousness travels and is born again, not the exact same cause all is subject to change and transformation. But the buddha nature, does remain intact. Since all have buddha nature, and this is professed by the mahayana school, then this, even if it is essense of 'not self' is key to be able to possibly transform

Where I am at, if I am correct, is it is a matter of in each life the buddha nature blooming. Buddha would teach Anada the highest truths by simply holding up a flower. This makes sense. Seed of buddha nature, blooming and opening its petals. Its all impermanent, but the blooming is what we're supposed to do, in the light of the sun. If the sun can be allowed to penetrate the flower, then the flower can bloom. If the right nourishment is allowed for the flower, it can bloom. It can then, transform, it doesnt really die, in the end, it can also sew many other seeds as well, from one seed or flower. It can be an endless journey if one wishes. But it cannot, if one, ceases to be, one flower, and fails to go beyond the bud.

[Michael]

I would appreciate it Ms Knot, if you made a little attempt at clear exposition, instead of stream of consciousness.

However, what you ask, and have asked in the past, is a critical issue. Part of your dilemma is due to your knowledge of Buddhism. And that is not a problem, except it will naturally intersect with other system's approaches to this knobbly matter. You wish to reconcile this intersection, and that is fair enough.

Buddhism has two layers. First there is no-self, in the sense as you described - clinging to the false self will always insert itself into any concept of a 'true self'. So - best reject the idea altogether.

Second layer, is that even the 'true self' is non-existent in any permanent way - it arises and disappears just like all other phenomena. There are differences of opinion between the different schools, but this is the gist of it in a simplistic form, which is fine for our examination.

Similarly in Hinduism, they have Nirguna Brahman, which most schools within Hinduism accept - they may come at it in varying ways, but in the end, there it is: ultimate reality without any attributes whatsoever. Thus Hinduism and Buddhism meet at this ultimate point.

So your question:
"where is a possible permanent self, which might have the divinity to be able to pull off a good move of continuity beyond this life?"

Good question.

The concept of permanency is a difficult one, and usually the approach is one of relativity - infinite permanency is hard to find adherence in any tradition. What is usually spoken of by those who seek permanency, is sufficient time to make it 'as good as' infinite permanency. Thus there arises the two issues: how to acquire some form of positive permanency and, why should we?

But without a doubt, it is accepted by adherents to the permanency goal, that the self, as we know it, is not 'on board'. Forget it. That self is a phantom, and to cling to it in any way is fatal.

The first question: "how to acquire ...?" always comes down to identification with that which will not be stripped by the death experience, or the 'tail' - the slowly dissipating tail of living consciousness after death.

The second question: "why should we?" points to a much more mysterious issue of the very nature of spirit. The 'experience' of the third world. If any form of individuation cannot exist within the realm of spirit, then why put off the inevitable?

Both these two questions require a pragmatic answer within our life. And no short post on an internet forum will suffice to satisfy. But these two questions Ms Knot, cut to the heart of the secret within the secret.

[Endless~Knot]

I would appreciate it Ms Knot, if you made a little attempt at clear exposition, instead of stream of consciousness.

Its the way I stream though, esp if Im somewhat meditating on an issue.

However, what you ask, and have asked in the past, is a critical issue. Part of your dilemma is due to your knowledge of Buddhism. And that is not a problem, except it will naturally intersect with other system's approaches to this knobbly matter. You wish to reconcile this intersection, and that is fair enough.

Its a difficult one for me. Other schools make sense we have a 'soul,' and while buddha says 'not self' and clinging to the 'wrong version' say, of self or soul can actually hinder you (it could be made up in mind, and therefore end up just being the creation of ego), still though, my instinct says we have some facet of a soul. Something travels. Something goes on. It doesnt make sense to me, for human life to simply begin and end. Nothing is wasted in the universe, nothing really dies but is transformed. And, since ive been pondering on this quite a bit today, esp per karma, I do feel that, how we live our life here, treat others and the like, attain self-knowledge about our true nature, frees us.

If buddhism even is about attaining liberation say, and so are other schools, then 'what' are we liberating? Mind, is not good enough of an answer. But soul or self isnt either. But we are striving to liberate something, just like Buddhas last words to the disciples was for them to seek their own salvation. It was from 'something.'

Sorry if Im streaming. Its the way I think on these things.

Buddhism has two layers. First there is no-self, in the sense as you described - clinging to the false self will always insert itself into any concept of a 'true self'. So - best reject the idea altogether.

Yes, true or authentic self, doesnt do it for me. It really requres more than just 'saying' there is one. Its not good enough. It could be it has to be born or developed. Like even in christianity, theres the notion of being 'born again.' I dont reject this birth process or birth of spirit at all. They're right on that count, and I dont see that as in contrast to buddhism. It could be said, Siddhartha was 'born again' under the bodhi tree as Buddha.

Second layer, is that even the 'true self' is non-existent in any permanent way - it arises and disappears just like all other phenomena. There are differences of opinion between the different schools, but this is the gist of it in a simplistic form, which is fine for our examination.

Similarly in Hinduism, they have Nirguna Brahman, which most schools within Hinduism accept - they may come at it in varying ways, but in the end, there it is: ultimate reality without any attributes whatsoever. Thus Hinduism and Buddhism meet at this ultimate point.

And that would mean that not self is without attributes as well. And if so, where does that leave us ultimately?

So your question:
"where is a possible permanent self, which might have the divinity to be able to pull off a good move of continuity beyond this life?"

Good question.

The concept of permanency is a difficult one, and usually the approach is one of relativity - infinite permanency is hard to find adherence in any tradition. What is usually spoken of by those who seek permanency, is sufficient time to make it 'as good as' infinite permanency. Thus there arises the two issues: how to acquire some form of positive permanency and, why should we?

But without a doubt, it is accepted by adherents to the permanency goal, that the self, as we know it, is not 'on board'. Forget it. That self is a phantom, and to cling to it in any way is fatal.

I agree. It seems one who does this would just go back into that cosmic ocean and drown, then come back up, being anything else. They would lose all forms of consciousness because they didnt bring forth whatever lies under the surface of us, 'on board' and conscious, you could say.

The first question: "how to acquire ...?" always comes down to identification with that which will not be stripped by the death experience, or the 'tail' - the slowly dissipating tail of living consciousness after death.

The second question: "why should we?" points to a much more mysterious issue of the very nature of spirit. The 'experience' of the third world. If any form of individuation cannot exist within the realm of spirit, then why put off the inevitable?

Well one area hinduism and buddhism do meet, is all beings will be liberated at some given point and time. However, then comes up the question 'what does that really mean?' Does it mean being free of all karma, the wheel itself (buddhism says so I dont know about hinduism even believing it can be done)? But why put it off, the inevitable. Because we can be dumb, thats the only thing I can think of.

Both these two questions require a pragmatic answer within our life. And no short post on an internet forum will suffice to satisfy. But these two questions Ms Knot, cut to the heart of the secret within the secret.

Rama Rama Rama

[Michael]

The second question: "why should we?" points to a much more mysterious issue of the very nature of spirit. The 'experience' of the third world. If any form of individuation cannot exist within the realm of spirit, then why put off the inevitable?

Alas this question is for pondering and is largely academic - we are not at the level where we can seriously ask such a question.

In practical terms, the primary issue for us is how to avoid extermination in the very near future.

There are ample traditions which advocate that every human soul survives death. That is nice, and if it proves to be true, I will be very happy, on the basis that more is better than less.

However ... there isn't any reliable proof that this is the case - it remains in the realm of belief.

Thus for those like me who leave nothing to chance in such a critical and ultimately significant matter, we adopt the view that whatever we have done, we remain phantoms - beings destined to pass like mist on the breeze.

From that position, we preen our eyes, we strip the flab from our shoulders, and look with piercing, penetrating gaze - we start from a position of transience that could be transformed to permanence.

The first thing we notice is that what we call 'I' is done for.

Then we begin the journey of stripping everything from our 'I' that we know will be rendered from us by death. Family, friends, money, ambition, desire, confidence, physicality.

Everything we cling to with emotion.

"The Gathering of Acknowledged Phantoms", or in their vernacular, the Habbulazion Society - are you a member?

[Endless~Knot]

Well Im no phantom.

Ive done the work enough on the path to get to the point that its not so simple, even to get 'grace' for say, a soul to make it. It would be nice, but since so many things in past tell us, to be able to have any chance of continuity we have to do the work, which is involved, and that means shed that which is false about us, cant see how one can simply fool themselves by saying 'I am certain,' without a blink.

Its not safe to simply use any scriptures, or any other man's words and hinge on 'their beliefs' and do it. It takes a more interpersonal, more direct approach. The trouble is others are willing to rely on what is said by others, what is said, even by a majority.

Well there is no safety in numbers. What if just because a large number of people believe, or worship a certain way, are wrong about it? The blind leading the blind. If that is so, and then they get extinguished too, is it safe to follow them, 'just cause?' I dont think so.

Thats why I turned on the path and my own exploration. Same deal, trying to explore my options best of my ability, because damn right, I dont want to die a phantom, I dont want to die being 'wrong,' or having jeopardized say, my own salvation from the recycling bin, just cause i followed the wrong pack.

So I continue to explore. Its all I can do. I do that, and im bound to hit the gold eventually. I cannot accept its all for naught. i dont think all of humanity is damned. But i do think, eventually all of us get the whisper, and we listen, and pay attn, and it can get us on the right track. That path, path with heart say, is the one. We listen to the inner voice, make sure its not the ego-voice, we stand a chance. But if we listen outside of us, rely on 'everyone else' we might fail. Because we ignored the voice of the heart. And thats the one which we simply have to pay attention to.

[mayflow]

Well Im no phantom.

Ive done the work enough on the path to get to the point that its not so simple, even to get 'grace' for say, a soul to make it. It would be nice, but since so many things in past tell us, to be able to have any chance of continuity we have to do the work, which is involved, and that means shed that which is false about us, cant see how one can simply fool themselves by saying 'I am certain,' without a blink.

Its not safe to simply use any scriptures, or any other man's words and hinge on 'their beliefs' and do it. It takes a more interpersonal, more direct approach. The trouble is others are willing to rely on what is said by others, what is said, even by a majority.

Well there is no safety in numbers. What if just because a large number of people believe, or worship a certain way, are wrong about it? The blind leading the blind. If that is so, and then they get extinguished too, is it safe to follow them, 'just cause?' I dont think so.

Thats why I turned on the path and my own exploration. Same deal, trying to explore my options best of my ability, because damn right, I dont want to die a phantom, I dont want to die being 'wrong,' or having jeopardized say, my own salvation from the recycling bin, just cause i followed the wrong pack.

So I continue to explore. Its all I can do. I do that, and im bound to hit the gold eventually. I cannot accept its all for naught. i dont think all of humanity is damned. But i do think, eventually all of us get the whisper, and we listen, and pay attn, and it can get us on the right track. That path, path with heart say, is the one. We listen to the inner voice, make sure its not the ego-voice, we stand a chance. But if we listen outside of us, rely on 'everyone else' we might fail. Because we ignored the voice of the heart. And thats the one which we simply have to pay attention to.

I think that there is only one way for the path to be safe, and that is for you to believe in yourself and that the path is from within. If you want to add "from within the Heart" I think that works too. Possibly works magic! 

[Definitive Journey]

~

This seemed to be quite a good discussion between Ms. Knot and Michael.  As the gist of this was posted almost two years ago, I'd like to see what Ms. Knots thoughts are on this now-a-days.

Alas, Ms. Knot seems to have 'knotted' herself up on yet another discussion board.  She does stop in chat from time to time, so if I see her again I'll ask.  Perhaps a member of Soma can ask her to view this thread, here, once again as well. 

It's interesting how folks bee-bop from forum to forum.  What is it you seek?  Consensus?  A kind word?  A worthy teacher?  Continued superficial discussion on beat-to-death terms and concepts? 

I'll admit, I've done a fair share of this myself.  As a self-proclaimed trouble maker, I was quite sure of my objective though. 

Not so much now-a-days.  Sheesh, I must be getting mellow as I age....

Kris
 

[breeze]

Well, Kris, you know what they say about pointing fingers........ 

[Definitive Journey]

Well, Kris, you know what they say about pointing fingers........ 

I really don't see a need to state the obvious. 

Your concern is understandable though...as you're right there along-side Ms. Knot in the quagmire of recognition.  The desire to be seen as an 'authority' on something, anything, is very powerful.  In chat it's one of our favorite lines..."Love me, hate me....but don't ignore me, damnit!"   

Admittedly suprised to see Della in the 'tit-for-tat' routine there though...

[breeze]

I really don't see a need to state the obvious. 

Your concern is understandable though...as you're right there along-side Ms. Knot in the quagmire of recognition.  The desire to be seen as an 'authority' on something, anything, is very powerful.  In chat it's one of our favorite lines..."Love me, hate me....but don't ignore me, damnit!"   

Admittedly suprised to see Della in the 'tit-for-tat' routine there though...

It is easy to sit and judge. 

[Definitive Journey]

It is easy to sit and judge. 

Correct.  Yet again, why state the obvious?

I posed this in Soma years ago, yet will re-post here. 

“Let's look at attachment for a moment. Mind is completely free and open in its natural state, and hence operates best in that condition. But when my mind is caught on, or attached to, some object or idea, then it stops.

This is called attachment. When I become attached to something, then I am a slave to that.

Don't be attached. And if I see someone doing something I don't like; smoking, drinking, dressing in some manner I don't feel is appropriate, if I think, "This is wrong, because this person has attachment", then I may be right or I may be wrong about their attachment, but certainly I am the one who is attached. I have become a slave to this idea, because my mind is caught upon it. I must be very careful. Because there's nothing more unfortunate than thinking myself free of something myself, but continuing to be attached because of my judgment of others.”

Can you see how you are doing this to me?  (And how I do this to others, etc., etc., etc….)

Everyone does this, yet more importantly the self proclaimed gooroo’s do this.  They let the shit fly for a bit, then arrive after a certain number of posts, or when there’s a break in the action or after a specified time frame in their own minds.

I suppose in their own minds this may show a bit of restraint, or timing, or patience.  Rubbish.  It’s just more attachment to others, just like those they wish to judge.  What’s even worse, imho, is the attitude of this ‘final authority,’ coming down as the Word of God, or Buddha or Don Juan or whoever the Savior is.  (Once again, a legend in their own mind.)  The last line of the quote above sums it up nicely:  “Because there's nothing more unfortunate than thinking myself free of something myself, but continuing to be attached because of my judgment of others.”

Please note that I’m not excluding myself from this.  Yes, I do this all the time.  Happy now?

Kris

[Endless~Knot]

Well Kris, I reread this thread and I think to myself. "God I'm brilliant!" Really I am! I try to keep a lid on my knowledge. I find I write less nowadays. But when I decide to sit and write and do a thoughtful post, damn I'm just so incredibly amazing. Be in awe of me!

My thoughts today on this are similar. Buddhism proclaims Not self, Hinduism says self. Both have valid arguments, but we may not know til we actually experience death.

CC says we are laid flat and no more. Some say an essence of being laid flat, carries over. But in reality, much ado of what happens when we die is a mystery. However, when it comes to the soul, the self, whatever you wish to call it, I do believe this is something that needs to be developed. This can only be done if one goes on some form of a spiritual path. They have to be involved with something. If they do not, they are in jeopardy of being laid out flat.

But in truth what greets us on the other side? A warm and fuzzy heavenly abode, or a cold and empty infinite? Or nothing at all. Do we take a dirt nap and it's all said and done?

My path is about my life here and now and I develop myself the best I can. In the end, when I go, if I do have a soul developed, it wont matter what Buddhists or Hindus actually say; what will matter is how impeccable I have been , and how I go about getting past that big bird....

[Endless~Knot]

My own opinion and my own knowledge says that not all people make it. I think very few Christians are saved as much as they say they are. I think many are going to be in for a rude awakening in the end cause let's face it folks, sinners keep on sinning and just going and doing penance every week isn't gonna wash you clean. How often does the savior need to get on the cross and save someone, week after week. It's ridiculous! The christian path does not teach people to be impeccable, by giving an out of being able to ask for forgiveness every time they sin. Many just keep on doing the same thing, then asking forgiveness. Do you really get forgiven each and every time? Its a game, a ruse, it's insanity. It's not impeccable.

When I was a kid several times I heard the saying, you don't get to heaven for being a good person. But newsflash! This is an error, it is being a good person that will get you to the infinite. But you got to be pretty darned good. Then omg you've got to define good which is even more difficult!

[Endless~Knot]

In regards to visiting forums and the like, or being attached to one or the other, I go where power is. If I sense power, or something magical about it, I head there. I like also to drop in on other warriors and see how they are doing. I like sharing tales of power, and dreams, and discussing CC, and meeting with like minds. I think the CC boards are rarer nowadays, but they exist which is good.

[Definitive Journey]

~

You write:

"Well Kris, I reread this thread and I think to myself. "God I'm brilliant!" Really I am! I try to keep a lid on my knowledge. I find I write less nowadays. But when I decide to sit and write and do a thoughtful post, damn I'm just so incredibly amazing. Be in awe of me!"

Then write: 

"In regards to visiting forums and the like, or being attached to one or the other, I go where power is."

What power is this which you seek?  This is funny to me.  ‘Seeking’ power.  Do you see power as something you can obtain externally, from a discussion board or hidden in don Juan’s gully?

Regardless, why not become whatever ‘power’ is you define, create your own discussion board and have others come to you?

Kris