http://purifymind.com/NonexistenceSelf.htm
Nonexistence of Self
By
Paul Knierim
The idea of a self is fundamental, yet strangely inscrutable.
"I exist" seems an obvious truth, but who is the "I"? Is there
a single distinct "I" experiencing existence, or is it unfair to say
that the "I" is distinct from the experience? Is it sensible to imagine
there not being a self? Buddhist philosophy asserts that the conception of a separate
self having the experiences is a mistake. Contradicting the assertions of the
Samkhya and Yoga philosophies, Buddhists argue that the self is nothing more than
an arbitrary label for a collection of parts.
In the view of Samkhya and Yoga,
the self is an undeniable fact. Where there is a scene, it is argued, there is
a witness. Where there is an observation, there is an observer. Where there is
something known, there is a knower. The mind isn't properly described as being
the self, for it's clearly known. Thoughts are all observations of their own sort,
as they must pass before consciousness. Consciousness is of thoughts, therefore
consciousness cannot be the thoughts themselves according to Samkhya and Yoga.
In the Yoga-Sutra this argument is given against the mind being the self: "Whatever
objects color the mind, that object becomes known. That which becomes known is
an object. That which is not thus known is purusa and is unknown" (482).
Anything which is known must have a knower, so the known mind must be known by
the true self. What's left over after the options of the self being the body or
the mind are dismissed is a self which is a pure principle of observation -- consciousness
in itself. This self, called purusa, is the eternal observer before whom temporary
thoughts pass. We have a difficulty in that the self cannot be known (it being
the knower of any knowledge, always the subject and never an object), but confidence
that the self must be there since it's been logically derived.
The Buddhist
rejects the self, preferring to say that it's no more than a label for a collection.
Just as we label objects in the world around us arbitrarily, we invent an arbitrary
label with the word "self" that has no reality beyond the parts. "Chariot"
is a word we use to keep track of a conglomeration of descriptions: wheels, axles,
reins, yoke, banner-staff, goading-stick, pole, et cetera. It isn't proper to
say that these things unite to become the chariot because there's no real unification,
the parts remain only the parts, it's just we who imagine some sort of unity by
use of the word "chariot" as the unifier. Objectively there's nothing
that "chariot" adds to what's there compared to if we didn't treat it
as though it were unified... all the parts are simply all the parts, our label
adds nothing. So it is as well with the self. Nagesana explains this with reference
to his own being in the Milindapanha: "Nagesana is but a way of counting,
term, appellation, convenient designation, mere name for the hair of my head,
hair of my body... brain of the head, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions,
and consciousness. But in the absolute sense there is no ego here to be found"
(284). The self is not form, not sensation, not perception, not predispositions,
not consciousness... nor is it something else, nor is it the unification. The
self is not to be found, it's only the invented label which is imagined to mean
something but actually adds nothing to the picture beyond what was already there.
The Samkyha and Yoga philosophers may object to the fundamental ideas of the
Buddhist conception as being incoherent, but must establish that their own view
as more coherent if the objections are to be effective. The Buddhist is denying,
it would seem, the most obvious facts of the world: that there are things in it
and someone perceiving it. The existence of objects being known is proof of the
existence of the knower, the objects cannot be known without a knowing subject
existing. Patanjali says of the mind, "It is not self-illuminating, being
the knowable" (482). This proves there must be a self, as the fact of the
knowable means something must be doing the knowing. The Buddhist seems simply
self-contradictory, uttering such nonsense as "The Path exists, but not the
traveler on it" (289). If someone is traveling the path, then the traveler
on the path must exist, and to say otherwise is surely nonsense. The Samkhya philosopher,
however, is in the situation of asserting the existence of something which is
defined as unknown (because it's the knower) and impossible to experience (because
it's the experiencer). Many philosophers would argue that it's never proper to
claim to existence of something which by definition can never be conceived of
-- if you see the tip of an iceberg perhaps you can deduce the rest, but if you
have no sample at all of what sort of thing it is then you have no business asserting
it. The Samkhya idea of the purusa, then, cannot be trusted based on appeals to
intuition unless there's some sort of sample of what it could be -- otherwise
it might be more reasonable to say that the intuition that there's a subject for
every object only applies to the experiences within the mind and is misapplied
when used on the mind itself... for after all, we derived the intuition only from
sense experiences. Perhaps Patanjali sees these objections, for Yoga provides
an attempt at showing a way to verify the existence of the self. In the Yoga-Sutra,
Patanjali believes he's showing a process through which the true purusa can be
experienced in itself, the method to have the subject without any object. But
how coherent, exactly, is the idea of self-observation? Surely it's the impossibility
of self-observation that motivated the idea of an observing unobservable self
to begin with, and if we're willing to assert self-observation we might as well
assert the mind as doing it. The idea that subject and object require each other
was just moments ago being used to refute the Buddhist, so how then can we suddenly
moving to talking about a subject by itself? If there can be no object without
a subject, how can there be a subject without an object... how can there be any
way to distinguish one to say that it exists, without the other being there to
distinguish it? Logically, the consciousness in itself would have to be either
total nothingness or an experience of another meta-self experiencer (which would
lead to an infinite homuncular regress). It would seem then that the objections
to Buddhism by Samkhya and Yoga philosophy are not especially strong, in view
of how their alternative to the Buddhist falls victim to some similar attacks
-- yet it remains worthwhile to see if the Buddhist can deal with the objections
more easily, in order to determine if the views will be stuck on equally questionable
footing.
The Buddhist position can be clarified to show how it sidesteps the
problems it's accused of. The denial of self is not a denial that there are perceptions
and consciousness, rather it's a denial of unity and a denial of absoluteness.
There is a chariot so far as common talk goes, and it would seem nonsensical to
deny that there's a chariot -- but we must remember that we're addressing the
idea of a unified real absolute chariot, not just asking if the situation has
arisen where in our language we're supposed to say "chariot." There
is a chariot there, but only in a relational sense -- the relation of the parts
to each other. It's entirely arbitrary to try to call that set of relations a
unified whole, as it would be just as easy to extend it out and call the entire
world a chariot. There's nothing in the relations themselves which says how many
or what kind of relations to include in some sort of absolute unified whole...
there's nothing in the parts of a chariot that says "I'm part of a chariot."
The unified chariot, the absolute chariot, does not exist -- it's only what the
senses and mind structures cause the mind to imagine. This carries over again
to talking about the self -- the thesis in not that nothing exists, it's that
things are only there in a relational sense (with arbitrary and fuzzy boundaries)
rather than an absolute sense. The chariot is the expression of the relation of
parts, and so is the self the expression of the relation of parts. This is emphasized
in the Visuddhi-magga: "When we come to examine the parts one by one we discover
that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words
'living entity' and 'ego' are but a mode of expression for the presence of the
five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one
by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there
to form a basis for such figments as 'I am,' or 'I'; in other words, that in the
absolute sense there is only name and form" (285). Our attempts to express
an absolute reality of self are mistaken, for there is nothing there except exactly
what's there. There is no unity, only relations which we hopelessly attempt to
turn into unity. It's not that we're wrong to talk of things existing, it's that
we're wrong to think we mean something absolute or unified by it, for on close
inspection everything we call an object (including the self) is no more than relations.
The critic may still object that the Buddhist hasn't offered an account of
how experiences exist. To this, the Buddhist may reply that experiences are made
up of skandhas, skandhas being essentially aggregates or bundles. The five skandhas
are form, sensation, perception/cognition, predispositions, consciousness. The
most important as far as analyzing why experience seems to be as it seems to be
is the consciousness. The consciousness (vijnana skandha) is the skandha which
splits things into subject and object. This occurs when a sense organ (brain included)
comes into contact with something -- it's here that the duality of experience
is added. Consciousness creates a split into experiencer and experience, a split
which is not real beyond consciousness. Normally we think of experience being
created by subject and object, because consciousness forces things into such description.
In actuality, says the Buddhist, both the subject and the object are aspects of
experience. The subject/object distinction is created by the consciousness aspect
of experience, rather than being the reality of the way things are as the Samkhya
or Yoga philosopher would have it. Samkhya would have a self sitting in a movie
theater watching life on the screen. The Buddhist would have nothing but the experiences
on the screen, with no theater or viewer, and for that matter no screen. The Buddhist,
instead of appealing to the necessity of a subject for every object that seems
so natural, says that the subject/object distinction is illusory (an aspect of
experience itself) and so eliminates the problem of looking for a self.
For
the Buddhist, the knowing that goes on is only relational, parts relating to other
parts. By avoiding the absolute sense of something being known, the Buddhist also
avoids the implication of an absolute self. When the mind knows something, that's
just a pattern of relations with no absolutes involved. There is no observer of
the mind, for the thoughts stand without need of any absolutes to put them in
context. When subject and object are illusion and reality contains neither subject
nor object, there's no need to invent a self to fill the hole of "subject".
The nature of the self is a problem that has plagued philosophy from the earliest
times. The Buddhist argues that this problem is a psychological problem -- the
feeling of a need to find something that isn't there. If the self seems strangely
inscrutable, that's because there's nothing there to examine. The quest for the
unified self is doomed by the simple fact that there's nothing more there than
what's there, there is no unity. If the subject/object distinction is truly illusory,
then our intuitions of separateness and unified nature of a self opposed to a
world are only a part of the nature of experience, and not an actual reality beyond.
ah
The Buddhist seems simply self-contradictory, uttering such nonsense as "The Path exists, but not the traveler on it" (289).
the no self or no self, anatta is deep and profound, not easily understood and realised. all other religions all taught there is a soul. that is the difference between buddhism and other religions.
self is human philosophy
understanding the self opens the door towards greater understanding of what it is to be human
there is nothing wrong, and in fact, it is a compulsory experience curve prior to emptying the self towards the transcendental
life is not worth living without understanding what it is to be human
Originally posted by Fcukpap:self is human philosophy
understanding the self opens the door towards greater understanding of what it is to be human
there is nothing wrong, and in fact, it is a compulsory experience curve prior to emptying the self towards the transcendental
No fcukpap, you got it wrong.
No Self is nothing transcendental.
Even right now, there is no self already. 'You' conventionally speaking are only a human body and mind. There are only sensations, perceptions, feelings, experiences, there is nothing 'self' about it. There is experience, never an experiencer. You cannot find a self. It does not 'exist'.
You cannot empty what never existed.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No fcukpap, you got it wrong.
No Self is nothing transcendental.
Even right now, there is no self already. 'You' conventionally speaking are only a human body and mind. There are only sensations, perceptions, feelings, experiences, there is nothing 'self' about it. There is experience, never an experiencer. You cannot find a self. It does not 'exist'.
its hard to explain no self or no soul to others isn't it. thats the way of the world.
that was why Buddha was hesitant to teach intitially, as the dhamma he realised, is profound, deep and not easily understood. but having said that, there will be others who will understand it, with just a little dust in their eyes.
Originally posted by Rooney9:its hard to explain no self or no soul to others isn't it. thats the way of the world.
that was why Buddha was hesitant to teach intitially, as the dhamma he realised, is profound, deep and not easily understood. but having said that, there will be others who will understand it, with just a little dust in their eyes.
As AEN mentioned you cannot find a self. If you keep on finding it, it never exist, once you dun find it, true self emerges. It journeys together with existence like a wonderful family of bliss and peace. Buddhism is beautiful, but attachment and discrimination of Buddhism is an hindrance to realize true self, as basically, the teaching of Buddhism arises because of attachment over the blissful state of emptiness mind (highest heavenly state of dwelling).
I understand that true self is so close to us, just like our face features, it is so close that we cannot see it. I also understand that dharma is just tools to find our true self. We don't need the dharma after we found our true self but till now I'm still looking for my 如�� (true self).
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:I understand that true self is so close to us, just like our face features, it is so close that we cannot see it. I also understand that dharma is just tools to find our true self. We don't need the dharma after we found our true self but till now I'm still looking for my 如�� (true self).
The true self can not be found by looking for it.
如�� is revealed by practicing a method.
Originally posted by jinlin:The true self can not be found by looking for it.
如�� is revealed by practicing a method.
Yeah, "look" is just a direct translation from Chinese 找or �。
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes. Don’t be like sitting on a bull looking for your bull, or walking around looking for the key that is in your pocket. Self-inquiry is a direct path method that leads to self-realisation.
Just curious, is it ok to have 2 self-inquries or preferably only 1. The one I'm contemplating now is "Who is the one dragging the corpse " (æ‹–ç�€æ»å°¸çš„人是è°�)。
Yoga" is the ancient Indian health fitness handed down during the approach, the traditional power law in the ancient tradition of development and civil society has a very far-reaching influence in the Indian tradition, practice yoga primarily for men the majority. Men practice Yoga Classes for its physical structure and the President have different, therefore, all requirements are different.
I am interested in koan meditation.
The koan that interest me is the sound of one hand clap.
How to meditate on that koan?
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:I am interested in koan meditation.
The koan that interest me is the sound of one hand clap.
How to meditate on that koan?
Find a zen master if you're interested in koans.
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:I am interested in koan meditation.
The koan that interest me is the sound of one hand clap.
How to meditate on that koan?
Koan is given to a student by a teacher so the teacher has a framework to work with that student. It is not meant to be worked on by yourself.
If you tell us your motivation, there may be other practice from Buddhism that is more suitable.
Also where do you live? Other members can recommend a center to go practice with other people.
Yes, cos a good teacher is needed to guide us.
The koan sound of one hand clap just caught my attention.
To realize “true self" is not easy,I think it may take us a long time to get it,maybe join the Yoga Classes will be quickly to realize it,because the guide will help us and give us some guides.
actually, though yoga has spiritual origins, the yoga taught in classes nowadays have nothing spiritual in it and is some physical exercises done merely for physical fitness and some limited mental benefits but doesnt really lead to selfrealisation
therefore it is quite useless to attend these classes if ur goal is self-realisation
speaking from experience, self-realisation is not difficult at all. it took me less than two years of self-inquiry to reach self-realisation, while our moderator thusness had it even faster (also practicing self-inquiry). both of us can attest that self-inquiry is a direct path to self-realisation.
you also dont really need much guidance for it, though i did have several conversations with seekers on the practice, see my e-book:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
oh btw seekers if they require guidance should seek those who are already enlightened... otherwise it will be a case of the blind leading the blind
those interested in yoga practice to reach self realisation should read this very very carefully:
http://www.swamij.com/traditional-yoga.htm