How can 'non - self' be relevant to people with no pre -existing sense of self

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

Anatta literally means 'an' or 'ana' (no) and 'atta' (self), but 'self' is used to mean a fundamental identity, and 'no self' merely means there is no such thing, but rather, all phenomena arise interdependently, sans a fundamental substance. Most of the rhetoric says something about 'non-self' in this context.


There is a more practical application of the idea which affirms how the things we experience are 'not-self'. This is related to Buddhism's core tenet of impermanence with is directly derived from the substanceless nature of phenomena. Simply, because experience comes and goes in a continuous flux of change, no phenomena in the world can be regarded as 'me, mine, my or I'.

I think the two Buddhist philosophies that provide a rich context to the idea of anatta are 'dependent origins' and the '5 skandas' (5 aggregates). These two are closely related but whereas the former explains the continued rising of subjective phenomena, the latter more directly addresses a person. Please do your own googling on those two subjects.

The key to this is not to take any of it personally because none of this is supposed to pertain to your existence. It really only pertains to the insubstantial, temporal nature of things.

Remember Buddhism is Non-Dual... so it goes a little deeper than things change..

Also, remember during the Buddha's time and where he was. He was in India where there was a strong belief in the Atman, Soul.. which the Buddha was challenging.

[Ariaecheflame]

Hello. Everyone.

Thanks for reasponding thus far.

It takes me a little bit of time to read all the replies and to process everything when I post on the forums so I tend to take my time in doing so.

I'm ready along now.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

I wonder sometimes why Buddhists spend their lives translating Suttas/Sutras if non of Buddha's Teachings pertain to our existence.

Buddha didn't teach anyone about their existence or non-existence, but said that self theories will only lead to distress. He also addressed the Brahman theories of self in this way, but made it clear that he was not a nihilist, and finally went on to explain that mind/body was a formation of 'aggregates' without any fundamental unitary substance, or 'non-self', as they say. None of these were to say that you do or don't exist, but rather, a discussion about the nature of things.

[Ariaecheflame]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

I would just like to say find out what serves you ? What religion or what 'spiritual' tradition or not meets your needs. The view of many paths leading to the mountain top is one endorsed by such people as the Dalai Lama. A type of modernism that we can overcome anything, conquer all truths and reach the bottom of what they are saying is probably hailing from the internet itself. Not saying this is related to yourself but I have used YouTube to do things I would have never been able do previously without it, fix a car, build something etc etc. ( and I'm glad of it) but it doesn't mean that I have a leaning towards becoming a car mechanic or learning calculus or that I'm even good at it ? So is this a problem nowadays with the birth and spread of the internet ? A jack of all trades and a master of none was the olden day saying.

Sorry if what i say sounds rude or presumptuous. There are lots of principles such as Harmony, peace, love, unity ..pick one which relates to Anatta ? I can feel the classical Buddhist Scholars lining up to give me a kicking lolol..But that has been my problem because i grew up in a place where some people couldn't read and write i probably know a few other languages good and bad besides the written language and often i feel very inadequate when people quote chapter and verse at me to prove a point ? Maybe the last point i'd like to make is ...do we accept that language is not the be all and end all of everything ? If I believe that language is an end in itself and not a symbolically based system of codifications then sincerely i believe I will be chasing my tail ad infinitum ? The glories of language are evident particularly in song for me personally and poetry ...its wonderful but it still remains on some level just a type of pointer. Hey thanks for stirring the thoughts in me and the opportunity to share. This post probably says more about me than it does about your questions regarding Self and Anatta. All the best. Joe.

Lol... YouTube - making us all masters of nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one religion or philosophy serves me but many branches from lots of religions and philosophies do.

The concept of 'non self' interests me from a perspective of finding peace which religion can't offer me because other religions direct me to an outward sense of salvation and peace where as I am more interested in fostering and nurturing an inner sense of peace which is not dependant on an outer force


I think that when first posting this I was feeling that their was a key step missing. You mentioned You Tube...I find you tube dangerous in the regard that people who might be searching for 'themselves' who could tend to latch onto all sorts of ideas - as they will regardless through books and through gurus of all sorts.
The ideas may not be directly harmful in and of themselves but when taken literally and from someone with a trauma background they can be damaging... Or any other background not quite as typical of the usual audience.

One example I can think of is you tube pop psychologists, who seem to be in it for mere views... Giving very broad advice as universally acceptable in the context and without disclaimer that it might actually be harmful for people who do not fit into the targeted audience.
I haven't seen anything much like that with this particular topic... Yet.

Licened psychologists have a degree of responsibility to provide disclaimers and be as clear in communicating context then online gurus who do not have the same responsibility.

I was feeling quite overwhelmed and frustrated when I posted here - probably at myself mostly that in the past I have taken the ideas of 'no self' and 'no attachment' so literally and given the context of my background it reinforced unhealthy practices.


I guess as I was posting this I was coming to realise my own desire to be responsible and mindful when communicating with others about any ideas and in particular if these sorts of conversations come up which they inevitably do from time to time.

Though I am learning such habits more broadly anyway - recognising that although we are 'all adults' who have the ability to discern and do our own research (haha)... We are not all coming from level foundations and we all have differing levels and needs of processing information... so I have been pondering how much responsibility I choose to take in my own communication...



Though - it is like you said as well... Language doesn't always cut it.

I think that I can do better though so I will ponder that uncomfortable thought with compassion... Lol

I'll leave my reply at that for now and return again when I am able to :-)

Take care.

[jonesboy]

This may help.

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathágata-hood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, and auspicious. It is not this, which is born of the Womb of Tathágata-hood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, and imperishable. Is there, or is there not a difference?

The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathágata-hood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unborn-ness, unqualified ness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathágata-hood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of ego-less-ness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imageless-ness. The religious teaching of the Tathágatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rod, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathágatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold ego-less-ness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realization of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathágata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment. All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

Gem might like this part.

Mahamati then asked the Blessed One, saying: Pray tell us, Blessed One, what clear understandings an earnest disciple should have if he is to be successful in the discipline that leads to self-realization?

The Blessed One replied: There are four things by the fulfilling of which an earnest disciple may gain self-realization of Noble Wisdom and become and Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: First, he must have a clear understanding that all things are only manifestations of the mind itself; second, he must discard the notion of birth, abiding and disappearance; third, he must clearly understand the ego-less-ness of both things and persons; and fourth, he must have a true conception of what constitutes self-realization of Noble Wisdom, provided with these four understandings, earnest disciples may become Bodhisattvas and attain Transcendental Intelligence.

As to the first; he must recognize and be fully convinced that this triple world is nothing but a complex manifestation of one’s mental activities; that it is devoid of selfness and its belongings; that there are no strivings, no comings, no goings. He must recognize and accept the fact that this triple world is manifested and imagined as real only under the influence of habit-energy that has been accumulated since the beginning-less past by reason of memory, false-imagination, false-reasoning, and attachments to the multiplicities of objects and reactions in close relationship and in conformity to ideas of body-property-and-abode.

As the to second; he must recognize and be convinced that all things are to be regarded as forms seen in a vision and a dream, empty of substance, un-born and without self-nature; that all things exist only by reason of a complicated network of causation which owes its rise to the discrimination and attachment and which eventuates in the rise of the mind-system and its belongings and evolvements.

As to the third, he must recognize and patiently accept the fact that his own mind and personality is also mind-constructed, that it is empty of substance, unborn and ego-less. With these three things clearly in mind, the Bodhisattva will be able to enter into the truth of image-less-ness.

http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

This may help.



Gem might like this part.



http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm

Yes I like it, and not one to disagree. The central text on the nature of things is the 'dependent origin' which does away with causal factors in the ultimate sense, saying mind/consciousness is emergent of the conditions of 'contact' in which the sense organs, the sense-perception, and the phenomena sensed arise together. In this way, the origin is 'dependent' and there is no-self, which is to say, no primary substance, i.e. no 'self-nature'. I think your article was saying that as well.

[sentient]

*

No self/ego ---- no god (as an entity).

*

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Ariaecheflame

Lol... YouTube - making us all masters of nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one religion or philosophy serves me but many branches from lots of religions and philosophies do.

The concept of 'non self' interests me from a perspective of finding peace which religion can't offer me because other religions direct me to an outward sense of salvation and peace where as I am more interested in fostering and nurturing an inner sense of peace which is not dependant on an outer force


I think that when first posting this I was feeling that their was a key step missing. You mentioned You Tube...I find you tube dangerous in the regard that people who might be searching for 'themselves' who could tend to latch onto all sorts of ideas - as they will regardless through books and through gurus of all sorts.
The ideas may not be directly harmful in and of themselves but when taken literally and from someone with a trauma background they can be damaging... Or any other background not quite as typical of the usual audience.

One example I can think of is you tube pop psychologists, who seem to be in it for mere views... Giving very broad advice as universally acceptable in the context and without disclaimer that it might actually be harmful for people who do not fit into the targeted audience.
I haven't seen anything much like that with this particular topic... Yet.

Licened psychologists have a degree of responsibility to provide disclaimers and be as clear in communicating context then online gurus who do not have the same responsibility.

I was feeling quite overwhelmed and frustrated when I posted here - probably at myself mostly that in the past I have taken the ideas of 'no self' and 'no attachment' so literally and given the context of my background it reinforced unhealthy practices.


I guess as I was posting this I was coming to realise my own desire to be responsible and mindful when communicating with others about any ideas and in particular if these sorts of conversations come up which they inevitably do from time to time.

Though I am learning such habits more broadly anyway - recognising that although we are 'all adults' who have the ability to discern and do our own research (haha)... We are not all coming from level foundations and we all have differing levels and needs of processing information... so I have been pondering how much responsibility I choose to take in my own communication...



Though - it is like you said as well... Language doesn't always cut it.

I think that I can do better though so I will ponder that uncomfortable thought with compassion... Lol

I'll leave my reply at that for now and return again when I am able to :-)

Take care.

Yes we can be discerning and enter into healthy cultures, even you-tube lol, and in all things. Your initial post just sounded like you had got yourself into a bind concerning the Theravadin understanding of emptiness or Anatta. I've been there a few times in that bind and can still slip into it. Because its so logical the course of what is generally said concerning it, and it is so convincing that we end up saying to ourselves, at least our intellectual minds do, we say how can 2+2 =4 be wrong. But this morning i thought maybe you should look at the Mahayana or Vajrayana explanation and pointers of 'Emptiness' and what they say ? They say 'Emptiness' is congnisant, luminous, alive in other words..? hmmm just a thought, a suggestion. Anyway all the best in whatever you choose to do ..thanks for the questions and quandries ..makes me think a bit more ...and thanks for your reply :) Joe.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by janielee

Thanks for your post, Joe, agree that language is not the be all and end all. As Le Petit Prince aptly noted: “And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

That's the real Buddhism, all this other stuff is just window dressing / icing.

Bhikkhus, the teaching is merely a vehicle to describe the truth. Don’t mistake it for the truth itself. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The finger is needed to know where to look for the moon, but if you mistake the finger for the moon itself, you will never know the real moon.

JL

Thanks for sharing interesting references :) i shall mull over them. Shanti !

[Gem]

From my point of view, the main thing is a pretty simple matter of self-awareness. Just the truth of 'what is' just as it is as it is experienced by at the moment. It is simply a state of knowing - this is how it is. That's what I consider to be the 'way' of just being conscious of what is true.