Anattā (no self)

[sky]

Neuroscience backs up the Buddhist belief that “the self” isn’t constant, but ever-changing.


Buddhists argue that nothing is constant, everything changes through time, you have a constantly changing stream of consciousness,” Evan Thompson, a philosophy of mind professor at the University of British Columbia, tells Quartz. “And from a neuroscience perspective, the brain and body is constantly in flux. There’s nothing that corresponds to the sense that there’s an unchanging self.”

Neuroscience and Buddhism came to these ideas independently, but some scientific researchers have recently started to reference and draw on the Eastern religion in their work—and have come to accept theories that were first posited by Buddhist monks thousands of years ago.


https://qz.com/506229/neuroscience-b...ever-changing/

[God-Like]

As touched upon already, there is awareness of self or there isn't.

You cannot for example be speaking about no self while entertaining the notion that there is no self.

One cannot for example entertain no self while saying I love you to the misses or asking for a coffee with one sugar, no milk.

No self, beyond self doesn't entertain anything mindful.

self refers to awareness of what you relate yourself to being in an environment of this mindful world.


x daz x

[markings]

Originally Posted by ketzer

And finally, for those who do believe they understand this concept, who is doing the understanding?

No one does the understanding. If there is understanding then that does not belong to anyone or anything.
Think of it as an energetic thought complex that has manifested near your body. It may be there today and be gone tomorrow although it seems to have some 'stickyness'.

To think in terms of (permanent) self, I or ego, soul, is just a bad habit of Western people constantly reinforced by language with its grammatical rules.
The self, ego, soul, is created by our language and has no existence apart from our language.

[sky]

Originally Posted by God-Like

As touched upon already, there is awareness of self or there isn't.

You cannot for example be speaking about no self while entertaining the notion that there is no self.

One cannot for example entertain no self while saying I love you to the misses or asking for a coffee with one sugar, no milk.

No self, beyond self doesn't entertain anything mindful.

self refers to awareness of what you relate yourself to being in an environment of this mindful world.


x daz x

Well this self will enjoy the coffee with one sugar, no milk but then realize it's a little bitter and add some milk. This self then becomes not self, nothing is permanent even selfs taste .

Self would prefer the coffee with a Chocolate Muffin though

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by sky123

Well this self will enjoy the coffee with one sugar, no milk but then realize it's a little bitter and add some milk. This self then becomes not self, nothing is permanent even selfs taste .

Self would prefer the coffee with a Chocolate Muffin though

self does indeed pass, at a point you won't be aware of you as you know self to be .. it won't be however while choosing what muffin you want or what type of milk you want in your coffee ..

I think there is confusion with folk who say there is no self present while brushing the muffin crumbs off their shirt.

self in one respect can change as often as the weather does, but while there is the weather and there is self there is a chance of getting wet.

If there is the suggestion that there is no-one getting wet, then houston has a serious problem


x daz x

[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

As touched upon already, there is awareness of self or there isn't.

You cannot for example be speaking about no self while entertaining the notion that there is no self.

One cannot for example entertain no self while saying I love you to the misses or asking for a coffee with one sugar, no milk.

No self, beyond self doesn't entertain anything mindful.

self refers to awareness of what you relate yourself to being in an environment of this mindful world.


x daz x

In Buddhist mindful meditation there are two areas available for investigation: the body and the mind as one experiences. That is merely categorical, and deeper aspects of Buddhist philosophy imply that body/mind/experience is the same composite of 'aggregates'. The aggregates are basically are divided into matter and the immaterial. Matter is obvious enough in terms of the body, but the experience of it is immaterial. For example, your bum is on the seat, but your experience of the sensation of your bum on the seat is 'of mind'. Then there are mentalities which are not matter, perceptions are immaterial, and volition without form.



To explain this simply, there is no separation between mind and body and senses because experience is the interaction of it. This interaction is called 'contact' in Buddhism.


In Buddhism, all these body, mind, senses, conscious experiences are due to 'contact'. These integral elements are called 'aggregates'. The aggregates are anatta in two ways: 1) not-self (not me, my, mine or I) and; 2) Non-self (are empty of fundamental identity).

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Gem

In Buddhist mindful meditation there are two areas available for investigation: the body and the mind as one experiences. That is merely categorical, and deeper aspects of Buddhist philosophy imply that body/mind/experience is the same composite of 'aggregates'. The aggregates are basically are divided into matter and the immaterial. Matter is obvious enough in terms of the body, but the experience of it is immaterial. For example, your bum is on the seat, but your experience of the sensation of your bum on the seat is 'of mind'. Then there are mentalities which are not matter, perceptions are immaterial, and volition without form.



To explain this simply, there is no separation between mind and body and senses because experience is the interaction of it. This is called 'contact' in Buddhism.


In Buddhism, all these body, mind, senses, conscious experiences are due to 'contact'. These integral elements are called 'aggregates'. The aggregates are anatta in two ways: 1) not-self (not me, my, mine or I) and; 2) Non-self (are empty of fundamental identity).

I understand and agree that there is no separation between mind and body in regards to experience. I am not sure however where 'not-self' comes into the equation if 'not self' still contains an element of identification. The identification that is supposedly absent / empty of non-self.

It's like there is a sitting on a chair but it is not 'me' that is sitting. There is however an identification to what me is and what me isn't.

No self would refer to in this same instance as there is no identification to there being anyone sitting.

This in my eyes doesn't make sense at all. If you are aware of sitting and you are aware of another standing, there is a self reference within self identification.

'Non self' being empty of identification would mean that there was no awareness of sitting or standing and we all know on some level which it is that we are doing..

If I asked the non-self chap which is it, he will have an answer for me that relates through his own self reference. A self reference that he has identified.

I am sure there's plenty of grand notions circulating about self and non self, I have my own grand notions, but when I sit face to face with another and I speak with them, I know if there is a self present or not lol.

I know when they are self identifying or not.


x daz x

[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I understand and agree that there is no separation between mind and body in regards to experience. I am not sure however where 'not-self' comes into the equation if 'not self' still contains an element of identification. The identification that is supposedly absent / empty of non-self.

Same as neti neti. Not me, my, mine or I

It's like there is a sitting on a chair but it is not 'me' that is sitting. There is however an identification to what me is and what me isn't.

As an anology, the 'chair aggregates' of chair are seat, legs and back. you take off the legs and seat, there is no chair-self. It's 'chair-anatta'. Legs are not-chair, seat is not-chair, back is 'not chair'. 'Chair' is a composite of aggregates and there is no fundamental chair which is, or possesses, those aggregates. This is philosophical, but in the meditation you can notice the aggregate senses and so forth and know it is not-me, my, mine of I. For example, you know you are not the sensation in your bum.

No self would refer to in this same instance as there is no identification to there being anyone sitting.

No-self is the same as non-self: empty of fundamental identity.

This in my eyes doesn't make sense at all. If you are aware of sitting and you are aware of another standing, there is a self reference within self identification.

In Buddhism the notion there is experience, therefore that experience must be 'self' (me, my, mine, I) or 'self' (has fundamental identity) is delusion. Delusion (or ignorance) is the first aspect in the philosophy of dependent arising... which is another tangent of the philosophy we won't go down now.

'Non self' being empty of identification would mean that there was no awareness of sitting or standing and we all know on some level which it is that we are doing..

Nope, the conscious experience arises with 'contact' as I already explained in my last post on aggregates. All experience is anatta, as I already said.

If I asked the non-self chap which is it, he will have an answer for me that relates through his own self reference. A self reference that he has identified.

Buddhism does not have a self-theory about 'you exist'. That is not what anatta is about.

I am sure there's plenty of grand notions circulating about self and non self, I have my own grand notions, but when I sit face to face with another and I speak with them, I know if there is a self present or not lol.

I know when they are self identifying or not.

I think you are missing the point that anatta doesn't mean 'you don't exist'. Self-theory as you are imagining it, or as the Bramans discussed it, or as adviata tells it, is not a part of Buddhist philosophy

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Gem

Same as neti neti. Not me, my, mine or I




As an anology, the 'chair aggregates' of chair are seat, legs and back. you take off the legs and seat, there is no chair-self. It's 'chair-anatta'. Legs are not-chair, seat is not-chair, back is 'not chair'. 'Chair' is a composite of aggregates and there is no fundamental chair which is, or possesses, those aggregates. This is philosophical, but in the meditation you can notice the aggregate senses and so forth and know it is not-me, my, mine of I. For example, you know you are not the sensation in your bum.




No-self is the same as non-self: empty of fundamental identity.




In Buddhism the notion there is experience, therefore that experience must be 'self' (me, my, mine, I) or 'self' (has fundamental identity) is delusion. Delusion (or ignorance) is the first aspect in the philosophy of dependent arising... which is another tangent of the philosophy we won't go down now.




Nope, the conscious experience arises with 'contact' as I already explained in my last post on aggregates. All experience is anatta, as I already said.




Buddhism does not have a self-theory about 'you exist'. That is not what anatta is about.




I think you are missing the point that anatta doesn't mean 'you don't exist'. Self-theory as you are imagining it, or as the Bramans discussed it, or as adviata tells it, is not a part of Buddhist philosophy

I haven't been speaking about non existence, I have been speaking of not self and non self in the ways as you have described.

Non self as you described is empty of identification, all I am saying is that if I spoke face to face with a supposed 'non self' I would know whether there is self identification had or not.

I can't for the life of me expect to hold a conversation with such a non self. For starters, there would be no acknowledgement of me being present speaking to them.

In order to relate to me speaking to them, they would have to firstly identify with themselves.


What is also apparent in my eyes is that to hold a theory about the nature of all things including oneself there has to be an identification with oneself. If one wants to conclude that the chair isn't really a chair or the identification of the chair is delusional then there has to be an identification to what you are that can be deluded or not. There has to be an identification that isn't deluded that can conclude a theory about self and no self.

The whole neti neti approach is riddled with identifications and knowings that are mindful that has to relate to what you think / know in regards to what you are.

The neti neti chap says I am not this, but has to declare I AM that. That is an self identification. What is that, that can identify with themselves? Whatever they call that, will be a self reference.

There really is no point for anyone to say I am not sitting down when they hold onto a theory of that, that derives through some mental gymnastic routine.


I find all this talk of non self, not self, very strange indeed in regards to experiencing this world, such individuals see a chair and go and sit on it. They don't go and sit on a ducks head instead. They know the difference because they are conditioned to know the difference, and one is conditioned to know what delusions are. One cannot understand these theories unless one is reflected within them.

So non identified buddhists that sit cross legged saying some mantra day in and day out are doing so because of identification rather than not.

Perhaps they don't realize that when they identify with something they are identifying with themselves.



x daz x

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sky123

The Upanishads teach that there is a permanent self/soul, Buddhism is the opposite.

Mahayana teach that we are not really separate, autonomous beings, other Schools differ...

Now that you have identified the various theories, what have you actually realized?