No self?

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/05/psychological-self-vs-no-self/

I was reading fellow refugee Ron Crouch's recent article (posted above) and had what is probably a subtle and nit picky thought.

I'm not sure if anatta actually means there is no self, that the self is an illusion, or that none of us exists. I think it must be something both lesser and greater than those things and, actually, something quite different.

Now, what follows is just a discussion based upon my practice, my experience and it is just meant to convey certain ideas and opnions that I have right now. I am really open that I am completely wrong, or that further practice will show me something very different. What follows is also not meant to be a disagreement with or an argument against Ron's article, the article just got me thinking.

Okay, I do think that within the progress of insight model I've attained stream entry and get anatta and the other two characteristics. And, to me, right now, I have no doubt that I exist, that there is a Mike Monson. I eat, sleep, create waste, procreate, work, cause all kinds of trouble. I misspell. I think, I breathe (just try and stop me). I want stuff, I need stuff. I love, laugh. I hate, I resent, I regret, I desire. I do all this stuff all the time. You can't miss it. I can create and I can destroy. I'm the thing that practices, that wants peace, wisdom, intimacy, insight.

And, I don't see anatta as opposed to all that. For me, anatta is a direct perception of the fact that Mike Monson (like everything else) is a fluid, ever changing creation of myriad forces and materials from both within him and without him. It is in flux and only exists at all as long as a number of conditions are present. There was a time when there was no Mike Monson, there is a time in which this fluxuating thing called a Mike Monson will breathe and exist on earth, there will be a huge period in which there will no longer quite be anything like this Mike Monson though parts will continue sort of (another subject). The Mike Monson right here is an instant by instant creation that tends for a little while to look and act similar moment to moment while changing quite a bit over time.

Anatta for me is also a recognition of how much Mike Monson (like everything else) is a creation of objects and forces and thoughts and entities from outside of the basic Mike Monson body mind and would and could never exist without all of you and air and earth and plants and animals and spirit and everyone's thoughts and brains and minds and karmic forces (this is new). Mike Monson is separate in a practical identifying way but would NEVER exist without everything else. No way.

And, anatta for me is an intimacy with how my mind, and how my thoughts work to try to make sense of things and by doing so often just makes stuff up. Before stream entry I was making shit up without realizing how much of it was just .... thoughts. Plus, I believed the shit that other people were constantly making up about themselves, other people, and me. Now, there is a certain freedom from that that I think can be expanded a great deal with more practice.

So here I am typing this. I'm here. I'm not a no-Mike Monson, I'm not an illusion. I'm just not a fixed, permanent, never changing entity that has always and will always exist in a certain form, which is the kind of idea that causes all the trouble and suffering.

Am I making sense? I hope so. Anatta is not that we don't exist, that we are an illusion, it's just an insight into a very subtle misunderstand we can have about the nature of our individual selves, an insight that can bring some relief from basic HUMAN suffering.

Why do I think all this is true (at least for now)? Because from my own investigation, from acting as a light unto myself and watching what is going on in great detail using some really good techniques -- it's what I see.

The "self" is like a rubber band, or, simply, like rubber. I can experience emptiness (which to me is a state in which the feeling of separation is gone or just not very prominent and my mind has temporarily stopped creating new stories about the world) for any number of instances but the feeling of Mike Monson-ness is always ready to spring right back into prominence and start making shit up again. Always -- or, I think, as long as there is a body with a normally functioning brain.

(It also occurs to me that the three characteristics are not really three separate things but that are just one thing with three different emphases -- each are contained within the others)

Within the truth of anatta, there is plenty of room to develop a normal, healthy, happy, joyous functioning self and any denial of that self is actually a dharma-practice-created illusion that I guarantee will cause you all kinds of trouble and suffering.

Is it just me, or is it clear how an awareness of a lot of the stuff I described above that basically entail all the characteristics will make one's experience of life more full, more immediate, more sensual, less frictiony, more bright, just more wonderful most of the time?



And that while horrible things will happen constantly, that the intimacy with which one experiences those things (while still undeniably horrible and sucky) can and will be profound?

My experience has anatta has usually been not-self, rather than no-self. The bulk of my practice with anatta has not concerned itself with whether there is or is not a self, or if so what it consists of, as some objective question of existence; but rather the understanding that the material of experience—specifically, the five aggregates—are themselves anatta, not self. That my thoughts are not-self, my feelings are not-self, my identity, consciousness, will are not-self. And, you know, rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana anatta. This leaves open the question, I guess, of whether EXISTS a self, more essential than the khandas. But I think that's not nearly as useful a question. Especially because what the Buddha was thinking of when he talked about atta was very different from what characteristics I would say a self has to have: for him something would necessarily be not-self as long as it was impermanent; I think most Westerners are very comfortable of thinking of their selves as being selves, even if they change and pass away.

I get you Zach.

From that perspective it seems true and real that each of those aggregatges are empty of a "self" and that one cannot find a "self" in a lot of places and things. This is very freeing and exciting I think.

And, yes, I'm sort of working with something diffferent, with the tension here between the reality of there being sometimes a combined bunch of forces that make up something acting as a viable separate self -- and the misunderstanding sometimes through exposure to dharma of that separate self that it isn't real.

I feel like the acting—and especially observing—self is real in the way that an operating system is real when the computer's on and not real when the computer's off.

I feel like the acting—and especially observing—self is real in the way that an operating system is real when the computer's on and not real when the computer's off.

-cruxdestruct

I'm not sure I get that.

Isn't Zach (as long as he is alive) always kind of operating -- remembering, feeling, getting impressions for later, CHANGING -- whether in the foreground or more in the background, whether awake, asleep, drugged, drunk, in a coma, etc.? While the operating system will go back to being exactly the same operating system once the computer is plugged back in? I guess unless there is some physical damage to the computer?

Which brings up "cessation," is that more what you mean? During cessation the self is just not operating at all for a certain period? (which might be debateable)

I don't know, maybe when pracitioners says things like "the self is an illusion," "the self doesn't exist" it is just a short hand for all the stuff I just said in more detail?

For the sake of clarity in this discussion let's ask a few questions about this "self." Is it always present? Does this self control anything - does it sit atop the human organism in some fashion and coordinate our activities? Is it in any way continuous through time? Is the self you have today the same self you had when you were 10 years old?
If your answer is "yes" to any of these questions then....

-cmarti

You might have a drinking problem?

Seriously --

Okay.

The self exists now only.

The self that exists now makes decisions and does stuff, which might be the same as control and coordination.

It is made up brand new each instant but can appear continuous because how it manifests each moment is often very similar to the one beforehand.

I don't have a self I am a self for this moment and it is similar to something that was around 10 years ago but not the same.

Did you know it's an actual proven, beyond-question fact that when you move a part of your body the intent to do so is completely unconscious (you have no idea it's happening) and that you are only aware of the movement about a half second AFTER the intent occurs? What does that say about a self that makes decisions and has control?

-cmarti

A lot of stuff goes on in our body that is completely unconscious. But, if there are UNconscious processes, there has to be conscious processes too, right?

Chris -

Do you really think there are proven, beyond question facts? Scientific facts stay fixed for a while based upon knowledge at the time and the perspective being used at the time.

In whatever experiment proved the fact you presented how was the becoming aware of something a half second later measured? who became aware? what became aware? how was awareness identified? Where is "intent" located? How was this found in the body or the mind? Isn't a lot of this kind of creative and based upon beliefs and vocabularly that will change over time?

Control and coordination are maybe not as accurate for me as "influence," "act," "sway," "effect."

"I feel like the acting—and especially observing—self is real in the way
that an operating system is real when the computer's on and not real
when the computer's off."

FWIW, here's my working hypothesis: the [poetic] v.1, circa 2001:

Whatever will we do



with
Kate, when she’s beside

herself,
when she’s beside the point,

when
it’s clearly a fictitious name

we
call Something Else by?—A

pseudonym,
a nom de plume, for

a
mere feather on this great wind

roaring
through. That means (make

no
mistake) to scour and harrow:

that
means to leave an utterly

changed
landscape—if any—behind.



And the plain, prose v. 2: 'the self' is a concept; it's a kind
of crude-- but weighted [some aspects are 'like me' and some are 'not
like me at all']--average of all my little self-observation moments. It
has some practical use in aiding me in 'steering' my life, to the
limited degree to which that's possible-- like a rear-view mirror-- but it is definitely
susceptible to all kinds of conditional influences. Its 'existence' is
the same as any other concept: not absolute, not permanent, not
unconditional.

It's part of how our particular language is constituted;
I'm no linguist, but I can imagine that there are other languages who
deal with the issue of speaking reflexively, or articulating an
identity, differently. There may be languages where such a thing is 'not
done', for all I know.

My sense so far is that anatta is a mysterious thing that can't be explained and, that there is something not quite accurate in saying "the self is an illusion" or "you don't really exist," that those phrases mislead and cause some needless suffering. However, I need to continue investigating.

No permanent self - cool

The SELF is an illusion - not quite right

What do you mean by SELF?

-cmarti

the thing/force/object/entity/person who just asked "what do you mean by SELF" as well as the thing/force/object/entity/person who read the question and is now typing this answer.