Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Secret Key Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

Buddhism - No Self 6 years 10 months ago #1794

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
Question : I think in Buddhism, there is a notion of "no self". I read somewhere that, when Buddha was asked about if there is a self or not, he refused to answer[/b].


I think the religious texts in hindu religions are sanskrit. And as I understand, Hindu guru Nisargadatta Maharaj, uses the words consciousness and awareness in reverse compared to Upanishads[/b]. He doesnt use in a reverseible way, the English translator does it.

Now, in previous forum post I already wrote a similar thing before, but here is mine again, to make it clear:

Normally I am on body/mind level of awareness.

Sometimes I am able to focus on mind, especially when I try to realize the root of my thoughts/emotions/desires.

I can't really focus on that yet, but I also know that there is a "witness", the subject of the experience. I am inclined to call it "the true self", or the consciousness.


And lastly, there is the thing which I mentioned above as the "focus", the thing that makes it possible to focus. I am inclined to name it "awareness".

Sometimes, when I am thinking about a topic, I "realize" the truth behind it. I call this "revelation". Revelation comes from the root "reveal", so when the truth behind the subject/topic is revealed to me, I say "I had a revelation" or "I realized that..." or "I become aware that…".

As I understand, Maharaj says that, I am not even the witness (consciousness) but pure awareness.

And as I understand you also say the same, but you use the word awareness for witness, and consciousness instead of awareness. Right?

Now, what does "No Self" really mean? If that means, the Ego as self is just an illusion, I am fine with that. If it means the witness is an illusion, then I have a problem with that.

When you ate a chili pepper, I do not experience the burning sensation. If someone cuts someone else's arm, I also do not feel that pain.

But, I somehow attached to the person whose arm is cut, I feel something based on the attachment. If it is a "love" attachment, I feel pain, not as the same pain of a cut arm, but a different pain. Some tend to use word suffering instead of the word pain, to differentiate the two. And if I am attached to the person with "hate"… Anyway, It is a different topic…

So, the attachment, somehow effects the perception, but, clearly I do not experience the physical pain. Then how are we supposed to say that, "we are one" and "no self"???

Even if we assume that "I am not that body", i am still bounded to it, whole my experience happens through it, and not any other. Even if I am not the body, I am the self, the witness. And it appears that, we are not really one.

Where am I missing?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Buddhism - No Self 6 years 10 months ago #1795

  • Uni5
  • Uni5's Avatar
  • Away
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 493
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 14
Answer:
A silence means that the answer is yes, but also a No. No for a Self, like a thing and yes for a Self (not a thing).

As I understand, Maharaj says that, I am not even the witness (consciousness) but pure awareness. And as I understand you also say the same, but you use the word awareness for witness, and consciousness instead of awareness. Right?

Thats right.

Now, what does "No Self" really mean? If that means, the Ego as self is just an illusion, I am fine with that. If it means the witness is an illusion, then I have a problem with that.

Ego as a Self is an illusion and there is no such Self.

Actually the Self-Awareness witnesses it, but the Ego projects as if it witnesses it.

This is explained in a metaphor by Adi Shankara as the rope and the snake. See matrix book- Journey to the Source.


When you ate a chili pepper, I do not experience the burning sensation. If someone cuts someone else's arm, I also do not feel that pain.
If it is a "love" attachment, I feel pain, not as the same pain of a cut arm, but a different pain
.

These experience come from a mental projection of the cutting events.

So, the attachment, somehow effects the perception, but, clearly I do not experience the physical pain. Then how are we supposed to say that, "we are one" and "no self"???


You can understand from your own body. When you bite your tongue by mistake , you experience the pain, the leg will not experience the pain or blood does not come from the pain. This is because the leg considers it separate from Tongue. For you, both leg and tongue are the one same Self.

This is why I said, intellectually people get enlightenment by reading books and listening to satsang and by doing yoga and meditation. It will be experienced only when one is Self-less (No-Ego).

Even if we assume that "I am not that body", i am still bounded to it, whole my experience happens through it, and not any other. Even if I am not the body, I am the self, the witness. And it appears that, we are not really one.

Where am I missing?


You have to transcend fro your body to the whole Cosmos, not intellectually, but in experience. Does this make sense?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.233 seconds

Joomla! Debug Console

Session

Profile Information

Memory Usage

Database Queries