Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Buddhism teaches, as I understand it, that self is an illusion. Recently, I saw a statement on a Buddhist web site to the effect that since everything changes all the time (impermanence), where would one find either the self or satisfaction anyway.
But I wonder if the illusory aspect of all this is in the search for "fulfillment" or "satisfaction". Is it not a bit of a reach to say that the self itself is an illusion? If "illusion" is meant in the usual sense of "it doesn't really exist", I can't buy that. Someone wrote this message and someone(s) will read it. If we are all illusory then we couldn't have a conversation.
I tend to think that attachment to my goals or preferences is the real fool's errand. There is a "me" who wants things and, to an extent, even needs things (e.g., air, water, food). Thinking that existence owes me these things, or that certain virtuous actions guarantee me these things is a fool's errand. I get that. I have, imperfectly, ceased wanting things, and this greatly reduces anxiety, anger, frustration, and sorrow. I have not ceased to exist; I have just let go of my personal agendas. I don't even think my agendas were bad or unworthy, either ... nevertheless they were a source of suffering.
But where is the value in claiming that I don't exist? To me it verges on madness.
If we simply mean that "I" am interconnected with all the other "I's" and the universe or whatever, when we say that the self is illusory, then that's one thing. I understand hyperbole as a teaching device. If we mean that "I" am constantly changing and not a fixed entity, that is also a valid point. But I get the sense many Buddhists literally believe they live in the Matrix or something. Am I mistaken?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
^ ^ Can't speak for buddhists in particular, but eastern mystics generally seem to recognize several other versions of ''self'' and ''spirit'', besides just the conscious ''I''. And even western models like Jungian psychology, describe other facets such as the ''unconscious'', and the ''superego'', and even the ''collective unconscious'', which we supposedly share with the rest of the human race.
And when we speak of our various ''drives'' and ''needs'', modern research into neurobiology also raises the disturbing question of who's really ''in charge'' to begin with... is it our left brain hemisphere (the conscious side, and seat of our ''ego'', which processes things in an analytical linear fashion), or the right hemisphere (our unconscious side, which is ''non-linear'' and speaks in 'hunches', dreams and symbols)?
So who we ''are'' may be illusory in some ways, though my sense of the goal and purpose of meditation, beyond whatever the particular dogma or ideology, isn't to dissolve into nothingness, but instead to suppress or quiet the conscious ''ego'' part of the self (sort of the monkey brain), in order to allow all those other aspects to also come forward and become better integrated. And if one wants to believe that in the process, that ''larger'' sense of self also makes some better connection with whatever cosmic force or transcendant Consciousness that permeates the Universe... then I'm fine with that too. But even without that belief, there seems to be great value simply in quieting the chatter, becoming more ''centered'', and perhaps operating in greater harmony with our purpose, no matter who we are (illusory or no)!
Buddhism teaches, as I understand it, that self is an illusion.
In my 20s I worked with a fellow who was a Buddhist claimed that self was an allusion. We were comfortable with eachother. I asked him to take a test to see if his-self was an illusion. He said sure. So I asked him to close his eyes and visualize peace. After a minute or two. I punched him in the face...not real hard, but hard enough to make my point.
He said OK, self is not an illusion. Reality is not an illusion he discovered.
In my 20s I worked with a fellow who was a Buddhist claimed that self was an allusion. We were comfortable with eachother. I asked him to take a test to see if his-self was an illusion. He said sure. So I asked him to close his eyes and visualize peace. After a minute or two. I punched him in the face...not real hard, but hard enough to make my point.
He said OK, self is not an illusion. Reality is not an illusion he discovered.
Clearly,
None of you understand the teaching of no-self. Pain is an illusion (created in the mind to model a sensed/perceived environment). but even being its own illusionary essence, it is still experienced as pain.
self is an illusion because the 5 year old version of yourself was annihilated when the Fates allowed it to become dust in the wind. Thus there never was nor is there a "self" as you have likely thought of it. don't let the cognitive dissonance hurt you or draw you to shut your mind to philosophical questions of personal identity.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 01-22-2013 at 10:48 PM..
Buddhism teaches, as I understand it, that self is an illusion. Recently, I saw a statement on a Buddhist web site to the effect that since everything changes all the time (impermanence), where would one find either the self or satisfaction anyway.
But I wonder if the illusory aspect of all this is in the search for "fulfillment" or "satisfaction". Is it not a bit of a reach to say that the self itself is an illusion? If "illusion" is meant in the usual sense of "it doesn't really exist", I can't buy that. Someone wrote this message and someone(s) will read it. If we are all illusory then we couldn't have a conversation.
I tend to think that attachment to my goals or preferences is the real fool's errand. There is a "me" who wants things and, to an extent, even needs things (e.g., air, water, food). Thinking that existence owes me these things, or that certain virtuous actions guarantee me these things is a fool's errand. I get that. I have, imperfectly, ceased wanting things, and this greatly reduces anxiety, anger, frustration, and sorrow. I have not ceased to exist; I have just let go of my personal agendas. I don't even think my agendas were bad or unworthy, either ... nevertheless they were a source of suffering.
But where is the value in claiming that I don't exist? To me it verges on madness.
If we simply mean that "I" am interconnected with all the other "I's" and the universe or whatever, when we say that the self is illusory, then that's one thing. I understand hyperbole as a teaching device. If we mean that "I" am constantly changing and not a fixed entity, that is also a valid point. But I get the sense many Buddhists literally believe they live in the Matrix or something. Am I mistaken?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
^ ^ Can't speak for buddhists in particular, but eastern mystics generally seem to recognize several other versions of ''self'' and ''spirit'', besides just the conscious ''I''. And even western models like Jungian psychology, describe other facets such as the ''unconscious'', and the ''superego'', and even the ''collective unconscious'', which we supposedly share with the rest of the human race.
And when we speak of our various ''drives'' and ''needs'', modern research into neurobiology also raises the disturbing question of who's really ''in charge'' to begin with... is it our left brain hemisphere (the conscious side, and seat of our ''ego'', which processes things in an analytical linear fashion), or the right hemisphere (our unconscious side, which is ''non-linear'' and speaks in 'hunches', dreams and symbols)?
So who we ''are'' may be illusory in some ways, though my sense of the goal and purpose of meditation, beyond whatever the particular dogma or ideology, isn't to dissolve into nothingness, but instead to suppress or quiet the conscious ''ego'' part of the self (sort of the monkey brain), in order to allow all those other aspects to also come forward and become better integrated. And if one wants to believe that in the process, that ''larger'' sense of self also makes some better connection with whatever cosmic force or transcendant Consciousness that permeates the Universe... then I'm fine with that too. But even without that belief, there seems to be great value simply in quieting the chatter, becoming more ''centered'', and perhaps operating in greater harmony with our purpose, no matter who we are (illusory or no)!
Excellent thread and two very good posts. Anyone who thinks the Self is an illusion has never tried to answer the question . . . an illusion to whom? As you said in the bold, mordant . . . the reality and existence of self is validated by interacting with reality . . . as in these conversations. Illusions are not real and cannot interact and respond with reality. To believe that Self is an illusion is madness, mordant.
self is an illusion to your current and soon to be annihilated state (your old self is now gone), which believes (identifies) itself with a number of years and memories which are in the past and thus only conceptual (illusion). Clearly, you all failed at teaching yourself the notion of no-self. continuing on, if you only identify yourself with your current state (the closest you can get to an actual self), then you would have no time to experience any "self". Thus "self" is an illusion. Any lingering questions?
self is an illusion to your current and soon to be annihilated state (your old self is now gone), which believes (identifies) itself with a number of years and memories which are in the past and thus only conceptual (illusion).
How exactly can an illusion be an illusion to an illusion?????
self is an illusion to your current and soon to be annihilated state (your old self is now gone), which believes (identifies) itself with a number of years and memories which are in the past and thus only conceptual (illusion). Clearly, you all failed at teaching yourself the notion of no-self. continuing on, if you only identify yourself with your current state (the closest you can get to an actual self), then you would have no time to experience any "self". Thus "self" is an illusion. Any lingering questions?
The self, like everything else, constantly changes, but not that fast and not that fundamentally. There is obviously enough context for continuity to be perceived. If this were not so, people would not have regrets or disappointments, joys, sorrows, etc. You would not even be able to recall what you said in your previous reply, or would suddenly have zero interest in it or completely different feelings about it.
That something is in the past does not render it unreal and conceptual. Memory is imperfect and what we choose to remember and how we interpret our memories makes a difference, and there is the problem that the past can't be changed. But it still happened and we are still connected to it and it still defines us. I am who I am "now" because of what happened to me leading up to this point.
What we can agree on is that "this, too, shall pass", and that people generally don't have a sufficient grasp of impermanence. I can't agree that this renders "me" illusory.
How exactly can an illusion be an illusion to an illusion?????
whatever identity you are bound to give yourself is arbitrary. Its not that you are an illusion, its that who and what you think you are and have identified yourself with is likely nothing but a fantasy (conceptual). When you loose one atom of your body, you cease to be the thing you once were... yet you, having not noticed it, think you are still something that remains. But then the question can be asked, how many atoms must I remove before you notice?
To more specifically address your word paradox, the English word for illusion has many meanings... its not that there is nothing about you, its that the personal identity you have given yourself is a falsehood. you cannot be the past, you can only be the present, yet the present fades away into the past before you can grasp it... yet people still have false notions of a maintained self.
Now, as to an illusion being an illusion to an illusion... the answer is simple, a falsehood can be a falsehood to a falsehood if the three falsehoods are barely connected, not that the last one in your metaphor is actually a falsehood. What I'm saying is that your notion of "you" is a fabrication which does not conform to the actual reality of "you" nor can it ever. However, no one is saying that you or I are falsehoods, just that the notions most people have of a "self" are faulty. For example, let me ask you to explain your "self".
The self, like everything else, constantly changes, but not that fast and not that fundamentally. There is obviously enough context for continuity to be perceived. If this were not so, people would not have regrets or disappointments, joys, sorrows, etc. You would not even be able to recall what you said in your previous reply, or would suddenly have zero interest in it or completely different feelings about it.
That something is in the past does not render it unreal and conceptual. Memory is imperfect and what we choose to remember and how we interpret our memories makes a difference, and there is the problem that the past can't be changed. But it still happened and we are still connected to it and it still defines us. I am who I am "now" because of what happened to me leading up to this point.
What we can agree on is that "this, too, shall pass", and that people generally don't have a sufficient grasp of impermanence. I can't agree that this renders "me" illusory.
The point is that a flame one moment is another the next. Nirvana compares a human identity with that of a flame or snowflake.
The notion of "self" is not often portrayed as some philosophical continuation of some process, as you have portrayed it here. People can have regrets and joys and still deceive themselves into thinking they know what constitutes their self. The truth is that a "self" is a thing which is complete, not incomplete... right? So then how can you remain yourself when you change? We can say for example that your "real" self is the continuation which God All Knowing sees (past, present, and future, all combined into one identity), yet you know yourself is who you are now (present only)... do you see the inconsistency?
When something is in the past it no longer exists, the only thing that exists is conceptual memories... false memories are unreal and true memories aren't the real pasts, but are mere shadows of it in the present.
I don't think you're illusory at all, and neither does the Buddha, nor would any monks I can think of. just that a true notion and grasp of self is unattainable, and thus when people pretend they have them, they are dealing merely in false illusions: (cant grasp present as present, can barely grasp it once past, and can't grasp future as present.) most notions of self either deal with present wholeness or process wholeness. process wholeness is hard to swallow as an ideal notion of self because then everything is oneself, since everything is connected. meaning that you would be a corps as well as a baby with a completely different set of atoms as part of your "full identity" but why stop there? you might as well also count yourself as The Big Bang since you can trace your lineage all the way back there. Or did you just happen to come to existence at the age of 2 upon your first engraved faint memory?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
