Buddha: "Consciousness is not self"

[Vingger]

Higher self is the universal no self

no self is conciousness

ego is mind within perception

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, hundreth said:

but the Buddha did not teach "Absolute Consciousness" unless you're arguing semantics. For simplicity, let's consider consciousness to be more or less synonymous with "Atman" or the "Para-Brahman" - the Absolute. But the Buddha explicitly speaks in depth about there being no Atman. No absolute or eternal soul to grasp to.

All is Not Self: The Buddha’s Rejection of Atman

You are the one arguing semantics.

It's perfectly clear that the Buddha was teaching Absolute Infinity. That's all there is.

Absolute Infinity is Brahman. Atman = Brahman. Form is emptiness, Emptiness is identical to form.

The reason you're getting confused is because total nonduality is unspeakable, unthinking, and incommunicable. To talk about it, you have to make distinctions like dual vs nondual, atman vs brahman, consciousness vs unconsciousness, form vs emptiness, self vs no-self, x vs y, this vs that, right vs wrong, true vs false, etc. But all of that is duality!

You are getting tangled up in relative distinctions and stylistic differences between different mystical schools. Drop that and see the commonality, not the petty differences.

[hundreth]

18 minutes ago, robdl said:

When the Buddha says "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self," is he saying that ego mind consciousness is not Absolute Self, or is he saying that that Absolute Consciousness is not of the individual self/ego mind?

It's hard for me to say that Buddhism is at odds with vedanta when it's a semantic soup going on.

The Buddha was very clear about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

Quote

"Atman" in early Buddhism appears as "all dhammas are not-Self (an-atta)", where atta (atman) refers to a metaphysical Self, states Peter Harvey, that is a "permanent, substantial, autonomous self or I".[10] This concept refers to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, where a person is viewed as having a lower self (impermanent body, personality) and a Higher or Greater Self (real permanent Self, soul, atman, atta).[11][12][13] The early Buddhist literature explores the validity of the Upanishadic concepts of self and Self, then asserts that every living being has an impermanent self but there is no real Higher Self.[14] The Nikaya texts of Buddhism deny that there is anything called Ātman that is the substantial absolute or essence of a living being, an idea that distinguishes Buddhism from the Brahmanical (proto-Hindu) traditions.[15]

The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found.[16][17] In Buddha's view, states Wayman, "eso me atta, or this is my self, is to be in the grip of wrong view".[18] All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can't be taken to be an unchanging "self".[17] Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed of five skandhas, without a permanent entity (Self, soul).[19][20]

 

[hundreth]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are the one arguing semantics.

It's perfectly clear that the Buddha was teaching Absolute Infinity. That's all there is.

 

It's not perfectly clear, man. I don't deny what you're saying about Absolute Infinity and it's certainly easier and more pleasant to accept it, but it's certainly not clear this is what the Buddha taught. It's a very negative theism, in that it's always removing. Perhaps emptiness and infinity are the same as you say, and this is our "Higher self" but the Buddha would never refer to this as a higher self.

Here's a great in depth look at someone acknowledging these differences and trying to reconcile them. 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

[robdl]

8 minutes ago, hundreth said:

All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can't be taken to be an unchanging "self".[17] Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed of five skandhas, without a permanent entity (Self, soul).[19][20]

 

I don't know what the context of "self" or "permanent entity" is here.  It could be meaning the the false 'I'/ego mind which we take for granted as a permanent entity/sense of self.

Edited March 14, 2018 by robdl

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, hundreth said:

It's not perfectly clear, man. I don't deny what you're saying about Absolute Infinity and it's certainly easier and more pleasant to accept it, but it's certainly not clear this is what the Buddha taught. It's a very negative theism, in that it's always removing. Perhaps emptiness and infinity are the same as you say, and this is our "Higher self" but the Buddha would never refer to this as a higher self.

Here's a great in depth look at someone acknowledging these differences and trying to reconcile them. 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

Hehehe...

It's not clear to you because you haven't experienced the Absolute.

No-self is just one facet of the Absolute. No-self is identical to Absolute Infinity and Emptiness.

Infinity and Nothingness are identical. And of course there is no self, there is only the Infinite Self, which is Nothing, and Everything. You are God. God is Nothing. The end.

There's no confusion here at all if you actually experience the Absolute fully.

Buddhism = Vedanta = Yoga = Christianity = Islam = Judaism = Quantum Mechanics

There is nothing to reconcile when your understanding is totally holistic and inclusive.

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Perhaps emptiness and infinity are the same as you say, and this is our "Higher self" but the Buddha would never refer to this as a higher self.

 

This is important to see the significance of. 

[Nahm]

This is experiential.     And worthwhile.  Lot of Buddhas needing to be killed.

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not clear to you because you haven't experienced the Absolute.

Easy buddy?

Such an experience is thought induced. 

[Joseph Maynor]

I think one of the major themes that the Buddha was teaching is that nothing is separate.  Everything is one unified whole.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[robdl]

9 minutes ago, hundreth said:

 

It's not perfectly clear, man. I don't deny what you're saying about Absolute Infinity and it's certainly easier and more pleasant to accept it, but it's certainly not clear this is what the Buddha taught. It's a very negative theism, in that it's always removing. Perhaps emptiness and infinity are the same as you say, and this is our "Higher self" but the Buddha would never refer to this as a higher self.

Here's a great in depth look at someone acknowledging these differences and trying to reconcile them. 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

I checked the link you provided above.  The first part of that page reads as follows:

"Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are at loggerheads with one another on the metaphysical issue of the self or soul. Whereas the former school of thought is credited with the belief in the existence of the Atmanor the soul as the core reality of the human individual, the latter school is famous for the theory of Anatman or denial of the existence of any self or soul substance."

They're sloppy with the terminology and the context of teachings such as Ramana Maharshi.  Maharshi used "Self" to describe Absolute/non-dual reality.  He never used Self as synonymous with an individual soul, which is what they could be broadly indirectly suggesting.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by robdl

[Shanmugam]

@hundreth Don't check Wikipedia to know what Buddha taught... If you want to know what Buddha taught, directly refer to the source, the Pali Canon. All the suttas from Pali canon are here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org 

Buddha actually explained how our feelings, thoughts, perceptions are not self. There is a difference between 'no self' and 'not self'.. The source of anatta doctrine from Buddhism is actually from Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, which is the second discourse he gave, according to Pali canon.

Here is how it goes:

Quote

 

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

 

5

Not that when Buddha says 'consciousness is not self', he uses it in a totally different meaning. When I look at a tree, there is a form and there is consciousness of that form. And there is no self in it.

This is exactly similar to neti-neti approach in Advaita. It is the same negation of anatta lakhana sutta which is also used in neti-neti.

But Buddha's message has been widely misinterpreted all over the world.. Instead of the words like 'Brahman', 'Atman', Buddha used the words 'unborn', 'dhammakaya' etc... When we are discussing all this in English, you need to keep in mind that they are loose translations of Pali and Sanskrit words.

There is a reason for this difference in the usage of words in Buddhism and Vedanta. History has the answer. Buddha existed at the same time when the first Upanishad was composed. We are talking about the age where there was no internet or technology or any kind of convenience. So, Buddha naturally used a different set of words than what was used in the first Upanishad which was 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad'... The Upanishads also said the same thing in a different way.

[Leo Gura]

If you're still confused about all this, I would refer you to the work of David Loy. He reconciles all the apparant differences between Buddhism and Vedanta, etc. in his books and papers in a rigorous scholarly manner.

See my book list for specific recommendations.

[robdl]

6 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

@hundreth Don't check Wikipedia to know what Buddha taught... If you want to know what Buddha taught, directly refer to the source, the Pali Canon. All the suttas from Pali canon are here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org 

Buddha actually explained how our feelings, thoughts, perceptions are not self. There is a difference between 'no self' and 'not self'.. The source of anatta doctrine from Buddhism is actually from Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, which is the second discourse he gave, according to Pali canon.

Here is how it goes:

Not that when Buddha says 'consciousness is not self', he uses it in a totally different meaning. When I look at a tree, there is a form and there is consciousness of that form. And there is no self in it.

This is exactly similar to neti-neti approach in Advaita. It is the same negation of anatta lakhana sutta which is also used in neti-neti.

But Buddha's message has been widely misinterpreted all over the world.. Instead of the words like 'Brahman', 'Atman', Buddha used the words 'unborn', 'dhammakaya' etc... When we are discussing all this in English, you need to keep in mind that they are loose translations of Pali and Sanskrit words.

There is a reason for this difference in the usage of words in Buddhism and Vedanta. History has the answer. Buddha existed at the same time when the first Upanishad was composed. We are talking about the age where there was no internet or technology or any kind of convenience. So, Buddha naturally used a different set of words than what was used in the first Upanishad which was 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad'... The Upanishads also said the same thing in a different way.

For sure.  And similarly, I'd advise against checking out random internet dissertations to get a breakdown of what advaita vedanta teachers teach.  It's best to just read Ramana Maharshi/Papaji/Nisargadatta discourses directly, and see that their teachings don't necessarily conflict with buddhism at all.

Edited March 14, 2018 by robdl

[robdl]

Hundreth - I empathize with you.   I've also been frustrated/confused/driven mad by the apparent conflicts/differences between different eastern traditions, and being unsure of which one has attained the highest form of truth.  But now I appreciate all of the traditions for their own particular perspectives.  All different paths up to the same mountain peak.  Their terminologies and semantics may be at odds, and approaches/methods different, but the fundamental truth they're pointing at is all the same.

[Joseph Maynor]

18 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Easy buddy?

Such an experience is thought induced. 

The Absolute is always here, it's not a state. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Shanmugam]

@hundreth By the way, the word Atman does not mean 'soul' or 'spirit'.. It is a poor translation.  I know basic Sanskrit. The word atman simply means 'I' but used in certain contexts such as 'myself'.

For example. in Gita, Krishna says "whenever there is a decline in righteousness in the world, I create myself".. Here, the word 'atmanam srujami aham' is used to mean 'I create myself'. 'Atmanam' is just a declension of the word 'atman' in the accusative case.

So Buddha said that there is no I' in anything that is observed. Anything that is observed is impermanent (aniccha), doesn't have an 'I' (anatta) and clinging to them causes suffering (dukkha). This is the three marks of existence in Buddhism.

And Advaita directly teaches that the observer (or awareness) is the true self or the true 'I'. Upanishads are poems. So, they expressed things poetically whereas Buddha expressed things in an empirical way.. 

To sum up, Buddha said that there is no 'I' in the observed. But he didn't explicitly state that the true 'I' is the observer or the awareness. Advaita not only said that there is no 'I' in the observed, but it also explicitly stated that the awareness is the true Self.

Finally, when you are enlightened, there is a realization in the experience that the observer is also the observed.  This is because, when the false notion of the 'I' is completely removed, the observer and the observed collapse and merge together. In fact, they were never separate. This is what we call as non-duality.

In a verse attributed to Shankara, you can find the following three statements:

1) Brahman is real (awareness is unchanging)

2) World is unreal (the contents of the awareness are ever-changing)

3) Brahman is the world (both awareness and the contents of the awareness are one and the same)

The statement 3 can be only realized in experience.

 

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The Absolute is always here, it's not a state.  

I understand that...but If you are experiencing then wholeness is not. 

 

Harmony is of itslf. The disharmony comes with experiencing 

 

experiencing is the product of memory, knowledge...thought. Thought implies fragmentation. That which is fragmented can not contain that which is whole 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless

[NikitaW]

I spend time here in thailand with monks who sit for 3 days not moving in 7 days in a row without eating and drinking. A monk who life in a room with a bet and a toilet and all he did was meditating and translating the original pali text from the buddha and building up a huge monastery by living the way buddha did. This is not to prove that what he is saying is absolute right, but it shows their dedication to find the truth and action speaks for themselves. Buddhadasa(Slave of the buddha) he called himself has written many books. In these books he says that buddha thought that there is completely no self and clinging to atman a higher self just leads to more attachment. Self only exist in the mind of delusion and this leads to suffering. The supreme state of nibbana is a state without a self. It's been said that buddha went beyond gods and earaised there foundations. Consciousness is just a part of the 5 aggregates: body, feelings, mental formation, perception and consciousness. The monks said also that Consciousness is more like a magic trick once you understand it it has no magic anymore. Of course it plays a big role, but it has no self. 

Out of my meditation experience in therms of reaching deeper jhanas at the monastery and feeling "infinite", I can say that this is just more like becoming boundless and don't feeling the limitation of your body anymore. It feels like you losing your body. This isn't even a high jhana and with the right teaching not very difficult to attain. When you go deeper they say you can come to a state of observing and not observing but you don't really know. The deepest state is when you drop yourself and truly become emptiness. Now the big BUT, this is not the way of enlightenment how the buddha taught it. He did the same mistake during his path of enlightenment. It can surely help but is not ultimately necessary. The first jhana of having a stable, focus and clear mind freed from the five hindrances is enough to contemplate on the dhamma. Nature itself. To truly study what is really going on within. Beyond concepts, just true experience that lead to super mundane wisdom that shows you the absolute truth.

Edited March 15, 2018 by NikitaW
Spelling Buddhadasa real name of the monk

[hundreth]

53 minutes ago, NikitaW said:

I spend time here in thailand with monks who sit for 3 days not moving in 7 days in a row without eating and drinking. A monk who life in a room with a bet and a toilet and all he did was meditating and translating the original pali text from the buddha and building up a huge monastery by living the way buddha did. This is not to prove that what he is saying is absolute right, but it shows their dedication to find the truth and action speaks for themselves. Buddhasa (Slave of the buddha) he called himself has written many books. In these books he says that buddha thought that there is completely no self and clinging to atman a higher self just leads to more attachment. Self only exist in the mind of delusion and this leads to suffering. The supreme state of nibbana is a state without a self. It's been said that buddha went beyond gods and earaised there foundations. Consciousness is just a part of the 5 aggregates: body, feelings, mental formation, perception and consciousness. The monks said also that Consciousness is more like a magic trick once you understand it it has no magic anymore. Of course it plays a big role, but it has no self. 

This is the interpretation I've found from most experienced Buddhist practitioners. Any attachment to Self, higher or lower is yet another form of ignorance which leads to suffering. Which is exactly why I posed the question here. 

I've posted a few Wikipedia links and articles from various sources on the web, and some of you have questioned them - which is fine! I have not been studying primarily using these sources, they are just supplementary readings. Primarily, I've been learning from the book Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught."

https://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313

"Rahula is a scholar monk who trained in the Theravadan tradition in Ceylon. His succinct, clear overview of Buddhist concepts has never been surpassed. It is the standard."

He talks in depth about Buddha's interpretation of the Self, and is very explicit about the distinctions between lower self and Higher Self. He demonstrates through Buddha's own words how he taught not to identify with any idea of self. That nothing is permanent. I highly suggest this book.

 

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you're still confused about all this, I would refer you to the work of David Loy. He reconciles all the apparant differences between Buddhism and Vedanta, etc. in his books and papers in a rigorous scholarly manner.

See my book list for specific recommendations.

Thanks. I will check out his work. At the end of the day, I'm not here to create additional distinctions. I'm trying to reconcile all these different perspectives. 

For everyone else who commented, I thank you as well. You've all given me much to contemplate on. The discussion in and of itself is beautiful and very helpful. For better or for worse, I'm naturally a thinker, and while this can be detrimental to spiritual growth, reconciling these ideas helps me surrender further into direct experience.