5 - Identity, Continuity, and Attachment Meditation on...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Identity, Continuity, and Attachment Meditation on No-self
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
What No-self Is Not Not a denial that there is this experienced reality Not “self-effacement”
Background image of page 2
What No-self Is Not (continued) According to Buddhist concepts, at this first breakthrough, one realizes “no-self.” But this expression, no-self…can be very misleading. At first blush, the idea seems un-inviting if not positively absurd. It sounds like a negation of individuality, a frightening loss of controlling center, or a kind of deluded regression. But what is meant by noself is becoming free from the perspective of “self as thing” (satkayadrishti). Conceptually this is not quite the same as losing self nor does it imply the absence of a “personality of self.”; self is seen in Buddhism as “a dynamic process, a shifting web of relations among evanescent aspects of the person such as perceptions, ideas, and desires. The Self is only misperceived as a fixed entity because of the distortions of the human point of view.” no-self is often misunderstood as “self-does not-exist-at-all” rather than “self-is not-an-essence-or entity,” “by people who have not imagined any scheme of existence other than entities or essences.”—David Galin
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
What is No-self? A natural conclusion of the teaching of dukkha A natural conclusion of radical empiricism
Background image of page 4
No-self as a natural conclusion of dukkha What does William Waldron say about this question? “Conceit” does not mean “pride”; “conceit”=“house-builder effect”
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
No-self as a natural conclusion of radical empiricism …humans tend to seek and find, or project, a simplifying pattern to approximate every complex field in two nonconscious ways: by lumping (ignoring some distinctions as negligible) and by splitting (ignoring some relations as negligible). Both lumping and splitting create discrete entities useful for manipulating, predicting, and controlling at the sensori-motor level and at abstract levels too. Unfortunately, they may impose ad hoc boundaries on what are actually densely interconnected systems and then grant autonomous existence to the segments. As this occurs in experience of our own „inner life‟ and in concepts of the structure of „the person,‟ we come to see the self as a bounded persisting entity rather than as a dynamic open network of relations. This view of self as entity or essence is maintained so strongly because it is rooted in these basic nonconscious cognitive approximations…When we first come into this life we form a self in order to cope with the world. The baby has rather scant self and commensurately little ability to deal with the world. We develop a self to deal with the world, but we also develop the habit of solidifying that self, and that solidifying habit congests the flow of nature, leading to suffering”—David Galin
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 22

5 - Identity, Continuity, and Attachment Meditation on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online