If the Buddha discovered....

[gurdjieff]

If the Buddha discovered that there is nothing permanent, and thus no Self, what experiences karma from lifetime to lifetime, whether good or bad? Can it be said that just because you experience karma right now and in the future, it still doesn’t mean a Self exists, because when the karma is exhausted, that something experiencing the karma is also exhausted? Which still leaves the question, if enlightenment is a state of supreme bliss, how can no Self/nothing experience this bliss? I also asked this question to Bhikkhu Samahita and others at eBuddhism.com and wanted to hear your responses.

Thanks

 

[moseslmpg]

I think that this depends on your view of things. This is best equated with unqualified non-dualism, where Nothing alone exists. It's hard to describe, but I've read of a pretty interesting analogy to holograms a la the holodeck on Star Trek (I don't watch Star Trek, so I don't much about the holodeck per se). Unfortunately, I left the book at college...so...nevermind.

I think meditating on the absence of the self upon introspection is beneficial with respect to this problem as well.

 

[taijasi]

Perhaps another way to ask the same question, is who or what was/is Buddha!? Buddhists speak of the "the Buddha" as having "entered Paranirvana," yet also speak of things like no-self, and anatman. Clearly, either there IS a self (such as `Buddha-nature'), SOMETHING that can experience Nirvana ... or else we have pure nihilism.

Buddhism is not nihilistic. The self that persists from incarnation to incarnation (Soul, jiva, or jivatman), as taught by Hindusim and other traditions, does exist - yet it is not the ultimate essence of our Being. Buddha's emphasis upon the transitory nature of all worldy phenomena did not end with the self, or soul, that reincarnates. In this sense, and because this is not our ultimate self (either in terms of the origin, or Destiny, of our true being) ... Shakyamuni Buddha could be said to have taught no-self. But the idea that He taught that there "is no self whatsoever," is of course, absurd.

The irony is that a Buddhist would argue this, or suggest that it could be the case. Obviously, by his own logic, there is NO ONE arguing, nothing being argued, and thus no point to be made. Unless, of course, he can see the absurdity of such nihilism, and accept that ego is meant to be transcended ... not simply denied.

So YES, clearly there is a reincarnating Soul (jivatma), and the skandhas, or bundle of attributes which persist from lifetime to lifetime, DO ADHERE to "something" (an identity). Hundreds, even thousands of people remember their previous incarnations, including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Pagans, and atheists. We should be willing to approach this testimony and evidence with an open mind, not pre-conditioned by some particular religous dogma.

To solve the mystery of the self (Soul/false self), one must unravel the mystery of the amahkara, sometimes spelled ahankar. Literally, this means, "I-maker." Individual, or separate identity ("me" vs. "you"), is what is - ultimately - the illusion. Sure, this seems real enough in the material world, yet I cannot exist without you, and you cannot exist without me. Thich Nhat Hanh describes this as `Interbeing.' And quantum physics, speaking in terms of singularity, refers to it as `quantum entanglement.' Same truth, versed on the one hand by a Zen Buddhist master, and on the other, by today's cutting-edge scientists.

That's my 2 cents of the moment ...

Namaskar,

taijasa

 

[moseslmpg]

Ah, well I'm not that familiar with Buddha's teachings directly, so I wasn't sure if he meant unqualified non-dualism or not. So, a better way of putting it is that there is no ego, and the self-conscious, transcendental Self alone exists. Isn't ist called Atman or something like that?

 

[jiii]

If the Buddha discovered that there is nothing permanent, and thus no Self, what experiences karma from lifetime to lifetime, whether good or bad?

Reincarnation is not a necessary belief for a Buddhist. There are many Buddhists that do not believe that there is a literal reincarnation. Maybe it is that there are reincarnations, but since there is no self, it is impossible to say whose reincarnations they are. A student once asked his Master," Master, could you tell me who I was in my past life?" The Master replied," Who is asking?"

Can it be said that just because you experience karma right now and in the future, it still doesn’t mean a Self exists, because when the karma is exhausted, that something experiencing the karma is also exhausted?

There is no future in which karma might exhaust itself, and no past in which one accumulated it. Even Einstein once said," Time is an illusion, albeit a persistant one." Karma is not attached to any individual self, and believing so simply generates more karma, as that is still attachment to an illusory self. There never was anything in particular experiencing the karma, so there is nothing to be exhausted, either. One might then ask," Who is it that attaches to an illusory self?" An illusory self. "And how is it that an illusory self can attach to anything if it is illusory?" That's the illusion.

Which still leaves the question, if enlightenment is a state of supreme bliss, how can no Self/nothing experience this bliss?

It is merely an idea that an experience requires an experiencer. It is something we are taught, and it's a good idea...but it is just an idea.

-jiii

 

[Snoopy]

I think the Buddha said that the precise workings out of karma were not to be conjectured upon, as it would be fruitless.

By "no-self" it is meant there is no permanent, eternal soul. All phenomena, including "ourselves" are constantly changing; as a result of all other phenomena changing, and we in our turn change other phenomena. All things are indeed inter-connected.

We exist moment to moment and so have a self in that sense, but it is a relative sense. We were different (physically and mentally) a moment ago, a day ago, a year ago, when we were born. And so it will be in the future, starting.........now!!!!

Snoopy. (as was).

 

[seattlegal]

I think the Buddha said that the precise workings out of karma were not to be conjectured upon, as it would be fruitless.

By "no-self" it is meant there is no permanent, eternal soul. All phenomena, including "ourselves" are constantly changing; as a result of all other phenomena changing, and we in our turn change other phenomena. All things are indeed inter-connected.

We exist moment to moment and so have a self in that sense, but it is a relative sense. We were different (physically and mentally) a moment ago, a day ago, a year ago, when we were born. And so it will be in the future, starting.........now!!!!

Snoopy. (as was).

Conjecturing about the precise workings of karma isn't exactly fruitless--it brings on "madness and vexation."
I parallel it to the Uncertainty Principle in physics.

Un-conjecturable

"There are these four un-conjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddha’s (i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha) is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana (i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana)...

"The precise working out of the results of kamma...

"Conjecture about the origin, (etc.,) of the world is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four un-conjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

 

[Snoopy]

(madness) and (vexation)

 

[neosnoia]

There is no future in which karma might exhaust itself, and no past in which one accumulated it. Even Einstein once said," Time is an illusion, albeit a persistant one." Karma is not attached to any individual self, and believing so simply generates more karma, as that is still attachment to an illusory self.

I like that. Thanks. It actually makes my issue with karma moot. I've never thought of it that way before, even though I've held to the idea of 'time is illusion' for a very long time (pun intended).

 

[moseslmpg]

I'm pretty sure karma is not supposed to be thought of as a commodity that can be stored or exhausted. I tend to think of it more like a pendulum or like the law of compensation in Hermeticism. Although I'm fairly sure that one cannot get around karma by simply not believing in it, even though doing so would make it seem that way.

Snoopy, I think that you misinterpreted Buddha. There is a eternal soul principle of some sort, which is most likely permanent from an objective point of view, but ever changing from our subjective points of view. I think it's called the Brahman in Hinduism. Buddhism is very confusing to me on this topic though, so I don't know what to equate the Brahman with.

 

[jiii]

There is a eternal soul principle of some sort, which is most likely permanent from an objective point of view, but ever changing from our subjective points of view. I think it's called the Brahman in Hinduism. Buddhism is very confusing to me on this topic though, so I don't know what to equate the Brahman with.

Buddhism has been called "Hinduism stripped for export" by some religious interpretors, which is a wide generalization that stands mostly for illuminating the historical development of Buddhism. Nonetheless, it is not an entirely meaningless way of looking at things. Certainly, there are instances in which it is difficult to distinguish Hindu literature from Buddhist. Sometimes it would appear, at a brief glance, that Brahman is carried over. This is not really the case, though. No doubt, one could twist a few words here and there to make it seem as though Buddhism does maintain Brahman in disguise, but the same can really be done with any religion if one picks their words cleverly enough. As it is in Buddhism, there are instances where you might swear that they are advocating some kind of eternal Brahman, but when you really look to find it, it's just not there. The Buddha never discoursed on the Brahman, or any adapted variation of Brahman. Although Brahman is an entirely different idea from, say, the Christian God, both of them are treated the same way by Buddha. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't...for what the Buddha was trying to point out, it was not necessary to bring such figures into the equation. That, for instance, is why it is sometimes unclear whether or not Buddhism is really a 'religion' in the sense that Westerners usually understand the term.

 

[No essential nature]

Ah, well I'm not that familiar with Buddha's teachings directly, so I wasn't sure if he meant unqualified non-dualism or not. So, a better way of putting it is that there is no ego, and the self-conscious, transcendental Self alone exists. Isn't ist called Atman or something like that?

I would say there is ego, and self consciousness - but they are not what they appear (and no Transcendental Self, though of course the mind is Buddha). We believe self and other are divided by this skin, and that each of us is the same person throughout our lives. These are not the case. Ego does exist, as an idea and an experience - but thats all anything exists as. Realising this enables us to let things go - but also to pick things up. Ego consciousness is useful, meditative consciousness is useful. Suffering is caused by attachment - to these or anything else.

 

[neosnoia]

I'm pretty sure karma is not supposed to be thought of as a commodity that can be stored or exhausted.

I could be wrong, but it seems to depend on whether you are defining karma from a Vedanta, Buddhist or Neopagan position.

Although I'm fairly sure that one cannot get around karma by simply not believing in it, even though doing so would make it seem that way.

Heh. Very true. Although believing in it doesn't necessarily make it true, either.

I actually have no "problem" with karma from the Buddhist perspective. Actions do have consequences.

 

[InLove]

There is no future in which karma might exhaust itself, and no past in which one accumulated it. Even Einstein once said," Time is an illusion, albeit a persistant one." Karma is not attached to any individual self, and believing so simply generates more karma, as that is still attachment to an illusory self.

I like that. Thanks. It actually makes my issue with karma moot. I've never thought of it that way before, even though I've held to the idea of 'time is illusion' for a very long time (pun intended).

No time like the present to transcend time???

(Nice to see you around neosnoia--like the new av.)

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Snoopy]

Reincarnation is not a necessary belief for a Buddhist. There are many Buddhists that do not believe that there is a literal reincarnation.


-jiii

In Buddhist understanding there is no unchanging, eternal entity called ‘the soul’ and so reincarnation is therefore a bit of a non-starter. I think a more "accurate term" is rebirth, the analogy which is commonly given is that of a candle wick being placed next to an already lit candle wick. The second candle will spring into life with it's own flame, but it is not the same flame as the old candle, which can then extinguish.

Snoopy.

 

[Snoopy]

I'm pretty sure karma is not supposed to be thought of as a commodity that can be stored or exhausted.

Karma is action, specifically volitional action and its consequences. It is considered a law, as in e=mc2. The action is "stored" until its consequences manifest themselves, which may be anytime between immediately and after our death / in another life (if we believe in that). When the consequences have played out one could say that it has been "exhausted", although this is not a usual term for it. Other than that, I refer the reader to seattlegal's madness and vexation post!

Snoopy.

 

[jiii]

Snoopy:

Indeed, I have used the term loosely. Though, either way, I might add...a literal belief in any such thing is still not necessary for a Buddhist.

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy, I think that you misinterpreted Buddha. There is a eternal soul principle of some sort, which is most likely permanent from an objective point of view, but ever changing from our subjective points of view. I think it's called the Brahman in Hinduism. Buddhism is very confusing to me on this topic though, so I don't know what to equate the Brahman with.

Hi moseslmpg,
The fundamental concept of all Buddhist philosophy is dependent origination (pratitya samutpada). This basically says that all phenomena (physical and mental) are interconnected in an endless flux of cause and effect. This gives rise to what are called the three marks (or seals) of all conditioned existence. One: Everything is in a constant process of change, nothing is permanent (anicca). Two: Therefore nothing has independent existence in and of itself, independent of other phenonmona; thus there is actually no abiding “self” (anatta). Three: As everything is always changing and nothing is permanent, if we attempt to cling onto an illusion of a permanent self (and world) we experience dissatisfaction and suffering (dukkha).
I know little of Hindu beliefs. At its foundation, Hinduism posits the notion of a single divine reality (the Brahman) and an immortal soul or self (the Atman). The Buddhist analysis rejects both of these ideas and therefore constitutes a fundamental difference between the two, I believe.

Snoopy.

 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy:

Indeed, I have used the term loosely. Though, either way, I might add...a literal belief in any such thing is still not necessary for a Buddhist.

I agree!

 

[moseslmpg]

Karma is action, specifically volitional action and its consequences. It is considered a law, as in e=mc2. The action is "stored" until its consequences manifest themselves, which may be anytime between immediately and after our death / in another life (if we believe in that). When the consequences have played out one could say that it has been "exhausted", although this is not a usual term for it. Other than that, I refer the reader to seattlegal's madness and vexation post!

Snoopy.

Well, I meant that you can't run out of karma or give it to someone. So yeah, it is an action not an object or quantity of something.

Hi moseslmpg,
The fundamental concept of all Buddhist philosophy is dependent origination (pratitya samutpada). This basically says that all phenomena (physical and mental) are interconnected in an endless flux of cause and effect. This gives rise to what are called the three marks (or seals) of all conditioned existence. One: Everything is in a constant process of change, nothing is permanent (anicca). Two: Therefore nothing has independent existence in and of itself, independent of other phenonmona; thus there is actually no abiding “self” (anatta). Three: As everything is always changing and nothing is permanent, if we attempt to cling onto an illusion of a permanent self (and world) we experience dissatisfaction and suffering (dukkha).
I know little of Hindu beliefs. At its foundation, Hinduism posits the notion of a single divine reality (the Brahman) and an immortal soul or self (the Atman). The Buddhist analysis rejects both of these ideas and therefore constitutes a fundamental difference between the two, I believe.

Snoopy.

OK, then what about Nirvana and what about attachement to the fact that nothing is permanent? Nirvana is supposedly outside of samsara with no death, and saying that everything is constantly changing all the time is the same as saying that this happens permanently, i.e. there is never a time when things will not change. I understand that nothing simply is, but always becoming, but does that include the medium in which everything is becoming? Did the Buddha state this as an absolute truth or merely a truth used in the furtherance of development towards enlightenment? I would assume the latter, but I admittedly know little of the subject.

I don't see the problem of having the Brahman permanent and always changing at the same time. It's like the perceived difference within the Not or The All of Qabalah and Hermeticism respectively.