What we believe our self or this person we look at in the mirror to be, is really a false or fake self. It is the non-self or anatmān composed of conditioned phenomena, for example, the cells, the bones and organs of the body. This non-self or fake self we have identified with is always subject to suffering in one degree or another. In fact, the Buddha says yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā (whatever is suffering is non-self).
Conditioned phenomena from which our fake self is composed is always passing away. It is also insubstantial (P., asārato) and empty (P., suñña) being devoid of real essence. This fake self is the opposite of the real self which attains nirvana. The fake self can never be eternal or happy like the real self.
But today we learn from various cagey Buddhists that the Buddha taught against the self. This is to suggest, oddly, that in the cannon no one personally attains nirvana although scripture in several places (five?) says that one "personally attains Nibbana" (SN 22:51) So what then is Buddhism in light of this kind of belief of no personal attainer when there is clearly such an attainer in scripture? I would have to say that this Buddhism is going down the road to nihilism. However, our cagey Buddhists would not admit that they are actually espousing nihilism.
And just what is nihilism? According to Donald Crosby, expert on nihilism and author of the book, The Specter of the Absurd:
“I stipulate that nihilism be conceived primarily as existential nihilism, i.e., as a denial of meaning in human life (or state positively, as the conviction that human life is pointless and absurd).”
But isn’t this exactly where Buddhism is today—being almost pointless and absurd with regard to its denial of self? Certainly we can put Zen into that category. To be more charitable lets just call Buddhism, for now, “existential nihilism” which means that as observers we have not observed a self. Personally, this means that as I look within myself, I observe no self! But this is totally absurd if you consider it logically. Who is this observer (if not a self)? Who says that there is no self (if not a self) ? Who argues against the self (if not a self)? What these Buddhists fail to see is that the Buddha never denied the self, he only denied that the self is the insubstantial five aggregates which are synonymous with suffering. They are not the self, in other words.
Luce absente, obscuritas obtinet
Light being absent, darkness prevails.
Posted by: Jung | November 19, 2018 at 08:52 AM
The real self is the one that decided this current existence is the one you currently have. "Why?" might not be important. Finding a "what's needed by true self in this?" Might be. You haven't seen a horse around here, have you? Nevermind, he'll eventually wonder home.
Posted by: Curlife | November 16, 2018 at 10:13 PM
I saw a debate on another forum recently about AN 3.40 arguing over the translation "The self, man, knows what is true or false" vs "The self within you knows, O person, whether it is true or false." As if its not clear either way that you have a self which knows whether wehat you did was true or false, good or bad. Its plainly impossible to get rid of a self, logically, and acripturally. The absursity of trying to use the 2nd translation to argue there is no self. Lol.
Posted by: dave b | November 16, 2018 at 04:03 PM
From the Wikipedia article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua
Bua observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon. Although Bua is often at pains to emphasise the need for meditation upon the non-Self (anatta), he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence. The citta is bright, radiant, and deathless, and is its own independent reality.[5]
The fundamental problem that besets human beings, according to Bua, is that they have taken fake and false things as their true self and lack the necessary power to be their 'own true self'; they allow the wiles and deceits of the mental defilements to generate fear and anxiety in their minds. Fear and anxiety are not inherent within the citta; in fact, the citta is ultimately beyond all such things and indeed is beyond time and space. But it needs to be cleansed of its inner defilements (the kilesas) before that truth can be realised.[6]
Bua goes on to attempt to describe the inner stages and experience of the cleansed citta. When its purgation of defilements is complete, it itself does not disappear – only the impermanent, suffering, and the non-Self disappear. The citta remains, experientially abiding in its own firm foundation, yet ultimately indescribable.[7]
Posted by: Aryeh | November 16, 2018 at 03:02 PM
The question “Who am I?” Is about our essential nature. Unchanging always. Not subject to change. Aging is perception of change to the body over time. This body is not our true self according to dharma. Likewise, our human identity is not our true self. What is our true self?
Posted by: Aryeh Kahn | November 16, 2018 at 07:31 AM