Is realizing the nature of the self the most important thing

[TheNaturalMind]

It seems that once you see through the false I, everything else would naturally fall into place. The Four Noble Truths, compassion, impermanence, dukkha, clinging - the realization of all of these things seem to be obstructed by ignorance that gives rise to the false self. Once one realizes the true nature of self, what else is there to be done?

[PeterB]

Please ex[plain the "true nature of self..." Preferably with a reference to the Suttas...

[TheNaturalMind]

I apologize, I do not have any sutras on hand. By the true nature of the self I just mean seeing clearly the false footholds of personal identity, namely, the 5 aggregates.

[PeterB]

Surely you are describing the absence of a true self ?

[TheNaturalMind]

Yes, but I want to go beyond these concepts.

When one sees with bare sensate experience that there is no "I" to suffer, wouldn't full comprehension of the Dhamma follow naturally in its wake?

[PeterB]

When.

[TheNaturalMind]

When.

So why isn't more emphasis put on "self-enquiry" in Buddhism? Why all of this practice which can confuse someone into thinking there is an "I" that has to get from here to there?

[PeterB]

Because "When" is at the end of a prolonged process involving great effort and determination, not at its beginning. There are no short cuts.

[TheNaturalMind]

Because "When" is at the end of a prolonged process involving great effort and determination, not at its beginning. There are no short cuts.

What is the nature of this transformation? Who is making the effort? What is changing?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Yes, but I want to go beyond these concepts.

When one sees with bare sensate experience that there is no "I" to suffer, wouldn't full comprehension of the Dhamma follow naturally in its wake?

The first realisations that the five aggregates are empty and devoid of self will occur during the early stages of insight such as Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind, or Knowledge by Comprehension, but that is still a long way from the full comprehension of the Dhamma.

It is by no means guaranteed that the meditator will automatically progress to the higher stages of insight, and to the fruition of a Stream-winner. The Stream-winner has still not fully comprehended the Dhamma, but inevitably, full comprehension would follow in the wake of Stream-entry — either in the very same life or at least within seven more rebirths.

The first insights into the truth of not-self are certainly very valuable. They should suffice to convince the meditator that they are on the right path. Someone born into a Buddhist family who lacks this insight might convert to another religion, but someone who gains direct and empirical evidence of the truth of the Buddha's teaching through practice is less likely to waver. They will take refuge with confidence based on knowledge (saddhā). They will not be content with just performing Buddhist rituals, but will be keen meditators.

[chownah]

When.

So why isn't more emphasis put on "self-enquiry" in Buddhism? Why all of this practice which can confuse someone into thinking there is an "I" that has to get from here to there?

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not but you might consider that the Buddha taught that it is best if we have no doctrine of self whatever....this means that we should neither have a doctrine that we have a self nor that we do not have a self....and....placing emphasis on "self-enquiry" might have the effect of subtly drawing us into having a doctrine of self.
My view is that focusing on the delusion is not what will lead to its demise....I guess....
chownah

[m0rl0ck]

When.

So why isn't more emphasis put on "self-enquiry" in Buddhism? Why all of this practice which can confuse someone into thinking there is an "I" that has to get from here to there?

There is a lot of emphasis on self inquiry in buddhism. Its about seeing through the false to things as they actually are. What practice methods are you talking about specifically? Most practice methods that come to mind for me are either about seeing reality as it truly is (non-self) or about direct self inquiry. The methods that arent specifically directed at inquiry, like jhana and metta result in a weakening of the delusive ego and are usually used as a platform for some kind of insight inquiry.

[TheNaturalMind]

When.

So why isn't more emphasis put on "self-enquiry" in Buddhism? Why all of this practice which can confuse someone into thinking there is an "I" that has to get from here to there?

There is a lot of emphasis on self inquiry in buddhism. Its about seeing through the false to things as they actually are. What practice methods are you talking about specifically? Most practice methods that come to mind for me are either about seeing reality as it truly is (non-self) or about direct self inquiry. The methods that arent specifically directed at inquiry, like jhana and metta result in a weakening of the delusive ego and are usually used as a platform for some kind of insight inquiry.

I meant self-enquiry as it is emphasized in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. I see that Buddhism does encourage self-inquiry but not as blatantly as Advaita.

[PeterB]

If I am wrong then I apologise in advance, but I rather suspect that TheNaturalMind given his nick, is a advocate of the kind of Zen view that plays well on ZFI, where we " are all already Buddhas" but plays rather less well on a Theravadin site.
I might be entirely wrong.

[TheNaturalMind]

If I am wrong then I apologise in advance, but I rather suspect that TheNaturalMind given his nick, is a advocate of the kind of Zen view that plays well on ZFI, where we " are all already Buddhas" but plays rather less well on a Theravadin site.
I might be entirely wrong.

I have been studying Theravada for about 8 months now, so maybe I should attribute my diminishing sense of personal self to it, but at this stage I have a strange sensation that there is a more direct way. Though I am very interested in the opinions of more experienced practitioners.