Is realizing the nature of the self the most important thing

[PeterB]

In the opinion of one more experienced practitioner....there isnt. But good luck.

[Akuma]

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.

Since Advaita was created quite a long time after the Buddhas passing he had no opinion about it specifically; it is clear tho from the suttas that he found it important to begin with the correct questions. In the sense of "Who am I" for example you are already presupposing an "I" and therefore distorting your meditation through a slight expectation to find that "I".

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

The nature of this transformation is the cleaning of the mental stream to make it ready for insight.
Who is again nonapplicable - you could say that living moments of cognition together with their accompanying mental states are doing that which will sound pretty weird and will prolly only start to become clearer once one has read a bit about the idea. The nature and subtleness of these dharmas is also one of the reasons why the Theravada approach is usually gradual and calls for very refined states of mind in meditation.

[m0rl0ck]

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.

Zen and chan have some quite direct methods that use self inquiry. Huatou and koan practice for instance. I do chan huatou practice myself, and of the practice methods i have tried over the past few years, it seems for me to be the most rewarding. I wouldnt take up koan or huatou practice on my own, its the kind of thing you will probably need guidance with. You can get some fairly quick results, but at times the practice can be, what i can only describe as, harrowing. So it would be best for you to find a teacher. He or she may not immediately give you a koan or huatou to practice, so a little patience may be required

[m0rl0ck]

Since Advaita was created quite a long time after the Buddhas passing he had no opinion about it specifically; it is clear tho from the suttas that he found it important to begin with the correct questions. In the sense of "Who am I" for example you are already presupposing an "I" and therefore distorting your meditation through a slight expectation to find that "I".

Everyday existence already presumes an "I" The point of this kind of practice is to focus on this illusion to expose it for what it is. The first thing you find out when doing this kind of self inquiry practice is that this "I" you have been taking for granted all your life is nowhere to be found.

[Akuma]

Everyday existence already presumes an "I" The point of this kind of practice is to focus on this illusion to expose it for what it is. The first thing you find out when doing this kind of self inquiry practice is that this "I" you have been taking for granted all your life is nowhere to be found.

The meditation is colored by expectation and has different aims. In Advaita you expect "who" to be the true self and look for this. When you talk of huatou your expectation on the other hand side is already colored by you reading about it and expecting the opposite, namely not to find a self at all, which also explains why its the "first thing" you notice, while f.e. in the Buddhas times ppl (possibly way more skilled in meditation than we are) took all sorts of realisations for the true thing while only the Buddha realized No-Self.
If you dont have expectation then in my opinion if you ask "who" you expect a "who". More applicable would probably to ask "where", but youd probably still expect a positive answer slightly more because of that way of asking. In Theravada at least I dont know of a technique like this being applied tho.

[Goofaholix]

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.

I think self view is probably the last delusion that falls away before enlightenment.

[m0rl0ck]

Everyday existence already presumes an "I" The point of this kind of practice is to focus on this illusion to expose it for what it is. The first thing you find out when doing this kind of self inquiry practice is that this "I" you have been taking for granted all your life is nowhere to be found.

The meditation is colored by expectation and has different aims. In Advaita you expect "who" to be the true self and look for this. When you talk of huatou your expectation on the other hand side is already colored by you reading about it and expecting the opposite, namely not to find a self at all, which also explains why its the "first thing" you notice, while f.e. in the Buddhas times ppl (possibly way more skilled in meditation than we are) took all sorts of realisations for the true thing while only the Buddha realized No-Self.
If you dont have expectation then in my opinion if you ask "who" you expect a "who". More applicable would probably to ask "where", but youd probably still expect a positive answer slightly more because of that way of asking. In Theravada at least I dont know of a technique like this being applied tho.

I think you may be misunderstanding the nature of this kind of inquiry. Its not about confirming any particular expectation, but questioning all of them. If that werent the case, it wouldnt be inquiry, it would be some sort of prayer or mantra. For example, speaking from my own experience to date with the kind of self inquiry involved in chan practice, you would be just as disappointed with the expectation of self as with the expectation of no self. The point is to transcend expectation of any kind and to subject even the most basic and fundemental expectations of self and reality, including the identity and existence of the questioner, to the most sincere and honest examination possible. Give it a try

[cooran]

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.

I think self view is probably the last delusion that falls away before enlightenment.

Hello Goof,

'Personality View' is the one of the first to fall away - on becoming a Sotapanna.

Here is the progression, as one begins and progresses on the Path to Nibbana:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyacht.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta,
Chris

[ground]

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?

"the true nature of self" is that "self" is a thought,
the "I" is a thought.
"The Four Noble Truths, compassion, impermanence, dukkha, clinging" are thoughts.

Now are these all "just thought" or is there a difference between some of these being "just thought" and other being "thought"?

Kind regards

[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?

"the true nature of self" is that "self" is a thought,
the "I" is a thought.
"The Four Noble Truths, compassion, impermanence, dukkha, clinging" are thoughts.

Now are these all "just thought" or is there a difference between some of these being "just thought" and other being "thought"?

Kind regards

I think I understand you. Are you saying there's a difference between something being a mere thought, and something being a thought? Can you elaborate?

[bodom]

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.

I think self view is probably the last delusion that falls away before enlightenment.

Hello Goof,

'Personality View' is the one of the first to fall away - on becoming a Sotapanna.

Here is the progression, as one begins and progresses on the Path to Nibbana:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyacht.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta,
Chris

Hi Chris

A sotapanna has abandoned personality view but still retains a subtle form of conceit, Asmi-mana, the I-conceit and this is only fully abandoned with attainment of Arahatship.

Asmi-mana

Asmi-māna: lit.: 'I am'-conceit, 'ego-conceit', may range from the coarsest pride and self-assertion to a subtle feeling of one's distinctiveness or superiority that persists, as the 8th fetter samyojana, until the attainment of Arahantship or Nobility.

It falsely assumes an entity 'I' the be real and existent. It is based upon the comparison of oneself with others, and may, therefore, manifest itself also as a feeling of inferiority or the claim to be equal see: māna. It has to be distinguished from 'ego-belief' sakkāya-ditthi which implies a definite belief or view ditthi concerning the assumption of a self, personality or soul, and, being the 1st of the mental chains, which disappears at attainment of Stream-Entry sotāpatti. Even when the five lower mental chains have vanished in a Noble Disciple, there is still in him, with regard to the five groups of clinging, a slight remaining measure of the conceit 'I am', of the desire 'I am', of the latent tendency 'I am' see: S. XXII, 89. māna This is the root assumption of Egoism.
References

Maha Thera Nyanatiloka. Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Buddhist Publication Society, first edition 1952.

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Asmi-mana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ground]

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?

"the true nature of self" is that "self" is a thought,
the "I" is a thought.
"The Four Noble Truths, compassion, impermanence, dukkha, clinging" are thoughts.

Now are these all "just thought" or is there a difference between some of these being "just thought" and other being "thought"?

Kind regards

I think I understand you. Are you saying there's a difference between something being a mere thought, and something being a thought? Can you elaborate?

Yes.
E.g. "horn of a hare" is "mere thought" (or "just thought"). "Apple" or "joy" are thought but not "mere thought".

I think that these questions are worth investigation.

Kind regards

[vinodh]

Its true.

The realization of self is important.

(Assuming its "The Dhammic free-for-all" after all)

There is a Mantra in Mahayana,

oṃ svabhāva śuddhāḥ sarvadharmāḥ svabhāva śuddho'haṃ.

Om the self-nature of all dharmas is pure [likewise] My self-nature is also pure.

And why is the self-nature pure ? Its because every thing is essential Void .

So, Yes.. Realizing the nature of self is very much essential.

Else.. we would fall into the falsehood of Atmavada [Soul-Theory] or even worse Ucchedavada .

V

[mlswe]

.

[TheNaturalMind]

this might seem like a trivial thing naturalmind, but you have framed the question as if there was a self and it had nature belonging to it, what is to be realized is that all phenomena are impersonal (i find this word more practical and down to earth than not-self which has a abstract kinda philosophical ring to it and might make it seem more difficult than it is). I find that mindfulness of phenomena internally (in oneself) and externally (in others) and the joining of these mindful observations can clarify this aspect of the impersonal nature of for example breathing or walking.

Yes, you are correct. I don't mean to imply a self that has a nature, putting these things into language is a sticky, tricky thing.