No Self for Dummies

I was feeling guilty for not explaining "No Self" better to H and C. I was driving along and then it hit me. "Self" is actually much harder to understand than "No Self" because it is invented much as G_D, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Stork... are invented. Where is this "Self" to which we are so attached? When was it born? Does it die? Is it fully developed early on?

Having realized that "Self" is totally a construct of our mind I realized that "no Self" is a much clearer view of this changing entity ("I") that, as well, is also a construct of our mind.

Sorry, C, that I couldn't do it in 30 words or less. Another challenge.

This monologue hurts my brain...

My friend Hans wrote that about my last post about "no self."

Exactly, Hans. The brain cannot comprehend very much. It is the wrong tool for the job. Our western delusion is that we can figure things out with brain power. Socrates (the epitome of Western thinking) said that it is better to be dead because then our heart (emotions) won't get in the way and we could see things clearly. I doubt that he found that to be true after he took the hemlock.

Our brain constructs lots of garbage—convenient ways for us to understand the world and for us to relieve suffering. It is not our best friend, yet we rely on it "to sort things out."

Just as I posted yesterday that everything changes I read that "Buddha Nature" is eternal and never changes. Now that hurts my brain.

My understanding of "no self"

My main question is this: If there is no "self" ("The "self" is itself a mental formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent existence."), then what does Karma, or the result of our actions attach to? And further, what is reborn if not the self?
I know big questions. Can you answer them in 30 words or less? : )

Key to Buddhism is the idea of impermanence. Things are always changing. There is no self in the sense that there is no abiding (enduring) entity. Our karma attaches to that which is changing, and our karma (or actions) contributes to those changes.

Suzuki Roshi was one of the most important Zen teachers who brought Zen to America. He said,

"The teaching—the teaching that [laughter]—the teaching that everything is changing—in Japanese, shogyō-mujō[1]—or Chinese shogyō-mujō—teaching that everything is changing. This teaching can be—could be understand in two ways: the one—the teaching as the law of the truth. This teaching is always true, you know, whether we observe it or not. The—so—if everything is changing, that means non-substantiality. There is no substantial being, you know. We are only composed being from various elements. So we are non-substantial being. (a) Non-substantiality."

When I discuss my parents with my sisters we realize we each had different parents. Each of us constructed different parents, and our parents evolved and responded differently to each of us.

I like this description of rebirth from Wikopedia,

"Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika-viññana)[1][2] or stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana-sotam,[3] Sanskrit: vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or citta-santāna) upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates" (P. khandhas, S. skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream."

Aggrevates are form, feeling, perception, mental formation or volition, and consciousness. It is the way that we experience the world.

The word "stream" is key in the quote above. One thing leads to another to another to another. 

Rebirth happens throughout our life, with each breath, with each time we walk into a room, with each day of our life. Zen people aren't very concerned with the rebirth at death, though a rare few say you are not a Buddhist if you don't "believe" in it. Even the Buddha said that we had enough to think about in this life (to reduce suffering). He was not interested in what happened next.

The real issue to me is how do we know things. Is it with the discursive mind, or is it the heart and intuition? You know that part of you that makes artistic decisions. "That's too close... that's too red... that's shape needs to be a little sharper." The difficulty in teaching art is that there is no way to really explain any of this. I was asked, "how do you know when to take a picture?" I had no idea how to answer that question. A famous violinist was asked how he did this very difficult movement. He could never do it again.

The most interesting thing about Zen for me is learning to understand without analyzing. Someone like Mr. Wikopedia could have all the right answers to your questions, yet would not really know anything in the same way that art historians do not know how to make a painting. As much as they know about the artistic process (much more than we do), they had no idea how to generate and develop an artistic idea.

Anger: Decision or Emotion

But Kim, anger isn't a decision, it's an emotion. Taking action from anger is a decision, but that is not synonymous with the raw emotion. I think a person who never gets angry is either someone who has become enlightened, or else is someone who doesn't know or admit to their anger. Every human swims in the same pool of raw emotions, and I hear that enlightened beings once did too. I think that pretending, avoiding or debating whether or not to be angry is also part of being human. But it's not going to get us into heaven (wink). That's mental activity trying to decide something good or bad about human nature. I think. :)

But the main point for me is what's underneath. In my experience, sadness & fear are under or coupled with anger, so I say it's even practical to listen to the anger. It's a matter of care, to notice the fear, discover the connection, and take action that will help. After all, we aren't striving to be robots, it's an open heart we want more of. I think that making good decisions that effect life on Earth can only come from having the capacity to feel all the feelings, because raw emotions are our barometers that direct us in life, whether we know it or not.—Ginger

Decisions seem to come from the conscious mind, while emotions from the unconscious. Yet we read that several seconds before we make conscious decisions the outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity of the brain.

One question to me is whether we can do anything consciously. Can we make decisions? Can we control our anger... or our love?

Sometimes we are waiting for a parking space and someone sneaks into an open space that we've patiently had our eye upon. Some will be furious. Some will even say something rude to the space stealer. Some might try to give them a black eye. This would definitively be taking action from anger.

And some won't be angry at all. They will just say to themselves, "time to find a new space."

How did those people get that way? Good parenting? Good teachers? Smarts?

Probably a combination. I don't think the person is necessarily "repressed." They may realize, like my GPS often does, that it is time to recalculate.

Angry about the pollution

A friend wrote me that reading about pollution made her angry. I know I've written many times before about anger, but I'll do it again.

What struck me, as I though about her anger, is that two things have happened. One is that there is mercury in the ocean that has become part of the fish that we eat. I first became aware of the effects of mercury from the Minamata photos by Eugene Smith. The second thing that has happened is that someone is angry because there is mercury in the ocean.

Many say that the anger is good because it leads to attempts to clean up the environment. But who cleans up the anger, which is a kind of pollution itself? Is it necessary to be angry to act? You see a speeding car coming toward a kid in the street. Do you need to be angry to pull the kid from its path?

Here's a good link on anger, with quotes from the Buddha and the Bible.

Seafood Watch

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has a website that lets you know what seafood you should eat. The two issues seem to be the sustainability of the fisheries, and the mercury in the fish.

Environmental Defense Fund has issued a consumption advisory for longline-caught albacore tuna due to elevated levels of mercury. No consumption advisories are listed for troll- or pole-caught albacore as these methods catch younger tuna with lower mercury levels.

This sounded much easier than I thought until I started looking for Pacific Sardines. Word from Monterey is that you should only get Pacific sardines, because the Atlantic fisheries are eliminating the sardines by catching too many of them. And guess which ones cost more. At Costco, good sardines are a little more than a $1 a can, but they are from Morocco which is a no no. So I passed them by, and went to three groceries before I found some from the Pacific. $3.78 a can!

So what did I do? Quit eating sardines. The same with tuna... after I finish the three cans that I already have.

There was an artist, Mr. Otis, who would only sell his paintings for cans of sardines. Since he was from the Pacific Northwest, I'm hoping that his sardines were the good kind.

So what would you do if you liked sardines? Eat your wallet, or the Atlantic sardines?

Banks aren't the culprit.

I read something the other day about banks.  (click on link to read article). It has bothered me since I read it because I don't believe banks are doing the wrong thing by investing money rather than lending money.

At the beginning of the article Stiglitz talks about the bailout. He says that we did it because we were told that the American economy couldn't function without the overnight lending. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it indicates how, after years of any service, we become a slave to that service provider.

Then he says that the banks used some of their money for bonuses. This suggests that we gave them too much, and/or that they didn't need as much as they said they did. I hope that they lose some credibility over this. You give your kid your car keys... and the car doesn't ever come home. You then hesitate the next time they ask for the keys.

He speaks of the lending rate being close to zero. This was done so the government could borrow lots of money, and also so the government wouldn't have to pay lots of interest. But for the average Joe, it didn't mean easy money. Not for buying a house. Mortgages are still hard to get. Car loans are easier and cheaper. That is because the car companies know that they won't sell cars unless they can entice people with low interest and low downpayment. Cars can be repossessed easier than houses (esp. with used cars being sold at a premium), so it is good business to loan money on them. House mortgages are a risky investment for banks. Why should banks take chances for a low rate of return?

Stiglitz admonishes the banks. He says they aren't doing their job. I think they are. They are making a profit for their stockholders (as their charters suggest). It isn't their job to be charities. And if we criticize them for not engaging in risky investments, as home mortgages are (especially at low rates), aren't we really contradicting what we accused them of in the past... of engaging in practices that are too risky. How can they win?

This is not to say that people don't need mortgages. It is just that the price of mortgages is artificially low, so that banks (rightfully) don't want to do them.

People pay much higher interest on their credit cards. At some cost, maybe someone would start to loan more money on houses. But I don't think we should point at the banks as the culprit.