The attachment/concept of self

[meditationman]

Hello all,
I have been recently reading Buddhist meditation books, and I have come across a common theme in every single one: becoming aware of the concept of "I, me, myself" in relation to attachment. One text mentions "self" as the hardest attachment to become aware/let go off for a purer mind. The text goes on to explain about how there is no one who is being born or dying, just merely events of life where everything/being is interconnected and is flux and has impermanence. I am sort of confused as to what this concept's meaning is, and in addition, as to why it is such a dangerous attachment to have. Any takers to explain this?

[allisoncodill]

Buddha discovered all the universal knowledge when he was away from his home and connected deeply to self. Similarly for anyone to discover the truth of life this attachment is important and simultaneously at that time getting rid of other attachments is also important else the connection and meditation lacks somewhere.

[meditationman]

Buddha discovered all the universal knowledge when he was away from his home and connected deeply to self. Similarly for anyone to discover the truth of life this attachment is important and simultaneously at that time getting rid of other attachments is also important else the connection and meditation lacks somewhere.

Why would he want to get rid of self when, as you say, it helped him discover universal knowledge? Did he use his attachment to self until he reached a certain enlightened stage where he let go of the attachment?

[JonW]

David Carse's Perfect Brilliant Stillness explains all this better than any other non-duality book I have read. Heavy going in places though and, like most books on non-duality, very repetitive, but the subject lends itself to repetitive explanation. Also highly recommended is Tony Parsons' The Open Secret (not THAT Tony Parsons), which is much briefer a read and much more succinct. Richard Bates' The World Is My Mirror is one of the more accessible books on the subject. Ditto Alan Watts' The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.
In a nutshell, you demolish the self/ego by repeatedly asking "Who am I? What is true?" So it's not so much using the attachment to self until reaching an enlightened stage, more a case of stripping the ego down by repeated self-interrogation.
It is said that, in the entire history of humankind, very few individuals have attained pure enlightenment (that's to say, being in a perpetual state of non-duality awareness). Though, certainly, Ramana Maharshi was one such individual.

[rara]

Dangerous attachment because I = Ego i.e I want this, I want that etc. Leads to fascism in if taken to the extreme haha.

It's conditioning to help "end your suffering", the Buddhist philosophy of how life itself is viewed.

As for your question about life and death, that depends on how much you really need to know. Are you afraid of death? If so, I'll DM you and explain this in more detail.

[Gareth]

It just helps me to be more aware of the ego, and to be able to let it go when it starts kicking up a fuss due to not getting it's own way.

This Buddhist non-duality stuff is far more than I care about if I'm perfectly honest.

[meditationman]

I just finished reading a kabat-zinn book, and I found that the majority of my questions have been answered. I realized that our self can sort of lead to selfish behaviors that lead to actions that can cause pain/disharmony to others. Being aware of "I", "me" or other first person personal pronouns can help to recognize such actions. The best sort of action is these situations is non-action.

[BioSattva]

This Buddhist non-duality stuff is far more than I care about if I'm perfectly honest.

Indeed. And yet I do think there is some secular value in it - practical value, even, with regards to MBSR.

The idea of an inherent 'self nature' is actually a belief in a soul - a 'clever ghost' which could be said to ultimately controlling our behaviours and destiny. The repurcussions of this belief, as we have seen in the West, as well as in the East, are eroneous ideas like someone's heart being inherently evil - that someone is an 'evil soul' and therefore not worthy of forgiveness, compassion, charity, etc. Another side is that one believes oneself to be of a higher quality soul than everyone else - one's own soul is more talented/gifted, divinely-connected, etc. and therefore one deserves a greater share of resources and is entitled from birth to positions of power and respect in society no matter what bad stuff one does.

These 'grades' of souls lead to inferiority complexes and superiority complexes which cause people to be self-ish. Aware, deep down, of a hidden equality, the inferior souls use their inferior status to selfishly steal to get their 'fair share', but how much that fair share is, is not particularly clear, so might as well take as much as one can just to be sure, and the superior souls just selfishly take because, well, they are just better and therefore entitled.

There can even be an equality complex based on a concept of self - that every soul is equal, but who should be at the front of the group when they arrive to take food? We can't all be equal all the time - it is division, judging and labelling that creates such complexes. If one just goes with the flow, then things just take their course, and if I am at the front of the group which takes food first, I may be at the back of the group that takes drink from the other side. Embracing the infinite, dynamic randomness of the universe (or 'Dao' if you like) - through mindfulness practice dissolves all of this self-ishness; the idea of a soul. This was apparently a key teaching of the Buddha which was a direct reaction to the caste system in India, where inequality and selfishness was rife based on their idea of how souls were reincarnated.

I see it as plain social dynamics, however. It may also be worth noting that there is a prevailing notion among evolutionary psychologists that humans' brain 'programming' or 'wiring', although highly plastic and heavily influenced by environmental conditions after birth, is incredibly flexible in terms of potential behaviour. Our DNA wants to survive at all costs, and so we have 'evil' programming (which tends to come alive via the sympathetic nervous system), and we have 'good' programming, which tends to be present when the parasympathetic nervous system is operating.

Seeing a child wailing and trying to make the world revolve around it doesn't mean it is Damien the Omen, it means it's DNA is trying out a behaviour it has programmed into it one could label 'Ghengis Khan' - his DNA can be found all over East Asia, apparently, since he didn't waste time keeping his DNA isolated to one spot. Although it was good for him, this is not the kind of behaviour civilised society is based upon - that's more of a backup strategy if civilisation crumbles. So the wailing infant's parents guide the child towards compassion, charity, and forgiveness, so that the child may invest in a few children with one partner and ensure that they are his, and that they reach a reproductive stage safely - we could label such a program 'David Cameron' . So the point I am making is that our DNA is both Ghengis Khan and David Cameron - not one or the other, yet potentially both, and there are possibly other programs in there too, so in this sense there is no inherent 'self nature' in humans, and this is why 'beginner's mind' is so important - we are fluid, flexible, ungraspable, unlabelable (trying saying that when drunk! ).

This is why one should not be attached to a concept of 'who one is', because we are change - impermanence itself. Once one gives onself a static, potentially condemnatory label - a self' - one is dead, or on the way to that state.

[Gareth]

Love your posts Bio.

[BioSattva]

Love your posts Bio.

Thanks - it is fresh in my mind because I started a blog draft on the subject after seeing this thread. Attachment to a self creates selfishness - it's one of those no-brainers in a way.