Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of ego, self-identity

[max_freakout]

i oversimplified a bit to just say 'i am nothing', there is at least an idea of a self in Buddhism, and suffering is caused when that idea of self is fed and taken to be more than just an idea

to attain liberation this idea of self must be eliminated which is what is ment by:

there does not exist in those noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of self

the Bodhisattva is the liberated being

it is held to be a collection of properties (called skandhas), the thing which is 'nothing' is just the 'abiding self', the person who thinks he is 'the same' from moment to moment


but in Hinduism this abiding, separate self is equated with atman, whose true nature is literally everything

ive not heard the expression 'accumulation of dharmas' before

 

[JimW]

ive not heard the expression 'accumulation of dharmas' before

Probably because I pulled it out me arse just then.
I wrote that because in my understanding of mainstream Mahayan thinking (which I'm most familiar with), the illusion of self arises because a number of the dharmas have come together for karmic (as in cause-and-effect) reasons to form the temporary agglomeration which we regard as our self. Our perception of being a self (that will die and most likely suffer) is the root of the dis-ease of of the human condition, and thus it will lead to a cessation of suffering if insight into the non-essential and non-permanent nature of the "self" can be attained.
In one sense, like much of Buddhism, it's actually a pragmatic approach to resolving some of the problems attendant on the human condition rather than a dogmatic tenet that you would be burned for denying - though Buddhism had its share of sectarians etc too like any other religio-philosophical tradition.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are these 2 conceptions of self really opposites? Is there any way to reconcile them? And why is the Western self-concept different to them both? Is there any way to reconcile Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy on this matter?

You have this dichotomy in your head: East/West, but as you yourself have said, two of these 'eastern' philosophies are quite different.

So what is it you mean when you talk of reconciling 'Eastern' and 'Western'; philosophy?

 

[max_freakout]

the illusion of self arises because a number of the dharmas have come together for karmic (as in cause-and-effect) reasons to form the temporary agglomeration which we regard as our self. Our perception of being a self (that will die and most likely suffer) is the root of the dis-ease of of the human condition, and thus it will lead to a cessation of suffering if insight into the non-essential and non-permanent nature of the "self" can be attained.

yes absolutely this is another way of putting the doctrine of 'no self', ie, no permanent self

but again i dont understand what 'dharma' means in this context

In one sense, like much of Buddhism, it's actually a pragmatic approach to resolving some of the problems attendant on the human condition rather than a dogmatic tenet that you would be burned for denying - though Buddhism had its share of sectarians etc too like any other religio-philosophical tradition.

yes Buddhism is not dogmatic, according to many it isnt a religion (but rather a philosophy)

 

[max_freakout]

You have this dichotomy in your head: East/West, but as you yourself have said, two of these 'eastern' philosophies are quite different.

So what is it you mean when you talk of reconciling 'Eastern' and 'Western'; philosophy?

i said reconciling them on this specific matter, and it stands to reason that this should be possible, because the answer to the question 'what is the self?' or 'what am i?' is presumably the same whether you are Indian or English, it is just that their respective philosophies have a fundamentally different way of dealing with this question

and i think it only seems as if Hinduism and Buddhism have such contradicting answers to the question, and there is in fact an underlying similarity between the 2 different answers, which i am trying to discover

 

[Dillinger4]

I am sure you will find a way to fit it into your beliefs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes Buddhism is not dogmatic, according to many it isnt a religion (but rather a philosophy)

 

[max_freakout]

judging by that pic id say there are buddhist architects with repressed sexuality

 

[JimW]

i dont understand what 'dharma' means in this context

I tried to give a sense in that Conze quote in an earlier post. As I understand it, dharma encompasses a number of meanings from being simply objective reality to being the teachings of the Buddha to the technical sense I wanted here - a self-arising event-moment, kind of the basic building blocks of phenomenal existence as we experience it (that is simultaneously empty). Must confess to being a bit out of my depth in the vast and storied history of Buddhist philosophy, as they've been debating this stuff for millennia, but the interpretation I offered is a reasonable version of mainstream Mahayana view I think. Part of the problem of discussing this in English is the vastly different conceptual frameworks, the inevitable distortions of translation and the lack of a grounding in that centuries-long debate.

 

[rogue_lettuce]

And why is the Western self-concept different to them both? Is there any way to reconcile Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy on this matter?

Nietzsche suggested that Indo-European languages have a more highly developed concept of the subject than Ural-Altaic languages, and thus the west has a concept of self that is dismissed by other cultures. I don't know where that leaves us with regard to this debate, as sanskrit is an Indo-European language, which would seem to contradict Nietzsche's hypothesis.

And in response to your second question, er... No. That would be like trying to reconcile Catholicism with Satanism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am sure you will find a way to fit it into your beliefs.

Meow!