It seems we are intent on questioning the self, and I don’t think anyone would question that seems to be the project of this course and much of TT’s writings. But, I would like to ask a different sort of question: Why do we invest so much in the reality of the “I” or self if it only produces suffering, confusion, and dissatisfaction?
It seems that the self–since it is so universal–is there for a reason. What I mean is, the self serves some function, some need in the human species, does it not? I don’t think TT answers or explains WHY we construct the self? He certainly shows us how to deconstruct it….
The Self is pervasive and is real to our shared human experience. What purpose does the “I” serve? If the “I” or “self” is a construction, why is it constructed? What purpose or need is it serving? It must be a very important one, because it is pervasive. In other words, the “I” or “self” must serve some sort of function in human experience, otherwise it would not be there in the first place? What is that function? What sort of problem or need is it trying to address?
Perhaps if we could come to terms with this, then we might have a greater appreciation for our human condition?Certainly, the resistance and entrenchment of the sense of an “I” or “separate/permanent self” must be due to the fact that it serves a real purpose?
It seems KoF, LoK, and TSK all jump into wanting to question the self, but we never are told why…
Ron
I think Ron has raised an important question that I have been thinking about since first reading this post. The Self is often associated with negative attributes as it is easily identified as the source of much personal suffering. However the Self does seem to be fundamental to human existence in all societies with the possible exception of few enlightened beings such as the Buddha. It seems to be behind most of what happens in the world, good and bad. In our ongoing investigation I think it is important that we look at not only the nature of the self but as Ron suggest the functionality of the Self both positive and negative to ensure a balanced assessment.
Ron and David, your discussion of how and why the self operates, and some of the distinct functions we tend to name with a common word, really helps further our investigations. We all seem to feel there is a baby in that tub of dirty bathwater, but how do we work on improving the quality of our inner environment without condemning our “real nature”, without which we would have no heart? I wonder if part of the ambiguity between who we are and who we fearfully pretend to be can be addressed by the idea that our sense of self is able to evolve. I’ve always like Peter Ouspensky’s interpretation of the Old Testament injunction “A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, and a life for a life”. Instead of proportionate revenge, Ouspensky says this phrase really denotes three stages of an individual’s evolution: 1/ without any special effort, our baby teeth are replaced by our adult teeth; 2/ “eye” could be translated as “I”, and we are urged to evolve from a self tettered to selfish obsessions with grasping, aversion, and ignorance into an “I” graced with a wider perspective; and 3/ exchanging an old life for a new life could point to the deepest transformations promised in the TSK vision. I love the sentence, “Because we have confused ourselves with ‘I’, we cannot appreciate our own real nature or intimately experience the world we live in.” (K of F, Page 325). It doesn’t exactly resolve the issues raised in Ron and David’s dialogue, but it does reassure us that “a real nature” resides within us, which can guide us toward intimacy and a meaningful journey through life. –Michael
P. S. I wanted to add…
‘I’ is also a function of language, when we speak, we differentiate between ‘I’ and others to facilitate understanding. We speak and relate to each other, telling our stories. Our stories are linear constructions, which also tend to isolate the ‘I’.
David
Hi Ron,
I see your point. I was being perhaps too general. Rinpoché in one of his books speaks of the self in terms of it’s aspects or functions, i.e. narrator, perceiver, interpreter, objective self, and witness or owner. Most of these seem to anchor it in time, based on memory of what has been previously experienced, a positioning separate from other ‘things’, and moments. Is this what you mean?
Why do we operate from this sense of ‘I’? Looking at my behavior, it seems I grew up with a habit of identifying myself with not only my history, but what ‘I’ imagined I wanted or wished to avoid. Memory and physical location made up much of my identity.
David
Hi David,
Well, ok, but I am not so sure that is the “self” as it is being referred to in Tarthang Tulku’s books. I think this is a problem when Westerners encounter Buddhist teachings as well.
I think we need to differentiate the developmental process that leads to the formation of an individual–which is what you have described. Certainly, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, such development of being able to separate from the mother, and become a functioning organism that can survive is not unique to humans either.
I think the use of the term “self” is fraught with complexities and lends itself to many conflations. Perhaps if we focus more on the term “I” — might avoid some of these confusions.
Yet, even if we use the word “I” — it still does not answer my original question. If the “I” is so problematic, then why do we use it so much as a natural given of human subjectivity? Assuming we have reached our developmental goals of separating from the mother, and developed a functioning self–that can differentiate–why do we go further and operate from this sense of “I”?
Ron
I’m not a psychologist, but it seems to me the self is a learned behavior that surfaces when we as infants begin to get a sense that we are physically different from our mothers. It’s a process or skill we gradually become used to and more proficient, developing over time as we remember our past experience. If we didn’t learn to differentiate ourselves from other people and things, we would have tremendous difficulty adjusting to life, unable to distinguish what was safe or dangerous, unable to differentiate between alternatives or opposites. We would be continuously confused.
David