Is there a "real self" within each of us, hidden by veils under our mask of ego, body, and attachments?

Is this "real self" connected to our individual lineages, our current and former lives being a subset of this?

The Buddha intimated that his "real self" occupied many bodies.

Quote:

• Mahāsudassana-sutta, DN.17: "Six times, Ānanda, I recall discarding the body in this place, and at the seventh time I discarded it as a wheel-turning monarch..."
  
• Mahāgovinda-sutta, DN.19: "At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward..."
  

It could be said that I'm clinging to my ego and expressing a desire to think that I am enduring after death, but there are two planes to consider.

• The first plane is the human body with its ego and limitations.
  
• The second plane is the "real self" which is part of everything, but also appears to be a singularity, spawning an individual rebirth.
  

Could it be that we are all such singularities with a procession of bodies/egos (similar to Dr Who) which are shaped by inherited khamma, with no conscious memory of the former, except at the "real self" level and only experienced upon enlightenment?

Many things aren't expressed in Buddha's teachings, perhaps because these are beyond comprehension and can't be articulated except through personal experience.

This ensures Buddhas works are a system for enlightenment and not a set of beliefs as with religions.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Our archaic interpretation of what God is may also cloud our judgement.

Is it possible that Buddhists with atheist views don't have an open mind and aren't walking down the middle path?

Just a few thoughts!

Edited September 13, 200817 yr by rockyysdt

Is there a "real self" within each of us, hidden by veils under our mask of ego, body, and attachments?

Is this "real self" connected to our individual lineages, our current and former lives being a subset of this?

The Buddha intimated that his "real self" occupied many bodies.

Quote:

• Mahāsudassana-sutta, DN.17: "Six times, Ānanda, I recall discarding the body in this place, and at the seventh time I discarded it as a wheel-turning monarch..."
  
• Mahāgovinda-sutta, DN.19: "At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward..."
  

It could be said that I'm clinging to my ego and expressing a desire to think that I am enduring after death, but there are two planes to consider.

• The first plane is the human body with its ego and limitations.
  
• The second plane is the "real self" which is part of everything, but also appears to be a singularity, spawning an individual rebirth.
  

A thoughtful post.

If you want to pursue a question to this degree you are better off posting it on E-Sangha, you are much more likely to get lots of more satisfying philosophical answers.

I found this Wikipedia commentary on the passages you quoted, which basically says they shouldn't be taken literally, you may or may not find the article of use see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

From an interior perspective, a person who remembers or imagines a past life is likely to think of it as representing a continuity of existence between lifespans, i.e., that the same person (however defined) was formerly one person (with a certain name and body) and is now a different person (with another name and body). This perspective is objectionable from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy on two counts. First, because it seems to postulate an enduring, self-existing entity that exists separate from the elements of mind and body, contrary to the Buddhist philosophical position of anātman. Second, because it overlooks the characterization of this process as one of constant change, both within and between lives, in which the newly-arising life is conditioned by but in no respect identical to the predecedent life.

Nonetheless, the Buddha is represented using language reflecting the interior perspective in stories about his past lives in both jātakas and sūtras. For instance, "At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward..." (Mahāgovinda-sutta, DN.19) or "Six times, Ānanda, I recall discarding the body in this place, and at the seventh time I discarded it as a wheel-turning monarch..." (Mahāsudassana-sutta, DN.17). This can be regarded as a concession to the needs of conventional speech.

This can be regarded as a concession to the needs of conventional speech.

I think that sums it up. Tan Ajahn Buddhadasa used to differentiate between human language and dhamma language. Most Buddhist discussions blend the two. The potential confusion led to the Abhidhamma Pitaka (which makes it quite clear there is no 'self' in the conventional sense, only citta) and later commentaries.

To my conventional mind it's one of those questions that answers itself when sati arises.

There's a very good talk on Self from Ajahn Amaro here.