The Self

On the Buddhist path one of the exercises that is popular is to try to find the self.  This naturally leads to a thorough investigation of all the possible things that could be self.

Am I my legs?  Would I exist if they were gone?

Am I my head?  Would I exist if it was gone?

Am I my mind?

Am I my thoughts?

Am I my feelings?

What am I?

This investigation is typically pursued as an analytical meditation.  I imagine my legs separate from the rest of my body.  Someone comes into the room and says there is Dorena and over there are her legs.

But what are they calling Dorena?  How many body parts do I need to lose before they no longer call me Dorena? If Dorena is a collection of things, what are the essential things?  Can a collection be truly called one thing? one self?

And what of my mind?  If I am in a coma or dead, people might still say, “Dorena is in that room”.  People would call my body “Dorena”.  So I must not be my mind.  Yet, if I lose my mind, people might also say, “She is no longer herself”.

To be told you have no self can sound absurd.  However, what is your defense to that?  Can you find something that you can definitively label yourself?

This process of beginning to understand ultimate reality is deepened by realizing intellectually that there is no self and then progressing to a direct experience of that reality.  Emptiness does not mean that there is nothing there, it simple refers to the fact that their is no self there.  When a room is empty, it usually means there are no people present.  Yet, there may be carpet, furniture and other things.  Similarly in order to talk about emptiness one must define what it is absent.  The object that is absent is the gakja.

Gakja

Gakja is a Tibetan term that refers to “the object we deny”.  It is something that does not exist and could never exist (ultimately).  It is critical to understand the gakja because this is the “thing” that everything is empty of.

If I see you in the hall, coming out of a room and I ask you, “Is the room empty?”  how do you know what to answer?  Perhaps you say “yes” but then I peek in and what I see makes me disagree.  The room we are talking about has a carpet and furniture, but no people.  You say it is empty because “your” gakja is people.  “My” gakja is furniture and I see the room as full because it is full of furniture.

People talk a lot about emptiness in Buddhism and sometimes I think people start thinking that it means nothing.  One cannot talk about emptiness unless they define what they are denying exists.  This is the gakja.  This is the thing that everything is empty of.

In each school of Buddhism the gakja is defined differently.  Here is the breakdown of the different ancient Indian schools of Buddhism followed by a concise definition of their gakja.schools of indian buddhismFunctionalist Gakja:  the self that has no causes

Independents Gakja:  the self that exists independent of its parts

Consequence or Implication School Gakja:  the self that exists independent of my thinking about it or naming it.