Otis

Do you not realize how circular your arguments are? To establish that you do indeed see "the true nature of things", you need to be able to measure your view against the true nature of things. But of course, you need somehow to have access to that true nature, in order to do the measuring. A circle. In other words, you make yourself into the authority, which establishes your authority. You're a loop, pretending to be a sage. And how do you expect me to believe that your view is no view at all, that your beliefs that you see the "true nature of reality" is not a belief at all? "I have no beliefs" is itself, a belief. What you are describing is the worst kind of delusion. It is the delusion of someone who is so damn certain, that they are not even willing to admit that their beliefs are beliefs. You have left no room for you to be wrong, because you have no beliefs to be wrong, only direct insight into reality. What do you see when you open your eyes. The actual world? No, because your eyes are only receptors for light, and what you see is entirely the construct in your visual cortex. You only see your model. This is built into the human species; we are beings that interact with our own simulacra. The question is whether we mistake this simulacra, for the actual world. Of course, that is the very definition of delusion, and you are parading it proudly. Or no, there is no "actual world"? Well, that doesn't seem to be a very practical way of looking at it. You can insist all day that there is no "truckness" behind the truck, but the truck will still run you over. That's what existence is, the thing that conforms to physics, rather than to your philosophy. All I can say is: better look both ways, just in case.

Sorry, but I see this as utter B.S. You've been insisting all along on seeing the "true nature of reality" and declaring that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality". And yet, you are "free from beliefs". WTF? This is something you have to work out for yourself, because obviously I can't change your mind. But I do think it's time to take a good long deep look in the mirror.

So far, we're in complete agreement. You are supporting what I was saying. "Vision of red", as you put it, (probably) does not exist in the actual world, but is merely part of the simulacrum, the interior model of the world. "Reality", as we commonly use it, does not refer to the actual (even though people act as if it does), but only refers to the subjective model. Delusion is mistaking my model of reality, for the actual thing. Here's where we start to veer off from each other. The description for "senses" that you give seems perfectly okay to me, as long as we specify that we are talking about the internal phenomenological experience of senses, without preconception. In that case, I'll give it to you: senses are purely luminous. However (and this is at the crux of our conversation), if you take that statement literally, and say that "the senses (literally are) purely luminous", then you're mistaking a subjective experience for a description of actual reality. As far as I can tell, Buddha was writing for egos, not for enlightened people. Since he knew that old beliefs needed to be replaced by new beliefs (until the believer was truly ready to surrender those beliefs) he taught beliefs that shifted the egos' perspectives, so that they could surrender the certainty of their earlier beliefs in "self", "inherent existence", etc. That does not literally mean that there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence". It just means that these beliefs are closer to surrender of the importance of the interior model, than the mundane beliefs that preceded them (which were the very building material of that model). But Buddha was very clear to also include the middle way in his teachings, so that no one would attach literalism and fundamentalism to his words. I believe that if the Buddha lived today, he would speak in terms that included modern science, because science takes emptiness as its central credo, as well. But his words reflected the time and place that he lived in, because that was who he was trying to communicate with. Thus "no self" was a surer way of waking people up from the illusion of self, then was an explanation that referenced neurons. I agree that the belief in a "findable, independent, unchanging existence" is a delusion, and that emptiness is not that. But belief in a spaghetti monster who created the world in seven days is also delusion, and emptiness is also the lack of that. Emptiness is not just the negation of a specific worldview, it is the letting go of the importance of whatever worldview I have. As soon as you assert what the world is or is not, what existence is or is not, then you are in the realm of belief. Because none of that is available from the subjective perspective, which sees only its own interior model (the beliefs/habits). The actual world must always be inferred, rather than observed, because we only have our singular organism perspective from which to observe, never an omniscient view. Surrendering the importance of the interior model is exactly what emptiness is. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, whether from "contemplation and direct seeing" or from wild guessing, is delusion. Once it is a conclusion, it is delusion, because it is trying to force reality into your conceptual box. "A quantum shift of perception" does not necessarily liberate, because it could be a shift into even greater delusion (e.g. the spaghetti monster). So no matter what your "contemplation and direct seeing" arrive at, there is no way to be sure that you are not in delusion, except to empty your need to be right. No matter what views I have, if I don't grasp them too tightly, then I am not trapped by them. And no matter how "right" my views are, if I grasp them tightly as "truth", then I am trapped. This is what delusion means. Emptiness is the opposite of that: letting go of the grasping need to be right. You're the one who's been asserting "non-existence of that entity", not me. You're the one who said that "no self" is a "basic fact of reality". I am the one who has been insisting in not getting caught up in the "extremes" of belief in either existence or non-existence. The "view of inherency" is just one of many views that needs to be surrendered, in order to be "liberated". And that surrender has to happen all the time, ongoing. But because you have declared yourself liberated, therefore you are unwilling to doubt your own conclusions, surrender your certainty, or see the contradictions in what you're writing. Because you insist that you "see the true nature of reality", there is no room for subtlety, no room for discussion. Again, I am not railing against (what I hear as) the central tenets of Buddhism. I am railing against certainty, and this pretense that any specific "realization" = liberation. In my view, liberation only comes, in every moment, by continually surrendering my certainty. If I am unwilling to live in that emptiness, then it doesn't matter how Buddhist my views are, or where my conclusions came from; I still live in the trap of my own grasping need to be right, which is the definition of certainty. Certainty is delusion, and emptiness is letting go of certainty.

And how do you know, xabir, that you have woken up from delusion? How do you know that your "quantum shift of perception" has just not just moved you to a new delusion? How do you know that your "direct seeing and realization" are accurate, and that your understanding of the Buddha is correct? How do you know that it isn't all just your attachment to being right provoking you into making premature declarations of understanding? How do you protect yourself from delusion, when you are so certain that you see "the true nature of reality"? How would you ever catch yourself, when you seem utterly unwilling to doubt your beliefs (you insist on calling them "facts"). The biggest idiots in the world, are those who are most certain about their beliefs. The shooter in Norway, Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers are excellent examples of that. How do you make sure that you're not falling into this category?

I utterly disagree with your understanding of emptiness. Emptiness (as I understand it) should not be read as a statement of how the world actually is. Emptiness describes the fact that any individual's "reality" is an interior construct, not the actual world. That "reality" is not an accurate or adequate description of the actual, but a mental-made thing, constructed of stories and heuristics. Emptiness says: my construct of the world will never be correct, precisely because I can never know, and it is precisely my insistence that my construct is right, which keeps me in delusion. To see the world in emptiness is not to know that it is empty; it is rather to empty one's self of certainty, of knowing. What is delusion, xabir? Delusion is precisely mistaking my construct of the world, for the world itself. It's believing my own BS. How does one move beyond delusion? Not by arriving at the "right beliefs" (like "no self"), but by surrendering certainty about the world. Letting go of the grasping need to be right about things. The more certain one is, the more "self" one is. Saying "there is no riverness, windness, or weatherness" is merely the same as redefining "existence". You're "winning" by changing the language. And it totally ignores the obvious observation that "thinking" is invisible to everyone except the thinker, whereas the thinker (the one doing the thinking) is utterly obvious to any observer. The power in a metaphor is in its ability to predict, to elucidate, to help provide answers. But "no self", if taken literally, does none of this. It just flies in the face of the obvious, without any deeper insight given. Emergence is a much more robust metaphor than your "there is no" junk. Likewise, there are much more subtle and sensible metaphors (several of which I've given, above) than a literal translation of "no self".

Personally, I don't want to "find out". I just want to enjoy the exploring of the question.

This is a hugely unsatisfying answer, xabir. First with the old: "thinking, no thinker; hearing, no hearer" bit. You know full well that I don't accept this statement at face value, since we've had this conversation before. So, offering this jargon as if it were an explanation, is pretty futile. I asked you what "no self" points to, and you offer the "seeing, no seer" as response. But "seeing, no seer" is not an explanation; in fact, it's totally meaningless. It's just another pointer. Besides being meaningless, it has no surface validity at all, and should not be used like an explanation. When I look around at the world, I see plenty of thinkers, hearers, and seers, but I see no thinking, hearing, and seeing. So, if anything should be said to not exist, it would be the thing for which there is no material object. Furthermore, the statement is flat out wack. I challenge you to go out in the universe, and find "thinking, without a thinker" or "hearing, without a hearer." Maybe on some other planet, but not here. Thinking, as far as I can tell, is always predicated on a thinker. And then your bit about "there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing" is just lame. All you've done is re-defined "exist" to exclude anything which arises from more fundamental parts or processes. By this logic, there is not only no organism, but no society, no animals, no life, no world, no space. Because each of these are phenomena that emerge from deeper phenomena. But to say that they "don't exist" is to totally abuse the word "exist". You've just defined away all of existence. Yes, dependent origination points to important lessons, but it should not be mistaken for an explanation of "how things work". It is rather an important reminder for us to be humble in our claims that we can tell "how things work". Because there are always deeper underlying phenomena and causes, it thus behooves us to admit that we really can't know "the true nature of reality". D.O. points to mystery, not to certainty, and should not be used as an argument for why you know "the true nature of reality". What I am decrying is not D.O., annatta, and the other teachings of the Buddha. What I'm decrying is your and RT's dogmatic use of "no self" and "hearing, no hearer" as if they were literal and self-evident truths, rather than pointers toward certain important phenomenological perspectives on selfhood. And I take issue with you and RT implying that this concept of "no self" leads to "liberation" and seeing the "true nature of reality". If you really have access to that kind of perspective, I expect you should be able to explain yourself better.

Hey Xabir, you totally passed this by. Please let me know what it is you mean by "no self", rather than just saying it's a fact.

Be careful you don't malign non-human animals unnecessarily. Mothers in particular, of many species, show unbelievable transcendence of self! I don't personally know any humans who act more transcendent than them.

My fingers and wrists have called me toward contact staff, partner dance, and some other juggling play, to help wake them up. All of my practices seem to have arisen, because my body and nervous system has called me toward them, to allow these parts to wake themselves up. Particularly true of dance and stretch. Handstands have woken up my shoulders and balance. Barefoot hiking has woken up my feet and ankles. Parkour and environmental dance: my awareness, calm and coordination. I only start standing on my head a couple years ago, and my neck was at first very perplexed, but now I'm very relaxed up there, and doing easy spins. Now I'm perching on and dancing from, my shoulders/upper back. When I allow my body to direct me toward what it needs, fortunately it brings me to some very fun, childlike explorations (like my new love, tree climbing!).

Yeah, I think the body has its own wisdom, which is often stifled by a society that insists on "right" posture, etc, and which has only a few "normal" ways of being (sitting, standing, lying). Even the way we divide our body up by language, by clothing, and by shame, just adds to our estrangement from the natural flow and processes of the body, which evolved separate from any of those. And of course, young kids do strange contortions and dances in the streets, all quite natural and authentic, until they learn to domesticate their bodies, out of self-consciousness. I know of some healing modalities (like cranial-sacral therapy) that has rocking and shaking built-in to their systems. I think that both help shake up habits, and activate nerves that get very little attention. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that the further a body part is from my head, the less attention I have given it, over the years. So feet, ankles, legs, abdomen and lower back can use a great deal of waking up.

Excellent!

Yes, that's how I feel. Life is not always fun or easy for me, but I love the feeling that I'm in training. Not for something in particular, just training to be greater. Becoming lighter, becoming more generous, more loving, more open, more accepting, more willing to help, etc., etc. Where I am right now is never wrong. It's just an accident of where I've been thus far. What is useful from the past, is the practice it has given me, and what is useful right now, is always trying to do my best, including my best at accepting who and where I am, right now. And likewise, of course, I try not to see the outside world (or parts of it, like people) as the enemy. They are not what's against me. They are merely the path of life, that I have to learn to be balanced and clear upon. My resistance to, and discomfort with events and people defines the path of growth, that I still have yet to do. Practice is the act of doing my best, while not taking offense, when life and I bump into each other.

I don't know what it is you experienced, but what you're describing is familiar to me. In particular, when I first started really paying attention to my body (after years of neglect), I was rewarded with incredible bliss. I've never done heroin, but that's what it made me think of, as result of exploring. So much of my body, my fibers and nerves, were atrophied and dull, until I started getting in and activating them. When I finally started paying attention, and started loving movement, wow! So, yes, maybe this specific act is something important. But I think it is equally likely that any exercise that will shake up your experience of your own body, will be vastly rewarding. p.s. May I recommend dance? Specifically dance that is purely allowing your body to joyfully follow its paths, rather than something your "I" is doing, to appear a certain way? I have found that my body knows its own path to bliss, and its own path to liberation and ability, if I just let it play.

PM me with your address, and I'll mail you my copy.

Well, why doesn't this negate your certainty over "there is no self"?

"No self" is only a pointer. It's two words. The question is: what does it point at? Does it mean: there is no body? Or there is no personality? Or there is no cognitive function? Or there is no organism, which is doing the thinking and the hearing? None of the above even seem remotely plausible. I've never heard or seen any good arguments to support the above statements, whereas their opposites seem utterly obviously so. Or, does it mean: there is no homunculus in me, pulling levers, and making my body do what it wants? Does it mean: the mind that I observe is only a feedback loop, a funhouse mirror, reflecting various processes of my brain? Or perhaps: there is no separate soul, that is distinct from the body? Or: the "I" is merely a function (e.g. a conduit for awareness) among many other functions, but mistakes itself as the greater part of the being? Or: part of the process of living includes sensing, which includes sensing the interior landscape of cognition, which gives rise to the illusion of "mind"? Or: many, many neurons give rise to an emergence, which senses itself as a "self"? Or: the "self" that is experienced is nothing but a cluster of habits, including the habits of consciousness and perception? Or: living life as life, rather than as a separate individual, is a path toward freedom? All these interpretations of "no self" make total sense to me. They all fit very well with "my" experience of "my" "self". But they do require not being dogmatic about "no self", and they require taking the time to be nuanced in one's observations. What "basic fact" are you pointing at, when you say "no self", and why do you believe it to be true?

In a conversation the other day, a friend and I were both mentioning how slow work was. Neither of us are go-getter world-beater types, and we're both used to getting by with little struggle, which no longer seems to be working, in this economy. We agreed that sometimes it is necessary to have hard times, in order to spotlight the change that needs to happen. The tough situation defines clearly where my resistance is, where my avoidance is. And it challenges me to step up, to persevere through discomfort, and to push myself in new ways. And I find that it is usually not as bad as I fear it will be. The fearful anticipation of the situation is often a lot worse, than the reality. I hope you also allow this time of challenge to inspire you, rather than overwhelm you. To be your teacher, in paying attention to what you resist in life. And to force parts of you to wake up, that you have not fully exercised. I wish you the best.

Hey InfinityTruth, I'm sorry to hear that you're at a low point, right now. I wish you the best. I do want to say that I have been extremely impressed with your posts lately. You've been able to fearlessly spell out the uncomfortable things that you've been noticing about yourself. That is extremely good (and advanced) practice. In other words, from where I stand, you're doing something really right. Noticing is absolutely painful, heartbreakingly so. But it's also the only way that I know of, to grow. Ignoring all that would leave you in perpetual denial. So, there's a good reason for you to stick with it; because you're growing, and (I think) you're growing fast. Stick with the process, brave the uncomfortable, and I believe you will find a great deal of relief, in the not-too-distant future. Plus, it's inspiring to have someone post so honestly, and fearlessly. I'd miss your posts. best, otis

Excellent!

Excellent article, CowTao. Thanks for the share.

Good share, SereneBlue. I've defended materialism on these boards, lately, but not because I self-identify as a materialist. I do not. Rather, I think that science proposes a very elegant and compelling explanation of consciousness, among other things. And I think that there is an unfortunate tendency in society to take full advantage of all that science has to offer, except when it seems to threaten one's beliefs. Whether that's through evolution or materialism, I think it's a lot more fruitful to accept what science says, and then still leave room for mystery. Like you say, I have experiences that do not seem to fit into any science I have ever heard of. So I fully accept that the scientific model is probably incomplete, at best. However, I will not reject the model, because it is not complete, since it still seems to be the most elegant and thoroughly tested of all models, out there. What science has done is map the functioning of consciousness, primarily from the outside-in. Buddhism, Yoga and other disciplines have mapped the functioning of consciousness, from the inside-out. Neither way is necessarily the right perspective; rather, they can complement each other. One day, hopefully, there will be no gap between the two, and the two models will fold together. My credo is: believe as little as possible, and make sure that what I do believe, makes as much sense as possible. I am mostly agnostic about the nature of the actual, because I see it as being largely outside of my view, as an organism. Science seems to me to be, by far, the best attempt at describing the working of the actual. So I am loathe to doubt the conclusions of science, simply because they don't feel right, or confirm what I already believe. But I also feel the need to always leave open room for mystery, for deeper explanation, for a better model.

This, too, is very brave, Samantha. Thank you for being willing to share.

Here again, I want to call attention to the contradiction. You say: right after you say: Well, which is it? If "is" and "is not" do not apply, then you cannot say whether there is a self or not. Because the "is" is inherently inaccurate.