'No self' my experience so far...

[Bluefront]

"There is nothing to be found that is the 'I', but this fact does not imply that the 'I' does not exist. How could it? That would be silly. The 'I' definitely does exist"

- Dalai Lama - How to see yourself as you really are

 

I don't really agree with this. Or I'm not sure exactly what the Dalai Lama is trying to say here.. all I know for sure is that his English sucks really hard, and I wouldn't take things too literally, word by word from him. In the end nothing should not be taken like that, but experienced for oneself. You have to do the math

 

The 'I' only appears as a thought (impermanent) and has no existence in and of itself. If you talk about it, there it is. As a thought. But the thought is pointing to something false. That is ok. This eventually boils down to seeing the false as false, and true as truth.

[C T]

In the DL's tradition, as is Buddhism in general, the emphasis has always been on awareness - awareness of the relative, in which an "I" can be found, and awareness of the absolute, where "I" can be deconstructed if one so chooses. Both can be beneficial, depending on one's disposition. Each complements the other when the right View and choices are put in place.

[Jetsun]

I don't really agree with this. Or I'm not sure exactly what the Dalai Lama is trying to say here.. all I know for sure is that his English sucks really hard, and I wouldn't take things too literally, word by word from him. In the end nothing should not be taken like that, but experienced for oneself. You have to do the math

 

The 'I' only appears as a thought (impermanent) and has no existence in and of itself. If you talk about it, there it is. As a thought. But the thought is pointing to something false. That is ok. This eventually boils down to seeing the false as false, and true as truth.

 

I will give a clearer quote from that book, basically what he is saying that people existing is self evident so to deny them is nihilism

 

"If not finding objects when they are analysed meant that they did not exist, there would be no sentient beings, no Boddhisattvas, no Buddhas, nothing pure, and nothing impure. There would be no need for liberation; there would be no reason to meditate on emptiness. However it is obvious that persons and things help and harm, that pleasure and pain exist, that we can free ourselves from pain and happiness. It would be foolish to deny the existence of persons and things when we are obviously affected by them. The idea that persons and things do not exist is a denial of the obvious; it is foolish"

[Informer]

Hilarious! did you read how I said this realization is helping me feel more connected to others?

 

Feel free to call BS though

 

First I should probably explain the language I am using, so we may further understand each other.

 

When I say self, I mean the Idea that we are some actual thing, somewhere inside or encapsulating our general physical Location.

 

I at least [and I imagine most other people as well, but i'll try to speak for myself]

used to walk around believing in this 'entity' at the core of my experience. When I said 'I' it came with an inner conviction that it was coming from the real Me.

 

When asked to 'pretend' to look, {nice condescending opening to dialogue there bye the way, thank you very much, I wish I had seen what you wrote before you edited your post } I was looking at this assumption that we all hold, that there is this core to my identity. That's what I found when I looked.

 

when expressing thoughts I would say "I think" and all that that was coming from was an 'I thought' which is really just a thought, no more or less Important than any other thought.

 

My feeling nature had 'I Feelings' which were really just Feelings themselves, no more or less valuable than any other feeling.

 

I thoughts, I feelings, just thoughts and feelings.

 

Where is this mysterious self that we hang so much on, and spend so much time trying to defend? No where.

 

Even Awareness does not constitute a self. There is actually very little we can say about awareness apart from that it experiences stuff. No one has ever experienced awareness it self, and It may not even be one thing. It is possible that the Visual awareness is quite different to say our hearing awareness, and who could tell anyway? We can not separate our awareness from the experience of the senses as they arise in the various moments.

To say 'I am awareness' is really just the mind coming in with an Interpretive process to add an 'I thought' to the simple experience of awareness which is already their without needing any thought added.

 

Once I saw clearly through all this, I realized that what I had taken to be my self was really just an Internal narrative, A false story built up on 'I thoughts' and on 'I Feelings' and that all the fighting, stress, defensiveness and anxiety were just that story in action against the world.

 

The story was the only thing to disappear. All my thoughts and feelings are still their, I pay the bills, eat porridge, and relate better than ever with others - usually... As I have stated I can still have strong emotions, act like a dick and so on, but that stuff is far less as it is no longer held together by that false Idea.

 

We are really just processes of the Universe, all arising together, streams of experience and awareness, with no real Underlying nature.

 

We are totally interchangeable, Interdependent with each other and the universe and all in this together.

 

In the general locale or Gamut of our Body/mind/hearts we feel, Love, get hurt, long for happiness and an end to suffering, and when the story of being some solid unchanging or 'Real' thing ends, we come closer to this.

 

That False Idea of being a Self, is the underlying Matrix for Suffering.

 

See that this strange alleged self, is actually Impossible to find anywhere within you, and then realize that it is not only just Impossible to find, but you have never had the tiniest scrap of evidence that it is their or real in your entire existence!

 

It has never been seen, experienced, felt or interacted with in any way, ever.

 

What does that tell you? You should be starting to get very suspicious by this point about it's 'alleged' existence.

 

Great Blessings on your path - what ever it is.

 

Thanks for replying. So can there be a self in a certain sense? If so how?

 

"We can not separate our awareness from the experience of the senses as they arise in the various moments.

To say 'I am awareness' is really just the mind coming in with an Interpretive process to add an 'I thought' to the simple experience of awareness which is already their without needing any thought added."

 

What is any word other than the mind trying to interpret and understand?

 

How do you know there is not a self other than what you had once considered a self?

 

Absence of proof for a self is not proof against a self, that would be a fallacy, and goes against truly seeking and knowing, rather than believing and thinking you know. How do you know you didn't just hypnotise yourself into believing this? Just look, all you have to do is focus, and there is something definitely and distinctly there.

 

Look, Focus, these are the keywords. How can you look and focus, if there is no you to look and focus, Obviously you began this task by looking and focusing at yourself with yourself, which is paradoxical.

 

This void isn't what you are, it is a tool for you to use only. Look, you can put the thoughts and idea's , pain and suffering there without putting yourself there as well.

 

If you what claim to know is true, then there could be no such thing as a spirit or soul, it would be contradictory. So basically you are denying any soul or spirit that may exist, any existence.

 

P.S. I didn't change anything that I wrote, only added to it.

[Seth Ananda]

 

If you what claim to know is true, then there could be no such thing as a spirit or soul, it would be contradictory. So basically you are denying any soul or spirit that may exist, any existence.

 

P.S. I didn't change anything that I wrote, only added to it.

 

Thanks as well

 

As far as I understand, soul and spirit {the way I mean those words} are just as present as mind and body and emotions, But they are all dependently arising processes. To me there is the physical anatomy of the world and our body, and there is also the subtle or spiritual anatomy to the world and our body.

 

This is just what I experience. For me at least, it would be a mistake to Identify with subtle elements just because they are subtle. They seem just as Interdependently arising as the physical body. To me, none of this constitutes the Fixed self fabrication that we make up and that causes so much trouble.

 

The No self teachings do not remove anything but the need to make one [or many] of these aspects into - A core unchanging Identity to be clung to and believed in. -

 

Our spirit changes and grows, so does our soul. The Light of the universe underlying everything is also changing and is also dependently arising with the phenomenal world.

 

I am still a person and still exist, and answer to my name. I just no longer have a belief that there is some part of me that that is the real me.

 

I am free of needing to be anything.

 

This is why I love certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy above all others. Everywhere else I have looked, there is still a tendency to try to be something. Even if it is something as subtle and mysterious as awareness or consciousness, when I decide that that is actually my true Nature, [and it may well be] I create subtle levels of grasping after self.

 

Those traditions might be totally right, and we may really be awareness underneath it all, but In Buddhism I am freed from the need to be anything [in a clingy manner]. That's the Joy of no self. Its totally open, allowing experience as it is, honoring of all its parts and processes, and getting in the way of nothing.

 

Grasping is tension, and leads to suffering. if I have to be awareness, then one day when I feel really stuck in the material realm and all those spacious feelings have lessened, then I will feel bad, and want to get back to that state.

It creates state dependency. For me I am done with state dependency. I lived in bliss for a few years and became utterly bliss fixated. I was like a junky. If something bugged me all I had to do was focus on my mantra a little harder, and a massive wave of bliss would wash away any sense of irritation. I was self fixated, state dependent and not particularly available to others.

 

Now I am easily with others. I went to a party tonight a sat with many people in easy, natural and affectionate connection. No trying, no force, I must be Hypnotized.

 

If you can Hypnotize someone into this realization then great. That will do a world of good for them. Trust me, Its amazing.

The Hypnotist question is really not particularly useful if you understand Hypnotism. Basically we are all hypnotized all the time. every view we hold is how we have been molded and shaped. So whether i am hypnotized or not is a moot point.

 

I'll answer one question with a question. Is absence of proof for Santa claws proof that he doesn't exist?

The self that you are asking about is a fairy tale. A Myth.

 

If you really have a self somewhere, that is always with you and never changes, shouldn't it be really obvious? you mean it has to be really obvious right? so where is it? point at it for me?

 

Find a single thing and say 'here it is! this right here, this is my self!'

 

Like a fairy tale santa, suddenly one day you realize 'Hey this guy is nowhere to be seen, he is just a myth.'

 

Where is the sense of suspicion that maybe this self you have been taught to believe in from every angle of the world around you, that you have never seen one shred of evidence for, is possibly just wool pulled over your eyes...?

 

 

I think the most Important thing about this subject is not how philosophically correct it is or is not, nor whether one is merely hypnotized, but whether it really has serious potential to help people take a large step towards ending suffering...

 

It has done this for me, and that is why I am sharing my experiences. I have changed beliefs many times over the years, sometimes with great results in my actual life, like when giving up particularly negative beliefs, but nothing has come remotely close to this. If just believing in it could do this, I would say go ahead and believe. Unfortunately belief is not required, and does not help get the realization. It may even get in the way. You have to see it clearly for your self.

 

If this path towards ending suffering is not for you, that is fine. I hope you do well in your respective path, and come back to share your learning's and to help others.

 

But this path works. It's amazing. It does not lead to Nihilism at all. That's my experience of it so far - which is only one month. [free from anxiety, panic and medication] So Awesome!

 

Blessings to all.

Seth.

[manitou]

Now I am easily with others. I went to a party tonight a sat with many people in easy, natural and affectionate connection. No trying, no force, I must be Hypnotized.

 

 

 

This is such a simple illustration but so important at the same time. I too have always been uncomfortable at parties - never could really see the purpose for them. But the no-Self way is consistent with Not-Doing, which is what I do when I go to a party now. You just be. The conversations come to you with ease. No trying. I also have learned to take something, to give something to the party, which helps me feel more like I belong. Actually, I'm still not crazy about social events but at least now they're do-able and I always have a nice experience.

 

Seth, I think your step is huge.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

just thought I would put this here for further reading

 

"..avoid the erroneous reasonings of the philosophers and seek this self-realisation of Noble Wisdom."

 

LANKAVATARA SUTRA

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb07.htm

 

 

 

 

Relating this experience and success is inspiring to look deeper, and deeper, and then deeper, and then deeper still. So, thanks

 

H.E.

[Informer]

just thought I would put this here for further reading

 

"..avoid the erroneous reasonings of the philosophers and seek this self-realisation of Noble Wisdom."

 

LANKAVATARA SUTRA

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb07.htm

 

 

 

 

Relating this experience and success is inspiring to look deeper, and deeper, and then deeper, and then deeper still. So, thanks

 

H.E.

 

Thanks! I really liked this part so far.

 

" It is not written as a philosophical treatise is written, to establish a certain system of thought, but was written to elucidate the profoundest experience that comes to the human spirit."

[liminal_luke]

[Informer]

[Vajrahridaya]

What makes you say he is enlightened? No offense buddy, but how would you determine that?

 

Well, I think he's definitely more enlightened than he was before, having known Seth on this board for a couple of years.

 

I mean, to finally overcome a clinically labeled psychological condition through insight, is definitely progress in the right direction I'd say.

[Informer]

Well, I think he's definitely more enlightened than he was before, having known Seth on this board for a couple of years.

 

I mean, to finally overcome a clinically labeled psychological condition through insight, is definitely progress in the right direction I'd say.

 

I don't mean to be-little the accomplishments, but are they really his to claim from such a perspective? who/what is being glorified is the question.

[Informer]

There are a few awakened souls who do see the trouble of that site and what it inadvertently entails.

[Informer]

Has the Placebo Effect been considered?

 

The placebo effect is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered.

 

A placebo (Latin for "I shall please") is a pharmacologically inert substance (such as saline solution or a starch tablet) that produces an effect similar to what would be expected of a pharmacologically active substance (such as an antibiotic).

 

By extension, "fake" surgery and "fake" therapies are considered placebos.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Thanks! I really liked this part so far.

 

" It is not written as a philosophical treatise is written, to establish a certain system of thought, but was written to elucidate the profoundest experience that comes to the human spirit."

 

I was hesitant to put it in since as Seth, and the sutra, is saying, "just look!"

 

It's easy to get caught up in the authority of the sutra, especially if we have not already experienced what it teaches, and coming from the "cult-mind" mentalities that society imprints so many of us with. Sometimes its better to push the finger out of the way if you want to see the moon... or something

[Harmonious Emptiness]

What makes you say he is enlightened? No offense buddy, but how would you determine that?

 

A realization is not necessarily Buddhahood, but a realization nonetheless.

 

Before Shakaymuni spoke about the "No-Self" being talked about here, he recognized the following attributes of the monks he was about to speak to:

 

"A great many Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas had miraculously assembled from all the Buddha-lands, and a large number of bhikshus were gathered there. The Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas with Mahamati at their head were all perfect masters of the various Samadhis, the tenfold Self-mastery, the ten Powers, and the six Psychic Faculties. Having been anointed by the Buddha's own hands, they all well understood the significance of the objective world; they all knew how to apply the various means, teachings and disciplinary measures according to the various mentalities and behaviors of beings; they were all thoroughly versed in the five Dharmas, the three Svabhavas, the eight Vijnanas, and the twofold Egolessness."

 

He then went on to show them about no-self. Were these monks enlightened already? Several times over most would say. Even the 2nd patriarch, decided by Shakyamuni himself to lead, was a couple steps down from the Buddha himself.. A Great Awakening may not be the be-all-end-all of enlightenment, but it's a huge step, as it was even for the monks above.

 

However, feel free to test the validity. It's not for me to answer this one..

[goldisheavy]

In the DL's tradition, as is Buddhism in general, the emphasis has always been on awareness - awareness of the relative, in which an "I" can be found, and awareness of the absolute, where "I" can be deconstructed if one so chooses. Both can be beneficial, depending on one's disposition. Each complements the other when the right View and choices are put in place.

 

Both the self and no-self are relative in the way Seth is talking about them, because both are specific experiences that only have meaning with respect to each other. So for example, lack of a story tying everything together was meaningful in comparison with previously being aware of just such a story. As the experience of a unifying story faded, a new kind of experience was born. From one relative to the next.

 

So all these experiences are relative: closed/open, self/no-self, ignorance/wisdom, etc.

 

In Buddhism the idea of not-self (different from no self) is not an experience, but the truth of all experiences. In other words, the experience of self is not-self (in that it has only meaning relative to other possibilities, and no inherent meaning), and the experience of no self is also not-self.

 

A person cannot get closer to (or further away from) the absolute by changing one experience for another.

 

In fact it's precisely by confusing the relative with the absolute that the problem starts. Confusing the relative experience of self and confusing the relative experience of no self for the absolute are both undesirable sorts of confusions to have.

[Informer]

A realization is not necessarily Buddhahood, but a realization nonetheless.

 

Before Shakaymuni spoke about the "No-Self" being talked about here, he recognized the following attributes of the monks he was about to speak to:

 

"A great many Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas had miraculously assembled from all the Buddha-lands, and a large number of bhikshus were gathered there. The Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas with Mahamati at their head were all perfect masters of the various Samadhis, the tenfold Self-mastery, the ten Powers, and the six Psychic Faculties. Having been anointed by the Buddha's own hands, they all well understood the significance of the objective world; they all knew how to apply the various means, teachings and disciplinary measures according to the various mentalities and behaviors of beings; they were all thoroughly versed in the five Dharmas, the three Svabhavas, the eight Vijnanas, and the twofold Egolessness."

 

He then went on to show them about no-self. Were these monks enlightened already? Several times over most would say. Even the 2nd patriarch, decided by Shakyamuni himself to lead, was a couple steps down from the Buddha himself.. A Great Awakening may not be the be-all-end-all of enlightenment, but it's a huge step, as it was even for the monks above.

 

However, feel free to test the validity. It's not for me to answer this one..

 

I feel they must have been considered Awakened (ready) to ponder Enlightenment. Which is why they were chosen.

 

The understanding of such teaching would be different for one who wasn't ready, as they would be lacking some if not all of the tools gathered along the path.

[Informer]

"He then went on to show them about no-self. Were these monks enlightened already? Several times over most would say. Even the 2nd patriarch, decided by Shakyamuni himself to lead, was a couple steps down from the Buddha himself.. A Great Awakening may not be the be-all-end-all of enlightenment, but it's a huge step, as it was even for the monks above."

 

I wonder if they considered each-other enlightened?

[Seth Ananda]

Aahahaha! I am not Enlightened, not by my standards anyway.

 

when I can tell you how many molecules spun past in the moon last night, then maybe I'll 'allow' you to call me an omniscient Buddha

 

Sure Its an 'enlightening' experience but there is a difference...

For me it does also feel like a major step in the right direction.

 

also, as I stated in the how to start a cult thread, I do have some misgivings about RT.

 

Naturally I feel very grateful to them, for helping me gain liberation from the Illusion of some permanent fixed self.

 

I think they have stumbled on a wonderful way to help people 'get it' and that is by applying pressure and not allowing discussion about other topics, so you can't wander away into extraneous details. It's like a thread that can't go off track and maintains the pressure till the subject is cooked.

 

Unfortunately they think that swearing and a torrent of Insults may be a necessary part of the process. Now while I do not have a problem with this personally, I think many do. They state that the goal is to help many many people gain through their process, but unfortunately only a small number of people would step foot in their pages. They ban so many people who I think could have got it, with better Understanding.

 

I Think the pressure is the key Ingredient, not a torrent of abuse and explicit language.

 

Also I do not think their process is original as they claim. There are stories of Buddha enlightening people with a few powerful sentences. I have read many accounts over the years of a teacher helping his students 'get it' in crazy pressurized kinds of ways. One Zen master supposedly cut of his students finger to help 'enlighten' him. Ouch!

 

I worry about the possibility of people just believing in the process with out seeing clearly within their own experience that there is no self.

And I worry more so about weak minded, or just young or Impressionable people being bullied into just believing they 'get it' as I think may have happened already. That to me would be a disaster. People not getting it, going out trying to help people get it, and idolizing the abusive strategy's RT uses is a major recipe for disaster.

 

But that said, if you are strong minded, don't feel phased by off language, and are up for the challenge, by all means head on over.

 

Even if they help you get it, then find more skillful means to share the realization, then Its still a good thing.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I worry about the possibility of people just believing in the process with out seeing clearly within their own experience that there is no self.

And I worry more so about weak minded, or just young or Impressionable people being bullied into just believing they 'get it' as I think may have happened already. That to me would be a disaster. People not getting it, going out trying to help people get it, and idolizing the abusive strategy's RT uses is a major recipe for disaster.

 

I believe that a person has to have a strong sense of self before it can be transcended, as if a person is too neurotic, the victim of abuse, or has a weak sense of personal self, is very unconfident, this no-self teaching can make the person even weaker and yes, it can be a recipe for disaster.

[Seth Ananda]

Both the self and no-self are relative in the way Seth is talking about them, because both are specific experiences that only have meaning with respect to each other. So for example, lack of a story tying everything together was meaningful in comparison with previously being aware of just such a story. As the experience of a unifying story faded, a new kind of experience was born. From one relative to the next.

 

So all these experiences are relative: closed/open, self/no-self, ignorance/wisdom, etc.

 

In Buddhism the idea of not-self (different from no self) is not an experience, but the truth of all experiences. In other words, the experience of self is not-self (in that it has only meaning relative to other possibilities, and no inherent meaning), and the experience of no self is also not-self.

 

A person cannot get closer to (or further away from) the absolute by changing one experience for another.

 

In fact it's precisely by confusing the relative with the absolute that the problem starts. Confusing the relative experience of self and confusing the relative experience of no self for the absolute are both undesirable sorts of confusions to have.

Hmm, I am not sure I agree. The Absolute has an experience level to it as well, otherwise it would be completely meaningless and irrelevant.

 

If you clearly see the nature of things, such as empty and dependently originating, do you really believe that your experience wont change?

 

Seeing Anatta means seeing one's nature as selfless. That's what No self means.

 

I can effortlessly see now the truth of no self. That's Absolute, as I understand it.

The relative is that i am still a person, who answers to my name...

[goldisheavy]

Hmm, I am not sure I agree. The Absolute has an experience level to it as well, otherwise it would be completely meaningless and irrelevant.

 

I disagree.

[Vajrahridaya]

I disagree.

 

The bliss/direct insight of realization is steady and unending and naturally integrated with every phenomenal arising.

[goldisheavy]

The bliss/direct insight of realization is steady and unending and naturally integrated with every phenomenal arising.

 

You're describing an intentional habit formation. It's not permanent just because it can be sustained indefinitely.