'No self' my experience so far...

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

No, I'm not talking about a habit formation in the ultimate sense, that's just your interpretation of my words. But, on the other hand, it does become a habit formation in the physical brain, that's why various yogic adepts talk about samadhi samskaras in the brain, neuron patterns in the brain that actually reflect states of realization that one makes more prevalent in life through focus, and then one doesn't need to focus intentionally as it's integrated naturally through direct cognition with absolutely every phenomenal arising due to practice and application, integration and finally complete realization of all nature as it arises.

[goldisheavy]

No, I'm not talking about a habit formation in the ultimate sense, that's just your interpretation of my words. But, on the other hand, it does become a habit formation in the physical brain, that's why various yogic adepts talk about samadhi samskaras in the brain, neuron patterns in the brain that actually reflect states of realization that one makes more prevalent in life through focus, and then one doesn't need to focus intentionally as it's integrated naturally through direct cognition with absolutely every phenomenal arising due to practice and application, integration and finally complete realization of all nature as it arises.

 

Forget all this talk about the brain.

 

Samsara is a habit formation that can last indefinitely.

 

Nirvana can last indefinitely for the exact same reason as Samsara!

 

You change the samsaric mental habits into the nirvanic ones. It's precisely because samsara is in actuality nothing other than mental habits that it can be changed. And when you change a habit you get another habit as a result. You don't get any kind of absence of habit. You just get a different habit. Changing a habit in a determined, focused, specific way results in a new habit. And Dharma training is indeed determined, focused and very very specific, so as you can imagine, it results in a nirvanic habit formation. This habit is beyond the brain just like the samsaric habit is beyond the brain as well (since it persists from birth to birth).

[Aaron]

Hello Seth,

 

Congratulations on your realization or maybe it would be better to say, the realization that there is no realization to begin with... hehehe... just playing with words. Just to let you know I jumped on this thread a bit late, so I haven't read every post, but I read a page or two.

 

First it's good to hear that you're human. We all have our tribulations and the people I listen to and respect the most are those who will share those experiences humbly and honestly. Perfect people don't exist, so when I meet them I tend not to hear what they say, but I hear you perfectly.

 

Second, I experienced much of what you're talking about years and years ago, actually around fifteen years ago. I wasn't aware of all the no-self, self, etc, so it took a long time to rationalize all of this, but suffice it to say my original understanding wasn't that there was no-self, but rather there was a universal state of connection that everything started from. Over the last fifteen years I've grown to understand the idea of no-self more closely, to the point that I realize there is no real me, but at the same time I also realize that there is a real me.

 

The problem with many of these realizations is that they strain our ability to understand them, so I wasn't surprised when you mentioned panic attacks. There's a reason why most real "masters" are not willing to accept mentally ill people as their students, which is simply that many of these realizations are mind blowing for an emotionally healthy person, for someone experiencing mental illness, they can be devastating. I'm glad to hear that you were able to come to your own understanding in a way that helped you to overcome your own emotional and spiritual issues. (Just keep in mind that if these problems return, that doesn't mean what you experienced wasn't valid, only that you're experiencing something you've experienced before.)

 

In regards to Ruthless Truth, I would still recommend that you maintain a healthy understanding of what the purpose of that group really is and not just the perceived purpose. Having come upon a smidgen of truth, I think you can examine it well enough to come to that realization without my needing to spell it out.

 

Anyways, from the unenlightened masses, I want to thank you for sharing and best wishes. Everything works out the way it's intended to.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I feel compelled to add that I am very sorry that you had to suffer to come to your understanding, but I feel that without the suffering you're understanding would've been limited at best, so if you come away from this with anything, let it be an appreciation for the wellspring of understanding that suffering can be.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

No, I'm not talking about a habit formation in the ultimate sense, that's just your interpretation of my words. But, on the other hand, it does become a habit formation in the physical brain, that's why various yogic adepts talk about samadhi samskaras in the brain, neuron patterns in the brain that actually reflect states of realization that one makes more prevalent in life through focus, and then one doesn't need to focus intentionally as it's integrated naturally through direct cognition with absolutely every phenomenal arising due to practice and application, integration and finally complete realization of all nature as it arises.

 

Hello Vaj,

 

I would love to see you, for just one day (maybe two), not disagree with anyone and instead just make comments about those things you can agree on, without resorting to veiled comments, but just absolutely positive affirmations to others beliefs.

 

Aaron

[Vajrahridaya]

Hello Vaj,

 

I would love to see you, for just one day (maybe two), not disagree with anyone and instead just make comments about those things you can agree on, without resorting to veiled comments, but just absolutely positive affirmations to others beliefs.

 

Aaron

 

Funny you only notice the negative. I was in fact just about to comment to GIH that I half agree with him.

 

I'm not going to affirm what I don't agree with though. That'd be dishonest.

[Vajrahridaya]

Forget all this talk about the brain.

 

It's not merely talk.

 

Samsara is a habit formation that can last indefinitely.

 

Nirvana can last indefinitely for the exact same reason as Samsara!

 

You change the samsaric mental habits into the nirvanic ones. It's precisely because samsara is in actuality nothing other than mental habits that it can be changed. And when you change a habit you get another habit as a result. You don't get any kind of absence of habit. You just get a different habit. Changing a habit in a determined, focused, specific way results in a new habit. And Dharma training is indeed determined, focused and very very specific, so as you can imagine, it results in a nirvanic habit formation. This habit is beyond the brain just like the samsaric habit is beyond the brain as well (since it persists from birth to birth).

 

Right on.

 

p.s. For Aaron,

 

YES!! Go GIH GO!! G.o.l.d.i.s.h.e.a.v.y. WHAT'S THAT SPELL!!!??? GOLDISHEAVY!!!

[Seth Ananda]

I disagree.

Hmm please spell this out further..

 

If it has no experiential level to it, how can it be cognized, seen, or in any way understood?

 

And if It can be known in some way or other, what effect would that knowing have on you?

[Seth Ananda]

Forget all this talk about the brain.

 

Samsara is a habit formation that can last indefinitely.

 

Nirvana can last indefinitely for the exact same reason as Samsara!

 

You change the samsaric mental habits into the nirvanic ones. It's precisely because samsara is in actuality nothing other than mental habits that it can be changed. And when you change a habit you get another habit as a result. You don't get any kind of absence of habit. You just get a different habit. Changing a habit in a determined, focused, specific way results in a new habit. And Dharma training is indeed determined, focused and very very specific, so as you can imagine, it results in a nirvanic habit formation. This habit is beyond the brain just like the samsaric habit is beyond the brain as well (since it persists from birth to birth).

 

That makes sense to me, but what is your objection Vajra?

 

I was also wondering about a point someone made earlier, if I read it right, about whether Insight was permanent or not.

How would it be permanent? wouldn't it just arise moment to moment dependently tied to what ever it was having Insight into?

That could seem permanent, but on close inspection could show it as really being an ongoing and connected series of moments? Thoughts anyone?

 

 

To try to say it better, If the mind stream is made clear, and the mind stream itself is dependently originating, then the clarity of Insight is going to stop any further pollutants from entering the mind stream.

 

In other words, clear mind gives rise to clear mind give rise to clear mind gives rise to clear mind...

[goldisheavy]

Hmm please spell this out further..

 

If it has no experiential level to it, how can it be cognized, seen, or in any way understood?

 

And if It can be known in some way or other, what effect would that knowing have on you?

 

I think when it comes to experience we find some experience to be more skillful and some less. Some is more painful and some is less. And then there are mental habits. Some habits lead toward more painful experiences, and some toward less. Some habits work in a skillful way in only a few situations, and some habits work in a skillful way in a wide variety of situations.

 

When we see that all experiences are equally relative and equally partial, then that in itself is a recognition of a bigger truth. To recognize this kind of truth you need to have either a wide variety of experiences, or you need an exceptionally attentive mind which can glean from a relatively more narrow selection of experiences that same truth. So when we recognize a more overriding kind of truth, this truth is not this or that experience. There is a kind of truth that is true about all experience. The value of that truth is that it allows us to shift our habits with more ease, because it gives us an idea that all kinds of things we used to think are impossible, are in fact possible.

 

That's how I see it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Harmonious Emptiness]

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.

 

 

Just to be clear, in quoting the sutra I was just trying to show that, as an enlightening experience, realizing no-self is only one of many and so it really isn't worth debating as if you were claiming to be Enlightened, since it is like 1 credential compared to the dozen or so of the other monks who were still in the process of their development. Also showing all of the other attainments of these monks, that this one attainment is not so incredibly difficult to accept that someone has realized.

 

saying that "many people would consider these monks enlightened several times over" is true, most would, but they still were yet to learn no-self, and as you yourself acknowldedge, you still have many steps to go.

 

Putting great awakening in double capitals might have be misleading or easily misunderstood, but realizing no-self is usually considered a major step in the door.

 

This is more in response to Informer, but as I've stated before, most of what people consider enlightenment nowadays is really preparation or "stream entry" to higher knowledge.

 

Maybe I didn't need to be so gentle about saying so.. just didn't want to come across acting like anyone had to prove anything to me.

[Seth Ananda]

So when we recognize a more overriding kind of truth, this truth is not this or that experience. There is a kind of truth that is true about all experience. The value of that truth is that it allows us to shift our habits with more ease, because it gives us an idea that all kinds of things we used to think are impossible, are in fact possible.

 

That's how I see it.

I Totally agree. How is this different from what I was saying?

 

Also that truth is having an experiential aspect to it in your life, as in habits are changing easier...

 

I see Anatta and E&DO as being in the category of Truth that is always true about all situations. Are there other Truths you would put in this category?

[Seth Ananda]

Just to be clear, in quoting the sutra I was just trying to show that, as an enlightening experience, realizing no-self is only one of many and so it really isn't worth debating as if you were claiming to be Enlightened, since it is like 1 credential compared to the dozen or so of the other monks who were still in the process of their development. Also showing all of the other attainments of these monks, that this one attainment is not so incredibly difficult to accept that someone has realized.

 

saying that "many people would consider these monks enlightened several times over" is true, most would, but they still were yet to learn no-self, and as you yourself acknowldedge, you still have many steps to go.

 

Putting great awakening in double capitals might have be misleading or easily misunderstood, but realizing no-self is usually considered a major step in the door.

 

This is more in response to Informer, but as I've stated before, most of what people consider enlightenment nowadays is really preparation or "stream entry" to higher knowledge.

 

Maybe I didn't need to be so gentle about saying so.. just didn't want to come across acting like anyone had to prove anything to me.

Cool

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I was also wondering about a point someone made earlier, if I read it right, about whether Insight was permanent or not.

How would it be permanent? wouldn't it just arise moment to moment dependently tied to what ever it was having Insight into?

That could seem permanent, but on close inspection could show it as really being an ongoing and connected series of moments? Thoughts anyone?

 

 

Yes, sure, but both are equally empty and not self... equally, beyond time, process and progress, as all that which was stated that it was beyond.

 

To try to say it better, If the mind stream is made clear, and the mind stream itself is dependently originating, then the clarity of Insight is going to stop any further pollutants from entering the mind stream.

 

In other words, clear mind gives rise to clear mind give rise to clear mind gives rise to clear mind...

 

Yes, all equally empty of inherent existence. You've got it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Otis]

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

Well, my body, of course. I can point to it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, my body, of course. I can point to it.

 

But, that's only relative to all the other elements involved external to that point of conditioned arising.

 

Which of course you know.

[Mahberry]

Well, my body, of course. I can point to it.

We can lose any of our limbs and live. Any of our organs can be swapped (like in a transplant).

 

There are even cases of people surviving on only half a brain.

 

Who are we? Our left hemispheres or our right hemispheres?

 

In the body we can't find a real us that remains us.

 

Someone with only the left hemisphere:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/cameron-mott.html

 

Someone with only the right hemisphere:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-12/health/woman.brain_1_brain-language-abilities-rewired?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Otis]

But, that's only relative to all the other elements involved external to that point of conditioned arising.

 

Which of course you know.

Actually, I don't quite understand what you mean.

 

What I would say is: my body is my whole self, as far as I can tell. However, "I" don't know what my body is. It is the whole of me, so the "I", which is just a miniscule part of me, cannot say for sure what it is.

[Otis]

We can lose any of our limbs and live. Any of our organs can be swapped (like in a transplant).

 

There are even cases of people surviving on only half a brain.

 

Who are we? Our left hemispheres or our right hemispheres?

 

In the body we can't find a real us that remains us.

 

Someone with only the left hemisphere:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/cameron-mott.html

 

Someone with only the right hemisphere:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-12/health/woman.brain_1_brain-language-abilities-rewired?_s=PM:HEALTH

I'm saying the whole body, as far as I can tell, is the whole self. Of course the whole self is not the parts; it is the whole. If I lose one of my limbs or my hemispheres, then that is, indeed, a loss. There is less of the whole self left.

 

(Of course, this is not a value judgment on amputees and stroke victims; I'm not talking about value at all. Just whether there is a self to point at).

[goldisheavy]

We can lose any of our limbs and live. Any of our organs can be swapped (like in a transplant).

 

There are even cases of people surviving on only half a brain.

 

Who are we? Our left hemispheres or our right hemispheres?

 

In the body we can't find a real us that remains us.

 

Someone with only the left hemisphere:

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/cameron-mott.html

 

Someone with only the right hemisphere:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-12/health/woman.brain_1_brain-language-abilities-rewired?_s=PM:HEALTH

 

Excellent! This post is brilliant.

[Mahberry]

I'm saying the whole body, as far as I can tell, is the whole self. Of course the whole self is not the parts; it is the whole. If I lose one of my limbs or my hemispheres, then that is, indeed, a loss. There is less of the whole self left.

 

(Of course, this is not a value judgment on amputees and stroke victims; I'm not talking about value at all. Just whether there is a self to point at).

That is a conceptual understanding of self. It's more in the line of "I think self is... <concepts, models, assumptions>". Find the self that is feeling pain, that wants pleasure.

 

Right now when you say this and when you're angry and when you're hungry there's a very strong sense of I am. I AM saying this, I AM angry, I AM hungry, I AM in pain, I AM in joy. Have you ever try locating and seeing clearly what this sense of I am is like?

 

I am not ruthless truthing you, I don't know no self either. It's just that I see you're taking a very intellectual approach to self. The search for self wasn't meant to belong in a textbook to be read and understood by others. It gives nothing but another concept/idea for people to make love with.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, I don't quite understand what you mean.

 

What I would say is: my body is my whole self, as far as I can tell. However, "I" don't know what my body is. It is the whole of me, so the "I", which is just a miniscule part of me, cannot say for sure what it is.

 

As in, bodily, it's a product of genetics, DNA, food, and mentally, a product of both the previous and parental conditioning, social conditioning, the conditions of what one has exposed oneself to.

 

As in, one can't find an actual singular point of reference that truly defines oneself, even within the elements, atomic particles, and quantum particles that make up your body.

[Aetherous]

In the body we can't find a real us that remains us.

 

Yet, there is an individual perception. There is awareness of what's seen through the eyes, felt through the skin, etc. There is awareness of the mind. But there is nothing beyond these things...these are the limits of an individual perception.

 

From our limited point of view, we can see that there is a whole wide world out there which is just outside of our individual perception. We can see other people with their own individual perceptions seeing the world from an entirely different point of view than our own. They also experience the mind differently from us.

 

So how can someone say there is no self? That individual perception, which is embodied within one human form, is a self.

 

The self changes from birth to death, and can change itself into a being which disidentifies to achieve some result, like avoiding pain...but it's still a self, going through an individual journey.

[Mahberry]

Yet, there is an individual perception. There is awareness of what's seen through the eyes, felt through the skin, etc. There is awareness of the mind. But there is nothing beyond these things...these are the limits of an individual perception.

 

From our limited point of view, we can see that there is a whole wide world out there which is just outside of our individual perception. We can see other people with their own individual perceptions seeing the world from an entirely different point of view than our own. They also experience the mind differently from us.

 

So how can someone say there is no self? That individual perception, which is embodied within one human form, is a self.

 

The self changes from birth to death, and can change itself into a being which disidentifies to achieve some result, like avoiding pain...but it's still a self, going through an individual journey.

Yes, completely valid. There is obviously a self. I am posting this right now to reach out to someone else. How can I say there is no self when obviously I'm doing something to please my self.

 

I guess the 'self' eastern religions try to no self with is the sense of self that feels violated when someone inflicts pain on it, that feels being stolen from when someone steal things we have claimed possession of, that feels little when someone think attribute negative qualities to it.

 

The self we hold in our head that believes it has tangible qualities like generous, kind, smart, caring.

 

A self that has a story behind it that is totally subjective and serves to romanticize its life and selectively chooses experiences that embellishes its history.

 

Not no self as in this body is not real, it's an illusion but no self as in there's no self apart from this body. The self who we think is kind, smart, caring, gentle, hardworking, righteous, better than the average bear is a concept and mechanism for survival that has crystallized so much we think is the true self that exists apart from the body.

 

All I've written are just intellectual diarrhea of mine, not rooted in realizations. If it sounds stupid to you, it probably is.

[C T]

Forget all this talk about the brain.

 

Samsara is a habit formation that can last indefinitely.

 

Nirvana can last indefinitely for the exact same reason as Samsara!

 

You change the samsaric mental habits into the nirvanic ones. It's precisely because samsara is in actuality nothing other than mental habits that it can be changed. And when you change a habit you get another habit as a result. You don't get any kind of absence of habit. You just get a different habit. Changing a habit in a determined, focused, specific way results in a new habit. And Dharma training is indeed determined, focused and very very specific, so as you can imagine, it results in a nirvanic habit formation. This habit is beyond the brain just like the samsaric habit is beyond the brain as well (since it persists from birth to birth).

Well said, GiH.

 

Inverting habits, transforming dross into gold. Relatively speaking, dross is needed for the alchemist to make gold.

 

Ultimately, nothing is gained, nothing is lost. Or, everything is gained (gold) and everything is lost (dross).

Edited July 17, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Excellent! This post is brilliant.

 

I agree, this, "Placidity" or what I've called malleability happens due to the fact of emptiness, that there is no discernible self in anything other than attachments, clinging's, etc. This power manifested through the other side of the brain that was working due to various secondary conditions of working through human DNA, even if physiologically incomplete, it completed itself through longing to do so. The primary conditions of "self" clinging had to manifest through the secondary conditions of human DNA in these examples.

 

Or for a Buddha, these conditions are flipped into expressions of connecting to the suffering with wisdom based upon knowing directly.

 

As how can you know how to connect without actually having been there, done that, been through it?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya