'No self' my experience so far...

[Bluefront]

No I am not trying to put you down, what would be the point of that, from your perspective that would be an impossibility. Although your words are telling a different story . . . as if you are offended.

 

I am trying to get you to consider where you went wrong, because you have.

 

You are not promoting Anatta, (not-self, doesn't exist) You are promoting Ruthless truth (no-self, don't exist) which there is an obvious and discernible difference, which would be as clear as day if you were ready for such a teaching. Let alone teaching others.

 

You never did answer my main question which is how any spirit or soul, or anything could exist if what you claim is true.

 

You are portraying sock puppet and avoiding the real question.

 

FYI, that spirit is what you are really, I know you won't take my word for it, just LOOK. Unless of course you make that an impossibility, which you have.

 

It seems like you have had some kind of experience with RT. So have I some time ago. I don't care about them at all though, and do agree with them being a bit too cult-ish at times. But there is really no difference between their message and anatta, non-duality and so on. Look at the moon, not the finger pointing at it. Who gives a fuck about the finger!

 

To me it looks like you are clinging to this concept of soul or spirit out of desperation. You try to fit this soul thing in every where you can. Is this some kind of cozy concept of a super identity that you can always fall back on when things get rough?

 

Can you explain, for the sake of clarity, what you mean when you say "Soul" ?

[Informer]

It seems like you have had some kind of experience with RT. So have I some time ago. I don't care about them at all though, and do agree with them being a bit too cult-ish at times. But there is really no difference between their message and anatta, non-duality and so on. Look at the moon, not the finger pointing at it. Who gives a fuck about the finger!

 

To me it looks like you are clinging to this concept of soul or spirit out of desperation. You try to fit this soul thing in every where you can. Is this some kind of cozy concept of a super identity that you can always fall back on when things get rough?

 

Can you explain, for the sake of clarity, what you mean when you say "Soul" ?

 

True self. Not clinging, it is my reality. I am awakened to this reality, which may be why the differences are easily discernible to me.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Informer

[Seth Ananda]

I have experienced exactly what you are talking about, 1st hand. I was a member there at one time. I went through all the motions as perscribed. I was in that void, there is nothing there. My life changed for the worse, I had no motivation to do anything, and I didn't care. It felt ok on the surface. but deep down something didn't feel right, and I started questioning what I had accepted. I found out (after swallowing my pride) that I had been duped.

 

It might take you years to realize this, if ever.

Ahh. Now we get to the bottom of your projections. You are one of the people I have worried about regarding RT. My case is made. You got bullied into a position or 'Hypnotised' so to speak, brainwashed even.

I feel for you and am sorry that your life took a turn for the worse.

 

I fortunately have a very strong mind, a great awareness of cultish behavior and tactics {my own experiences growing up led me to study cults} and have been deeply Immersed in Mysticism for the last 20 years. I took my understanding of anatta over to RT and asked them to put the pressure on, so to speak, and It worked.

 

My life has fortunately got Much much better. People do not tell me I look vacent, if anything the ones closest to me [who I have not tried to convert by the way] tell me that they can tell I have gone through an amazing change, that I feel much more present and loving, which I am. Relatively speaking.

 

Now I think we are having a linguistic Issue. Of course I believe in a 'relative' self. I have said this over and over. Who do you think answers this post?

No Self is an Absolute truth, about the nature of relative experience. That there is no self.

This has greatly freed my relative self, which still gets to kick along, and do my thing, as i no longer have the same levels of self fixation that I previously had, as in my previous experience of my relative self.

 

I think it could help to read and re read that last paragraph till you get it [what I have been actually saying as opposed to how you have interpreted it], then go back and re read this whole thread.

 

Be well.

Blessings on your path. CowTao's responce was perfect by the way.

Thanks again CT

[goldisheavy]

One man's poison is another man's cure.

[Informer]

If you are saying that there is a self in anyway shape or form, then that is not the teaching I recieved from RT.

 

Do I exist Seth? Do you exist? Does anyone?

 

If you simply got beside your egoic structures, then good for you!

 

There is more though . . . Like awareness, which would be impossible to look at with the very same awareness, which can cause that catatonic zombie-like state. The only way you could actually look at yourself is by reflecting yourself. That reflection is what is generally termed the self yet not actually the self.

 

So you see the reflection for what it is, yet you still haven't managed to look at self with self . . . Only the illusion of it.

 

Like how can an eye be seen by the same eye without reflection?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Do you exist at all H.E. ?

 

Do you subscribe to thier teachings? What is your angle?

 

Do you think that Seth thinks he exists at all?

 

Do you think you exist at all Seth? Do you think I exist for that matter?

 

I've never been on the RT website. You just seem like you want to know something greater (which is why you were involved with RT) and I seem to have made the mistake of trying to help someone who doesn't feel they need or want to be.

 

Sorry if I don't get into trying to explain existence in this post. Take a look at the Lankavatara Sutra in my first post in this topic. I don't know if all of that detail will mean anything to you, but I suspect it might not and I don't see the value of trying to provide anything more in depth, understandable, and detailed.

 

My experience of this does not require validation, measure, acceptance, or understanding from other people, though it's cool when you relate to the same references. Right now, I don't get the impression that you have those references to accept or reject, so I'm not trying to prove their existence for you. Make up your own mind. The only reason I came in with some come backs is to try to make you question your method of judgement and maybe have you think twice before jumping to negative conclusions and throwing around your accusations. I'm not perfect. I still have the reflex to shove mirrors in vampires faces. Unfortunately, that can just keep me from getting to where I'm going to, and I've been bitten once or twice in the process

[Informer]

I've never been on the RT website. You just seem like you want to know something greater (which is why you were involved with RT) and I seem to have made the mistake of trying to help someone who doesn't feel they need or want to be.

 

Sorry if I don't get into trying to explain existence in this post. Take a look at the Lankavatara Sutra in my first post in this topic. I don't know if all of that detail will mean anything to you, but I suspect it might not and I don't see the value of trying to provide anything more in depth, understandable, and detailed.

 

My experience of this does not require validation, measure, acceptance, or understanding from other people, though it's cool when you relate to the same references. Right now, I don't get the impression that you have those references to accept or reject, so I'm not trying to prove their existence for you. Make up your own mind. The only reason I came in with some come backs is to try to make you question your method of judgement and maybe have you think twice before jumping to negative conclusions and throwing around your accusations. I'm not perfect. I still have the reflex to shove mirrors in vampires faces. Unfortunately, that can just keep me from getting to where I'm going to, and I've been bitten once or twice in the process

 

I see, yet you had exclaimed to me to try it, therefore reccommending after I have already have tried it, and you have no Idea what it is, because you haven't tried it. Thanks man!

 

Well Informer, it's not too late to look into it for yourself rather than falling for a delusion and stopping at that... Look how sorely you want/wanted to prove that no-one else is capable of achieving what you were unable to do. See the delusion, the envy, and the arrogance that will prevents you from truly Great Wisdom.

 

The greatest delusion and ignorance is to believe we know that which we do not know. I believe this is the mother of Arrogance. And that Arrogance is then the mother of envy and jealousy when we are in so deep that we cannot be joyful for someone who succeeds.

 

Look before you learn

 

 

http://www.sacred-te...m/bud/index.htm

Sometimes it is best to say nothing.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I see, yet you had exclaimed to me to try it, therefore reccommending after I have already have tried it, and you have no Idea what it is, because you haven't tried it. Thanks man!

 

 

Sometimes it is best to say nothing.

 

What I recommended was that you read about it for yourself in the original sources, Sutras. Based on your total disregard for the concept it appeared you have not. Did you read any of the Sutras regarding no-self? What impression did they leave you with?

[Informer]

What I recommended was that you read about it for yourself in the original sources, Sutras. Based on your total disregard for the concept it appeared you have not. Did you read any of the Sutras regarding no-self? What impression did they leave you with?

 

If that is what you are referring to then OK. I haven't gone through it yet, but it is bookmarked and I do plan on it.

 

This one right?

 

http://www.sacred-te...bud/bb/bb08.htm

 

I could probably summarize not-self by saying you are not the ego, but the awareness that the ego arises. And any attempt to look at this awareness from awareness is futile, as an individual awareness cannot arise in that same awareness.

 

I know you are poking and prodding at the ego, yes it is still there and it has its utility at times. As to speak or illicit an egoic response, what better way than manifesting your own. Much of what I have said has been directed towards Seth in the same manner, yes I can see it . . . It helps me to determine where he is exactly, and he doesn't appear to be in the void, although he is condoning the path there. Destruction of the true self.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

If that is what you are referring to then OK. I haven't gone through it yet, but it is bookmarked and I do plan on it.

 

This one right?

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb08.htm

 

I could probably summarize not-self by saying you are not the ego, but the awareness that the ego arises. And any attempt to look at this awareness from awareness is futile, as an individual awareness cannot arise in that same awareness.

 

I know you are poking and prodding at the ego, yes it is still there and it has its utility at times. As to speak or illicit an egoic response, what better way than manifesting your own. Much of what I have said has been directed towards Seth in the same manner, yes I can see it . . . It helps me to determine where he is exactly, and he doesn't appear to be in the void, although he is condoning the path there. Destruction of the true self.

 

 

Yes, that text goes into it very much. To start, I would actually recommend skipping ahead to about chapter 5 and going from there, since the first few chapters take a while to get into it, imho.

 

Here is a good quote from chapter 5:

 

"By the cessation of the sense-minds is meant, not the cessation of their perceiving functions, but the cessation of their discriminating and naming activities which are centralised in the discriminating mortal-mind. By the cessation of the mind-system as a whole is meant, the cessation of discrimination, the clearing away of the various attachments, and, therefore, the clearing away of the defilements of habit-energy on the face of Universal Mind which have been accumulating since beginningless time by reason of these discriminations, attachments, erroneous reasonings, and following acts. The cessation of the continuation aspect of the mind-system as a whole, takes place when there is the cessation of that which supports the mind-system, namely, the discriminating mortal-mind. With the cessation of mortal-mind the entire world of maya and desire disappears. Getting rid of the discriminating mortal-mind is Nirvana.

 

But the cessation of the discriminating-mind can not take place until there has been a "turning-about" in the deepest seat of consciousness. The mental habit of looking outward by the discriminating-mind upon an external objective world must be given up, and a new habit if realising Truth within the intuitive-mind by becoming one with Truth itself must be established. Until this intuitive self-realisation of Noble Wisdom is attained, the evolving mind-system will go

 

p. 97

 

on. But when an insight into the five Dharmas, the three self-natures, and the twofold egolessness is attained, then the way will be opened for this "turning-about" to take place. With the ending of pleasure and pain, of conflicting ideas, of the disturbing interests of egoism, a state of tranquillisation will be attained in which the truths of emancipation will be fully understood and there will be no further evil outflowings of the mind-system to interfere with the perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom."

 

 

So as I see it, no mind is realizing that the self and mind is like a stream of water. Its not the same stream, the same water. It changes. Knowing this allows some to let go of attaching to and neurotically defending the identity and self since they can not be grasped any more than than "the river" the river is always changing. You can grab some water here and there, but forget about defending the whole thing, since it is not there to defend in reality.

 

-edit: no that doesn't cut it. There is also after passing that stage, seeing the way you exist is in a huge way the same as everything exists, and that everything is kind of floating on this surface of change, but that this surface is just a surface, some kind of reflection, and under that reflection everything is water.-

 

The best we can do to describe this is with words, but its the personal realization that we need to realize.

 

 

Sorry Ralis et all --- Vaj, maybe you'll sit this one out so we don't get noise complaints ?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Informer]

Yes, that text goes into it very much. To start, I would actually recommend skipping ahead to about chapter 5 and going from there, since the first few chapters take a while to get into it, imho.

 

Here is a good quote from chapter 5:

 

"By the cessation of the sense-minds is meant, not the cessation of their perceiving functions, but the cessation of their discriminating and naming activities which are centralised in the discriminating mortal-mind. By the cessation of the mind-system as a whole is meant, the cessation of discrimination, the clearing away of the various attachments, and, therefore, the clearing away of the defilements of habit-energy on the face of Universal Mind which have been accumulating since beginningless time by reason of these discriminations, attachments, erroneous reasonings, and following acts. The cessation of the continuation aspect of the mind-system as a whole, takes place when there is the cessation of that which supports the mind-system, namely, the discriminating mortal-mind. With the cessation of mortal-mind the entire world of maya and desire disappears. Getting rid of the discriminating mortal-mind is Nirvana.

 

But the cessation of the discriminating-mind can not take place until there has been a "turning-about" in the deepest seat of consciousness. The mental habit of looking outward by the discriminating-mind upon an external objective world must be given up, and a new habit if realising Truth within the intuitive-mind by becoming one with Truth itself must be established. Until this intuitive self-realisation of Noble Wisdom is attained, the evolving mind-system will go

 

p. 97

 

on. But when an insight into the five Dharmas, the three self-natures, and the twofold egolessness is attained, then the way will be opened for this "turning-about" to take place. With the ending of pleasure and pain, of conflicting ideas, of the disturbing interests of egoism, a state of tranquillisation will be attained in which the truths of emancipation will be fully understood and there will be no further evil outflowings of the mind-system to interfere with the perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom."

 

 

So as I see it, no mind is realizing that the self and mind is like a stream of water. Its not the same stream, the same water. It changes. Knowing this allows some to let go of attaching to and neurotically defending the identity and self since they can not be grasped any more than than "the river" the river is always changing. You can grab some water here and there, but forget about defending the whole thing, since it is not there to defend in reality.

 

-edit: no that doesn't cut it. There is also after passing that stage, seeing the way you exist is in a huge way the same as everything exists, and that everything is kind of floating on this surface of change, but that this surface is just a surface, some kind of reflection, and under that reflection everything is water.-

 

The best we can do to describe this is with words, but its the personal realization that we need to realize.

 

 

Sorry Ralis et all --- Vaj, maybe you'll sit this one out so we don't get noise complaints ?

 

You should define what self you are referring to here, as in this context it is incorrect to say self so vaguely. As later it is stated "perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom". I have thought much of the same thing comparing totality to water.

 

I also agree that the mind does change, but prefer the word evolves. As one considers things from different angles and gains multiple perspectives, each new one will thereby better define the earlier ones.

 

I really don't have anything to disagree with other than a minor typo?

 

The intuition is at the location of the third eye or upper Dan Tien, much similar to other teachings. Each of the chakra's are part of this path, each a gateway to another aspect, as the ego is in the chest near to the heart, love, and fire.

[Otis]

The body is the the self that feels pain and wants pleasure, right? That's not conceptual or intellectual. It's something that's obvious to the senses, and well supported by science.

If it's science then it would be the brain sensing the senses. The senses only takes in stimuli and it's not obvious at all if not for our education but it has been so ingrained in us we forgot it was taught to us.

What I meant by "obvious to the senses", is that when I look out at people, I see bodies. When I look in the mirror, I see a body. It is the most obvious thing in the world, that these bodies are the people I'm referring to. It takes some huge assumptions, to think that I am something other than my body, because the body is so obvious.

 

I am not saying that what is obvious is necessarily the truth; but I don't think it makes sense to ignore the obvious, in order to believe in the subtle.

 

Is the body you or is the body yours? If you think it's you as opposed to yours then does it make sense that we can lose a part of it and we'll still be us? If you think the body is yours then who is the you owning the body?

As far as I can tell, the body is the whole self. "I", on the other hand, am just a small portion of the functioning of one organ of the body, the brain. So, of course, "I" (the smaller part) does not own the body (the whole).

 

I don't see any contradiction in your "lose a part of us" question. It's not "me" that I lose, when I lose a limb, since I am a cluster of functions in the brain. ("I" may, however, vanish, if the body loses a hemisphere).

 

What is this thing that exists, prior to or after losing a limb? It is no more or less than the organism. It is not the same after losing a limb, of course, but it is not for me to say what its identity is. That is beyond "my" scope, because I am just an ego, not something with an objective view of myself.

[Mahberry]

What I meant by "obvious to the senses", is that when I look out at people, I see bodies. When I look in the mirror, I see a body. It is the most obvious thing in the world, that these bodies are the people I'm referring to. It takes some huge assumptions, to think that I am something other than my body, because the body is so obvious.

 

I am not saying that what is obvious is necessarily the truth; but I don't think it makes sense to ignore the obvious, in order to believe in the subtle.

Compare this, the knowledge of your body as you with your sense of you right now. The sense of me, I, is very strong. When asked who are you, it's almost obvious, well I'm me, right now, looking through the eyes, moving my limbs about right now. So obvious.

 

But when you say, "I am my body, of course. I see people walking about and they have bodies too. Certainly this body is me." Is that not built upon concepts? Even if you have never seen your own body with your own eyes and have no knowledge of any of your bodyparts, you will still have a strong sense of I.

 

The sense of I has a cocky assurance of itself. I am me, who else do you think is thinking and speaking and wanting and desiring. Yet it doesn't have to know it thinks from a brain and is sure that he exists without needing to be proven.

 

Do you share what I see? Or do you find me absurd? I hope it makes sense to you as it did to me. I was dumbfounded when I first read about Ramana Maharshi's self inquiry practice. "The fuck does he mean who am I? I am me of course, so obvious, who do you think is thinking and moving this body about?"

 

I don't know how but I came to know what he meant by a sense of I in our experiences and now the "Who am I?" practice makes sense.

 

As far as I can tell, the body is the whole self. "I", on the other hand, am just a small portion of the functioning of one organ of the body, the brain. So, of course, "I" (the smaller part) does not own the body (the whole).

 

I don't see any contradiction in your "lose a part of us" question. It's not "me" that I lose, when I lose a limb, since I am a cluster of functions in the brain. ("I" may, however, vanish, if the body loses a hemisphere).

 

What is this thing that exists, prior to or after losing a limb? It is no more or less than the organism. It is not the same after losing a limb, of course, but it is not for me to say what its identity is. That is beyond "my" scope, because I am just an ego, not something with an objective view of myself.

Again, if you still exist when you lose a limb, does that not mean the limb is yours but not you. You own the limb, now it's not yours and it was never you to begin with because it was a 'mine' relationship and not 'me'.

 

So, now that you have honed in on the 'I' in a small cluster of your brain, where is it? Know that there's someone with only a left hemisphere and also someone with a right hemisphere. Which cluster of brain cells do you think can make up the I?

 

All these are just thought experiments for you to do away with relying on concepts and assumptions. Point is to fall back on your perception, RIGHT NOW, to find the I.

 

Do you see when you're relying on concept and when you're relying on direct perception (albeit through an I)?

 

Let me know if you find anything I say stupid or senseless.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry Ralis et all --- Vaj, maybe you'll sit this one out so we don't get noise complaints ?

[Informer]

..

Edited July 18, 2011 by Informer

[Otis]

Compare this, the knowledge of your body as you with your sense of you right now. The sense of me, I, is very strong. When asked who are you, it's almost obvious, well I'm me, right now, looking through the eyes, moving my limbs about right now. So obvious.

 

But when you say, "I am my body, of course. I see people walking about and they have bodies too. Certainly this body is me." Is that not built upon concepts? Even if you have never seen your own body with your own eyes and have no knowledge of any of your bodyparts, you will still have a strong sense of I.

 

The sense of I has a cocky assurance of itself. I am me, who else do you think is thinking and speaking and wanting and desiring. Yet it doesn't have to know it thinks from a brain and is sure that he exists without needing to be proven.

 

Do you share what I see? Or do you find me absurd? I hope it makes sense to you as it did to me. I was dumbfounded when I first read about Ramana Maharshi's self inquiry practice. "The fuck does he mean who am I? I am me of course, so obvious, who do you think is thinking and moving this body about?"

 

I don't know how but I came to know what he meant by a sense of I in our experiences and now the "Who am I?" practice makes sense.

 

Again, if you still exist when you lose a limb, does that not mean the limb is yours but not you. You own the limb, now it's not yours and it was never you to begin with because it was a 'mine' relationship and not 'me'.

 

So, now that you have honed in on the 'I' in a small cluster of your brain, where is it? Know that there's someone with only a left hemisphere and also someone with a right hemisphere. Which cluster of brain cells do you think can make up the I?

 

All these are just thought experiments for you to do away with relying on concepts and assumptions. Point is to fall back on your perception, RIGHT NOW, to find the I.

 

Do you see when you're relying on concept and when you're relying on direct perception (albeit through an I)?

 

Let me know if you find anything I say stupid or senseless.

Not stupid or senseless, Mahberry, but I think we're just talking about different things.

 

I totally agree with you on the sense of I being an illusion. That was my first major epiphany, that started my practice. The realization that what I had up-to-that-point always thought as "me" was not really in charge. What had always felt like the driver's seat, actually turned out to be a seat on a ferris wheel. "I" was not particularly skilled at getting things done. Rather, I witnessed things and thoughts happening, and created stories about them, explained how they fit into my model of reality. "I" am not the function of inspiration, or of creativity, or of thoughts, or of emotion.

 

Instead, I appear to be a conduit for awareness. I say this because when I re-assume the role, as conduit for awareness, then the sense of self vanishes. Specifically, I am a loose connection; I am supposed to connect into the next function along this chain. I don't know what this function is, exactly, but it feels like God. When I connect to this path, this Tao, this port, that's begging me to plug into it, then I disappear entirely, and my body continues without me. My body acts as its own being, totally separate from my control, my interpretations, and my beliefs.

 

This is why I say the body is the whole self. Because when I "plug in" to this source, the body comes alive, and becomes its own being, something that I am just a function of. Of course, from this perspective, I cannot say what the body is; I can only say what my various senses and what reliable sources suggest about the body. But this "greater self", this body, this Buddha, is something I cannot view, because my presence is precisely what keeps its unity from taking place. So I can only have faith in the power of this greater being, and be willing to sacrifice the importance of the self, in order to wake up the whole body, which has been eclipsed, for all these years.

 

I don't know where in the brain the illusion of self is. But I don't think that it's necessarily unknowable to science. There is at least one neuroscientist who suffered a stroke herself, who experienced a prolonged nondual state, because of it (she gives one of the Ted talks). There's also a lot of evidence about people who suffer head injuries entering temporary nondual states, and being opened to them, thereafter.

 

I don't believe in over-intellectualizing the self. But I don't think it makes sense to come up with simplistic "self" or "no self" conclusions either. What's wrong with seeing nuance? I don't think we should discount science in our discussions, either, because after all, science is some bad-ass sh*t. Science gets stuff done, and I think we should be careful before denying or ignoring what science has to say about consciousness.

[Bluefront]

Otis, I get really confused by what you are saying. What the hell are you plugging yourself into, and why do you believe that you need to, and what are you in the case when you are not plugged in then? Dead?

 

this Buddha, is something I cannot view, because my presence is precisely what keeps its unity from taking place

 

Nonono, your belief in a separate presence is what's making you THINK that it's not taking place, when in reality it's always here. Look at whatever you think is keeping you separate.

 

The ego only appears to exist because it identifies with things that actually do exist. For example the body:

There is a body (fact) - This is my body (Ego claiminig ownership)

 

This is not just a game of words. You say that 'you' are body, when in reality there is just this human piece of flesh and bones. Tell me, is there somebody making your heart beat? Or a thinker that thinks your thoughts? Where is this you that you claim your body to be?

 

Some things actually exist, while others don't. All thoughts are just symbols. Symbols pointing to something other than themselves. All thoughts are false. Every thought you think is false.

 

Let's say you get smart, and go "But these letters are black and appearing on white background, that is a true thought"

Actually the letters are much more. Black on white background sais nothing. What about the form, the shapes, meaning etc?

 

Well, you can go on listing all features of the letters for 2 hours and still don't get a accurate representation of them. You would need to think and think and more thoughts to compliment each other. But no single thought is a true representation of whatever it is pointing to. The letters remain the same regardless.

 

Thats why you just have to LOOK!

NOT THINK!

 

Informer:

Would it interest you to answer my previous post?

 

People that get catatonic zombies when trying to look at awareness are simply misinformed, or they haven't really bothered going all the way, or they simply don't care. Just see how the seer can NEVER be the seen. Awareness can never be a object of itself, and doesn't need to in fact, since everything is already it. Subject can never become the object.

 

Truth can never be expressed, since being non-dual it cannot be conveyed dualistically as the object of a subject.

 

That's why everyone should get these alarm bells ringing as soon as they reach an ultimate statement.. I am this, I am the soul, I am awareness etc etc. If you think think think and arrive at this cozy identity then.. well, you are just deeper in the mud than you were before.

 

You are what observes, not what you observe. - Buddha

 

Let me remind you that the perceived cannot perceive. - Huang Po

[goldisheavy]

Otis, I get really confused by what you are saying. What the hell are you plugging yourself into, and why do you believe that you need to, and what are you in the case when you are not plugged in then? Dead?

 

 

 

Nonono, your belief in a separate presence is what's making you THINK that it's not taking place, when in reality it's always here. Look at whatever you think is keeping you separate.

 

The ego only appears to exist because it identifies with things that actually do exist. For example the body:

There is a body (fact) - This is my body (Ego claiminig ownership)

 

This is not just a game of words. You say that 'you' are body, when in reality there is just this human piece of flesh and bones. Tell me, is there somebody making your heart beat? Or a thinker that thinks your thoughts? Where is this you that you claim your body to be?

 

Some things actually exist, while others don't. All thoughts are just symbols. Symbols pointing to something other than themselves. All thoughts are false. Every thought you think is false.

 

Your entire post is false according to you.

[Bluefront]

Your entire post is false according to you.

 

You are correct, that was pretty much my whole point? =)

[Harmonious Emptiness]

You should define what self you are referring to here, as in this context it is incorrect to say self so vaguely. As later it is stated "perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom". I have thought much of the same thing comparing totality to water.

 

I also agree that the mind does change, but prefer the word evolves. As one considers things from different angles and gains multiple perspectives, each new one will thereby better define the earlier ones.

 

I really don't have anything to disagree with other than a minor typo?

 

The intuition is at the location of the third eye or upper Dan Tien, much similar to other teachings. Each of the chakra's are part of this path, each a gateway to another aspect, as the ego is in the chest near to the heart, love, and fire.

 

This is why I was talking about references, reading the sutras, earlier. Now that you have a bit broader of an understanding of what is meant, without too many limiting misconceptions, maybe no-mind doesn't seem so inconceivable. It's difficult to "put your finger on" but without seeing that The Buddha refutes many of the misconceptions, it's pretty much absurd to even try. I get the impression that these misconceptions were not mentioned as part of the RT doctrine. If not, then people who didn't check out what it's all about will easily be misguided to seek something which doesn't exist (in it's non-existence, wtv...), and end up convincing themselves that they have experienced something which in fact is both less complicated (being more grounded in reality), and more complicated (involving awareness of several surrounding pitfalls of the process and realization) than what they seem to perceive.

 

This may not be the case every time, but the door seems to be wide open for anyone who wants to fall into many of the delusions refuted in the later chapters of The Lankavatara. I think that as you read it, you will probably see a few of the pitfalls you were not taught to avoid, the oversight of which resulted in a lesser or false awakening. This will continue to be the case when people want a quick commodified type of enlightenment without at least doing a lot of their own homework in the absence of a true teacher.

[Otis]

Otis, I get really confused by what you are saying. What the hell are you plugging yourself into, and why do you believe that you need to, and what are you in the case when you are not plugged in then? Dead?

 

Nonono, your belief in a separate presence is what's making you THINK that it's not taking place, when in reality it's always here. Look at whatever you think is keeping you separate.

 

The ego only appears to exist because it identifies with things that actually do exist. For example the body:

There is a body (fact) - This is my body (Ego claiminig ownership)

 

This is not just a game of words. You say that 'you' are body, when in reality there is just this human piece of flesh and bones. Tell me, is there somebody making your heart beat? Or a thinker that thinks your thoughts? Where is this you that you claim your body to be?

 

Some things actually exist, while others don't. All thoughts are just symbols. Symbols pointing to something other than themselves. All thoughts are false. Every thought you think is false.

 

Let's say you get smart, and go "But these letters are black and appearing on white background, that is a true thought"

Actually the letters are much more. Black on white background sais nothing. What about the form, the shapes, meaning etc?

 

Well, you can go on listing all features of the letters for 2 hours and still don't get a accurate representation of them. You would need to think and think and more thoughts to compliment each other. But no single thought is a true representation of whatever it is pointing to. The letters remain the same regardless.

 

Thats why you just have to LOOK!

NOT THINK!

You're preaching to the choir, Bluefront. What I'm saying is not in disagreement with your post.

 

I am not saying that "I" am the body. I am saying that "I" am the ego, one small portion of a portion of the body. What the body is, as I have said, is beyond my knowledge.

 

Of course the body is here, even when I'm in ego. And the body (as far as I can tell) is the whole self.

 

However, when I am active as ego, then the unity is not there. There is a breakdown, caused by my habits of trying to control. As ego, I end up trying to control myself, to rule myself, as opposed to just being myself.

 

My favorite analogy for this is a pup tent. A pup tent is a light weight structure that looks like nothing, when it is disassembled. When put together correctly, however, by dynamic balance it forms a robust structure that is useful. If one pole is out of place, then the pup tent no longer functions well, listing to the side and somewhat collapsing.

 

Likewise, the unity of my consciousness and body is prevented, by my habits of ego, my insistence on being a 'self'. The entire pup tent is there, but because I am the pole that is out of place, there is suffering, there is inefficiency and internal conflict and confusion.

 

When I talk about "plugging in", IME, connecting to this path/Tao/God is what puts "me", the errant tent pole, back into place. The greater organism emerges in easy balance, with an efficient relationship between its various parts. This is what "waking up" means to me: not being this ego, which is trying to manage itself and its life, but suddenly being the Self, being the life, without pretense or need to control what happens. (But of course, the I/mind disappears, returning to its role as a conduit for awareness. There is awareness, but there is no "me").

 

This is just my way of describing satori, or "giving my life to God", or these various metaphors that describe rising into one's greater self. The greater self is not something separate from me; but I am only a small portion of it.

 

What is it that I'm "plugging into"? I don't know. It's beyond "my" comprehension. All I know is, it calls me to it, and when I heed its call, then the pup tent becomes robust and seemingly whole. And "I" disappear.

 

BTW, "ego does not exist" shouldn't be taken literally, either. Ego is the constellation of habits, including those of consciousness. And yes, the ego does exist, in the same way a "society" exists. Neither is a literal thing, but is a description of what emerges from a cluster of components. The reason why we can say that ego is an illusion, is precisely because it is a constellation, that is: an apparent thing, without a reality to its "thingness".

 

Does this make any more sense to you?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Otis

[TzuJanLi]

 

BTW, "ego does not exist" shouldn't be taken literally, either. Ego is the constellation of habits, including those of consciousness. And yes, the ego does exist, in the same way a "society" exists. Neither is a literal thing, but is a description of what emerges from a cluster of components. The reason why we can say that ego is an illusion, is precisely because it is a constellation, that is: an apparent thing, without a reality to its "thingness".

 

Does this make any more sense to you?

The "constellation of habits", when referenced as 'ego', has no consensus of meaning among 'society', which does have a consensus of meaning.. Ego, is so variably described as to defy agreeable understandings.. witness the numerous disagreements on this forum.. The "constellation of habits" is also uniquely identified as self, then.. self and ego battle over top billing, each employing the other a weapons, so.. again, i suggest stop looking for 'something', and just look.. it's amazing what can be seen when we're not looking for 'something'..

 

Be well..

[Otis]

Here is a good quote from chapter 5:

 

"By the cessation of the sense-minds is meant, not the cessation of their perceiving functions, but the cessation of their discriminating and naming activities which are centralised in the discriminating mortal-mind.

Thanks for the share, HE. A little bit ago, on a different thread, someone and I were disagreeing over something, and this may bridge our gap. He was insisting that "detachment from the senses" was a path of liberation, whereas I was saying: "paying attention to senses is vital, but surrendering story is liberation". Perhaps he meant the same thing as your "cessation of the sense-minds", which is essentially in agreement with what I was saying: surrendering story.

 

I wonder how often disagreements happen here, not over meaning, but purely over choice of word or metaphor.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Thanks for the share, HE. A little bit ago, on a different thread, someone and I were disagreeing over something, and this may bridge our gap. He was insisting that "detachment from the senses" was a path of liberation, whereas I was saying: "paying attention to senses is vital, but surrendering story is liberation". Perhaps he meant the same thing as your "cessation of the sense-minds", which is essentially in agreement with what I was saying: surrendering story.

 

I wonder how often disagreements happen here, not over meaning, but purely over choice of word or metaphor.

 

Its certainly difficult to come to agreements on some things from the cerebral level.

 

It sounds like by surrendering story, you're thinking in the line of the Sutra of Hui Neng which states that "Idea-lessness," rather than "thoughtless, no-thought," is the proper understanding. "Idealessness means not to be carried away by any particular idea in the exercise of mental faculty. (chapter 4)"

 

compare that to the verse from The Lankavatara:

 

"By the cessation of the sense-minds is meant, not the cessation of their perceiving functions, but the cessation of their discriminating and naming activities which are centralised in the discriminating mortal-mind.(chapter 5)"

 

The cessation of sense-minds, true, is not to be total cessation. That would be to misunderstand chapter 12 of Dao De Jing as well :

 

The five colours blind the eye.

The five tones deafen the ear.

The five flavours dull the taste.

For having in excess, dulls the senses.

When the senses are dulled, men look for more stimulation.

 

 

Not to miss the fact that the DDJ was/is immensely influential on Chinese discourse of Buddhism, as Buddhism was later on discourses of Taoism. That is to say, on the way that these shared views were expressed.

[C T]

"Beyond No-self" - - excerpted from HHDL's book The Middle Way - - courtesy of Buddhadharma magazine.

 

http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2009/summer/noself.php