'No self' my experience so far...

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I am curious.. for those that might 'walk the walk', is it also necessary to 'talk the talk'? I ask as it seems to be a fairly well regarded characteristic, talking that is.. mostly about beliefs, unverifiable and with no influence on our expiration date.. but, i have been fortunate to be in the company of those that exhibited great understanding and depth, but who didn't know the appropriate 'talk'.. i'm not certain they knew they were a 'self', but their unique presence has a tangible effect on the reality in their presence.. it's interesting to ponder these relationships..

 

Be well..

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Greetings..

 

I am curious.. for those that might 'walk the walk', is it also necessary to 'talk the talk'? I ask as it seems to be a fairly well regarded characteristic, talking that is.. mostly about beliefs, unverifiable and with no influence on our expiration date.. but, i have been fortunate to be in the company of those that exhibited great understanding and depth, but who didn't know the appropriate 'talk'.. i'm not certain they knew they were a 'self', but their unique presence has a tangible effect on the reality in their presence.. it's interesting to ponder these relationships..

 

Be well..

 

Well, especially in regards to a subject as (get ready for some talk here) philosophically paradoxical as this topic of no-self, being able to discuss it or not discuss it obviously has a great deal to do with your articulation and education on the subject.

 

Somebody, say for example, like a true Indigenous shaman, will be so incredibly unattached to their "I, me, mine" and yet ask them if they have a self.. I wouldn't be surprised if they asked you what kind of foolish question is that, and yet they would embody the true nature of it.

 

I guess it's kind of like assuming someone needs to be a superb musician to "have soul." Some people feel everything to the core of their being but they wouldn't fill any auditoriums with their singing.

 

On the other hand, maybe someone who can talk the talk just further confuses themself with so many ideas, or worse, mistakes their articulation of wisdom for wisdom itself.

[Otis]

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.

Yeah, since "I" do not appear to be the source of thought, I don't put any effort into stopping thought. Instead, I let the thoughts be, and try to catch myself when I attach to them. It's making them into a belief, that ends up creating a view. That view may or may not be accurate; so it's up to me to hold lightly to my beliefs.

 

Nor do I seek to avoid stimulation, but rather find opportunities to enjoy simplicity.

[Informer]

[Informer]

Interesting.

 

"There is also no evidence that Mahāyāna ever referred to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Yeah, since "I" do not appear to be the source of thought, I don't put any effort into stopping thought. Instead, I let the thoughts be, and try to catch myself when I attach to them. It's making them into a belief, that ends up creating a view. That view may or may not be accurate; so it's up to me to hold lightly to my beliefs.

 

Nor do I seek to avoid stimulation, but rather find opportunities to enjoy simplicity.

 

You could say that beliefs/views/ideas are like another type of stimulation that needs to be released so that we can enjoy *simplicity.* Running right back into clinging to this concept to release us. Here was a haiku I posted related to this

 

Do without doing

Untangle without tying

Oh, how the knots grow

 

trying to untangle from the ideas, we can end up tying ourselves back up with the idea that we were using to untangle ourselves. This results in further bondage to ideas rather than liberation.

[Informer]

I bet they aren't even really doctrines necessarily, more like experiences. As I have discovered these things without the teaching only interpreting experiences.

[Seth Ananda]

[Sunya]

Congrats on your realization, Seth

[3bob]

Yes. This is what I have been saying all along.

 

What you just said, shows the person to be a relative, and subjective experiense, dependently arising but with no inherint reality on its own

 

That is what no self means to me.

 

I am going to work much harder to find the exact language each party is using in future conversations.

 

Zen

[Informer]

Yes. This is what I have been saying all along.

 

What you just said, shows the person to be a relative, and subjective experiense, dependently arising but with no inherint reality on its own

 

That is what no self means to me.

 

I am going to work much harder to find the exact language each party is using in future conversations.

 

Say that at RT and see what they say about it imo.

[Informer]

Edited July 19, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

"the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta spoke thus to the Exalted One:

'how is this dear Gotama: Is the Iexistent?'

Upon these words, the Exalted One kept silence.

'How now, dear Goama? Is the I non existent?'

Upon these words, the Exalted one again kept silence.

Not long after the wandering ascetic had departed, the reverend Ananda spoke thus to exalted one:

'o lord, why did d exalted one not explain himself upon this question of vacchagotta?'

'If Ananda, i had answered to his question as: 'The I is existent', then Ananda, i had therby sided with those ascetics and Brahmins (upanishadic???) who teach eternalism. if on other hand, 'the I is non existent', then i had sided with those who teach Annihilation"

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Somethings some may find interesting.

 

 

Where is this from btw?

 

I found a bit of an inconsistency with his concluding statement and what he'd been saying all through the essay. He says at the end that it's a mistake to say annata=no atman, based on the the discussion, but the discussion only showed that Buddha refuted the idea of their being no soul.

 

I have read a translation of the Pali Cannon where Buddha supposedly said soul does not exist, but this could easily be a common mistranslation. There are not a few inconsistencies like this in the sutras, quite possibly due to the translation.

[Informer]

Where is this from btw?

 

I found a bit of an inconsistency with his concluding statement and what he'd been saying all through the essay. He says at the end that it's a mistake to say annata=no atman, based on the the discussion, but the discussion only showed that Buddha refuted the idea of their being no soul.

 

I have read a translation of the Pali Cannon where Buddha supposedly said soul does not exist, but this could easily be a common mistranslation. There are not a few inconsistencies like this in the sutras, quite possibly due to the translation.

 

I agree that much of the teachings of anatta can be easily misinterpreted, depending on ones evolution.

 

Unless there is a clear and understood perspective to which and from the teaching is given, self in it's entirety holds multiple meanings. Any one of which could be right or wrong.

 

So if the parrot is just regurgitating teachings, the meaning of that teaching could be lost, therefore there are jakugo's to ascertain that the understanding will encompass the realization so that you may proceed.

 

Now that this perspective is achieved, the idea of what self once was, is no longer self as previously understood. Yet you still are unable to say there is not or never was a self, to embody the totality, as that would obviously be false.

 

No-self is equivallent to Is-self, neither which is in between by theirself. (middle path)

 

But this still only remains a very small fragment of actuality. Sure the aspect of nothing gave birth so to speak to the aspects of everything, although neither one on it's own is totality. As the rest of Everything (Elements) is non-existent or ill defined at best from that perspective.

 

This is like the end-game part, without understanding everything how could nothing really be understood? As the contrast is so stark in comparison, without an embodied concept of that vibrance which includes and encompasses both aspects, you are left in an absoluteness of the single aspect.

 

The more you understand everything, the greater the comprehension becomes of nothing.

 

I don't mean understand here like objectively intellectualizing, or subjectively intellectualizing, but both and neither.

[Informer]

Sort of the like magnetic field around a magnet with two poles.

 

 

 

We can say the top is positive. Therefore we can determine it is not negative.

 

We can then also say that it is not negative, therefore positive.

 

We can say that the bottom is negative, therefore not positive.

 

We can say the bottom is not positive, therefor is negative.

 

All in all we can say the magnet is both positive and negative, as well as it is neither positive and negative.

 

As it is exhibiting all of these aspects, the above statement is both true and false.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Informer: "Now that this perspective is achieved, the idea of what self once was, is no longer self as previously understood. Yet you still are unable to say there is not or never was a self, to embody the totality, as that would obviously be false.

 

No-self is equivallent to Is-self, neither which is in between by theirself. (middle path)"

 

 

Yes, well, even upon realization of annata, there is still openness, clarity, and sensitivity (according to a Tibetan explanation), so there is, let's say at least A SOUL, that is open, clear, and sensitive. The thing is that THE SOUL, and THE SELF are not the same things. The self is tied up in identity which is really just a pragmatic reality, subject to changing belief. The soul is like the drop or cup of water from a river. When it is cleaned of the microbes that grew on/in it, it is entirely the same as the essential substance in the river (lets not get into salt vs. fresh water please. It's just a metaphor...). That drop of water is just water. It might be Indian water, or Chinese water, or US water, but in reality it is WATER just the same. The difference being the substance of soul and the fact that soul has consciousness (which might exist in an ocean spirit as well. I suspect the people that know about that wouldn't get into long philosophical debates about it though

Edited July 19, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Informer]

It just depends how you look at it.

 

I generally say self in reference to the ego, and higher-self in reference to the soul, then supreme self is equivallent to no-self, combined with the aspects of self, although not individualistic.

 

One with everything and nothing at the same time.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It just depends how you look at it.

 

I generally say self in reference to the ego, and higher-self in reference to the soul, then supreme self is equivallent to no-self, combined with the aspects of self, although not individualistic.

 

One with everything and nothing at the same time.

 

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It's all an intuitive understanding, so if we call it the vanilla and the strawberry, it really doesn't matter...

 

Ha ha. Okay. Peace.

 

For now.

 

 

[Informer]

Semantics

 

It is better to reach understanding than argue over them.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Informer

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Yes. This is what I have been saying all along.

 

What you just said, shows the person to be a relative, and subjective experiense, dependently arising but with no inherint reality on its own

 

That is what no self means to me.

 

I am going to work much harder to find the exact language each party is using in future conversations.

Hi Seth Ananda: If the words had remained unspoken or untyped, would the actuality be affected? Whether something exists by dependent origination or is independently existent, do not both exist in relationship with the experience of their existence? in the presence of happening, is there truly any origin?

 

Be well..

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I couldn't find the quote from Buddhism talking about realizing that things are just cause and effect coming togther, so I'll say it in my own words...

 

What I said in my last post does not mean denying the "existence" of this body or it's functions. What it does mean though, is realizing that they are merely just cause and effect of the five elements coming together to form this body of ours. Likewise, it's the same with the soul; which is just causes and conditions coming togther.

Thank you for the clarification.. Life happens, and for a while it happens through the perspectives and experiences of individualized bodies, this is known because it is so.. similarly, the millions of words describing 'no self' are of the same lineage, cause = feeling, and.. effect = need to share, describe, convert, communicate, etc.. there is joy in the experience of those that just let their deeds describe the 'feeling' they 'know'.. i'm guessing most of us have been in the company of someone like that..

 

Be well..

[goldisheavy]

I couldn't find the quote from Buddhism talking about realizing that things are just cause and effect coming togther, so I'll say it in my own words...

 

What I said in my last post does not mean denying the "existence" of this body or it's functions. What it does mean though, is realizing that they are merely just cause and effect of the five elements coming together to form this body of ours. Likewise, it's the same with the soul; which is just causes and conditions coming togther.

 

And yet people still have intent which you cannot get rid of.

 

The past is not a sufficient cause for the present and the future, or else the present and the future would be in the past. That's Nagarjuna. What is the implication of this?

 

Some Hindu ascetics maintained that people meditated because it was their fate to meditate. In other words, they said the past of these meditators was such that the causes and conditions were right for them to meditate. So they meditated as an expression of this kind of fatalism, like they had no other choice. Buddha has rejected this view. In this view if I do something bad, I am fated to do it, and it makes no sense to talk about morals or right action. Further, it makes no sense to talk about liberation, because people are either fated or not fated to become liberated, so there is no point in trying to alert them to possibilities of liberation and the ways toward it.

 

So Buddha recognized that intent is key. If you don't intend to relax your fixations, they can't be relaxed against your will. So this relaxation of fixation is still a very personal happening. This means, some people choose to relax and some choose to cling to their own bodies. So while the body self is false, there is still some kind of identity there because we can clearly see some people choosing to relax and some choosing to chase the objects of senses in a very tense way. When Buddha relaxed, all sentient beings did not relax. So Buddha's relaxation was private to Buddha. Why? Because intentionality is real and has to be confronted instead of being swept under the rug.

 

And the reason past doesn't completely create the present and the future is because if it did that, it would leave no room for intent to function, and we know beyond any doubt intent is real and functional.