'No self' my experience so far...

[Otis]

As long as you identify with a brain/body you will never be able to realize selflessness. The reason being is very simple...What is the main thing other than material wealth that people cannot or will not give up? It is thier body or the clinging to thier body. Why won't you be able to realize selflessness on any level if you can't get rid of the clinging view that you are this brain/body? Namely it is our biological need for self-preservation. The clinging view to this brain/body is a big hurdle that cultivators must see through, if they want to make any sort of spiritual progress.

 

The Diamond Sutra talks of 4 things that will hinder someone's progress torwards liberation. They are the identification with the: Ego, Personality (the characteristics or things that make you, YOU; which naturally leads to the view of "others,") a Life (a man or woman that is living this life,) a living being (that a person IS this living being.)

 

You won't be able to realize non-identification with an ego or personality as long as you identify with a life and being (or that you are this brain/body,) since the view of a body (and the underlying sense of self-preservation) will always dictate how you react to phenomena.

 

This is an excerpt from an article by William Bodri My link: "One thing to get rid of is the five errant or deviant perspectives. If you get rid of them, you're halfway home to seeing the Tao but most people are caught by these things and cannot break free."

 

"The five erroneous, delusive or deviant views ...or "five incorrect perspectives" include: (1) holding onto the view of being a body, (2) holding one-sided extreme views, (3) holding wrong, deviant or misguided views, (4) holding subjective views (being opinionated, or holding views that cling to self-views), and (5) holding views of improper discipline."

"1) The perspective of taking the body (or any of the skandhas) as the real self. This means thinking your physical body is the real you. It is also the false notion of being a body at all, which is holding onto a body as a self. The perspective of possessing a body, to which you cling, is the incorrect notion of holding onto the perspective of form. Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism and yoga emphasize the body too much and the proponents end up amplifying this false perspective rather than getting rid of it.

 

To hold the notion of "I" and "mine" is entertaining the view of a personal independent existence. This view is "belief in a self," a fundamentally mistaken notion which is actually centered around the perishable five skandhas. The Heart Sutra says that the five aggregates (skandhas) are no different than emptiness, and if you can accomplish that realization, you can truly be rid of the view of the self.

 

Since this is hard to accomplish, most sentient beings mistakenly believe they have a self because they cling to the view of having a body. In clinging to the idea of being a body, they never even attain the first samadhi. That is why Buddha told people to offer their body to others through charity work, for in so doing one can learn how to be selfless and empty, and thereby can make real progress in getting rid of this mental entanglement."

As you see from the above: Holding onto the view of the body, will even prevent someone from being able to enter even the 1st absorption state of the Form Realm. So this is a very serious issue. Buddhism is not the only philsophy that talks of the view of the body as being a hindrance to spiritual progress.

 

In order to realize the first of the two "emptinesses," which is "emptiness" of a self (the other is realizing the "emptiness" of phenomena;) first takes that someone get over the hurdle that they are absolutely this brain/body.

 

So do you have a meditation schedule so that one day, you can verify this for yourself?

What I agree with in your post is "the view of the body" is delusion. That is: my concept of the body, is not what the body is. I wrote extensively about this in Twinner's "Who are you?" thread.

 

So yes, I agree that I need to empty my concept of body, because the concept is not correct. This is part of the "I don't know" that I have been talking about, since I've been here.

 

The reason why I'm talking about the body in this thread is because the "no self" preachers have chosen to totally ignore the body, when saying "there is no self that we can point to". Or "thinking, no thinker, hearing, no hearer". I am not saying that I know what the body is, but rather that we shouldn't ignore the very obvious possibility that we are nothing but animals, and that everything that we experience as "mind" is nothing but body processes. This seems like an extremely coherent, elegant, sensible and scientifically supported view, so it's foolish of us to just discard the notion of the body as the whole self, because of words in an old text.

 

Again, I have been saying "the body (as far as I can tell) is the whole self". That's a factual statement, based upon observation, lack of any evidence to the contrary, and deference to the most reliable sources I know of (anatomy and neurology). What I am not saying is: "I" am the body, or "I know what the body is", etc. I've made that distinction repeatedly. And the quotes you put above are easily explained as "the body (that we think we know) is not the self". The concept of the body is not the real body, and so the concept must be surrendered. Emptiness doesn't imply that the body doesn't exist; just that it is unknowable, which I have been saying throughout this thread.

 

From where I stand, there is no specific reason to think that materialism does not correspond to Zen concepts. I read the urging toward "no self" as meaning "no mind" (because the internal sense of self is the same thing as what we call mind), which makes total sense from a materialistic point of view.

[TzuJanLi]

 

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,

Isn't the "body self" the vehicle of intent? Is it false, or simply misunderstood? it seems that the body self is the common reference for these discussions..

 

Be well..

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[stan herman]

Nice piece above. Of course what it all comes down to is nothing, though within that vacancy each mind is busy churning up something--many things. I think it likely that as long as (and only as long as) there continue to be minds, there will be an endless varieties of things (and theories about things--and even theories about nothing).

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

As i observe body-minds 'doing' what they do, i also observe them as they relate to each other, as in this forum.. i notice that each one exhibits qualities unique to its own individual location, wherever that body-mind positions its location, or is positioned by other forces.. i notice that some body-minds demonstrate group agreement, but express their individual understandings of the agreement in manners distinctly flavored by the influences unique to them alone, like personal memories, genetic inclinations, socio-economic relationships, and personal relationships, just to name a few.. then, i am able to observe, directly and by reliable accounts, that the distinctly unique bundle of thoughts, opinions, memories, beliefs, and preferences (its identity) operates the body-mind from which it perceives the information about itself in a manner consistent with its identity.. it writes opinions that reflect its understandings, it speaks what it believes, it directly influences the environment in which it exists.

 

To suggest that the 'self' or 'identity' is not tangible, is absurd, that fact is plainly obvious, why make such a pointless deal about it.. but, to suggest the 'self' doesn't exist is equally absurd, as the effects of 'selfs' are equally plainly obvious.. so, unless i misunderstand, the suggestion to abandon 'self' is disingenuous, as it would discard the memories that distinguish one being from another, one course of action from another, any option from any others, in deference to preference.. What then is left to the politically correct body-mind absent its 'self'? The belief that 'self' does not exist is the fertile potential that can lead to Nihilism or that dehumanizes human interaction, that validates abuse and oppression by questioning 'to whom' it occurs, regarding body-minds as temporary and inconsequential..

 

Mostly, i see two schools of thought, those that claim 'self' doesn't exist, and.. those that over-indulge 'self's' potential for abusing its own existence.. both perspectives lead to destructive results, and seldom is there the common-sense awareness to understand what works from both perspectives.. it seems the need to have others agree with, and validate, one's beliefs is more important than actually modifying the 'self' to a perspective useful to itself and to its environment.. it is my understanding that those that claim there is 'no self' are just modified presentations of their 'self' to advance a 'self-gratifying' belief.. so, if the 'selfs' (of all beliefs) could agree to an understanding that sincere cooperation is more beneficial than unilateral righteousness, the human experience might evolve beyond the 'self-imposed' limitations of 'self-gratification' to the exclusion of other 'selfs'..

 

Be well..

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

"To suggest that the 'self' or 'identity' is not tangible, is absurd, that fact is plainly obvious, why make such a pointless deal about it.. but, to suggest the 'self' doesn't exist is equally absurd, as the effects of 'selfs' are equally plainly obvious.."

 

This post shows a lack of what Buddhism means when it talks of "not self," both on an intellectual level and an experiential level.

No, it demonstrates the contrasting perspective to Buddhism's beliefs.. i understand Buddhist beliefs, i simply find favor in understandings that are experientially sound..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

 

No, it demonstrates the contrasting perspective to Buddhism's beliefs.. i understand Buddhist beliefs, i simply find favor in understandings that are experientially sound..

 

Be well..

 

Experience as limited by the 5 senses maybe.

[xabir2005]

Experience as limited by the 5 senses maybe.

Even if your experience is limited by the 5 senses, no self should be very clear.

 

There is hearing, no hearer. Seeing, no seer. Thinking, no thinker.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Experience as limited by the 5 senses maybe.

Maybe.. but, personally, i also allow for experience to be perceived through insight and transrational experience.. then, i set aside those interpretations that are inconsistent with what 'is'.. i do not reject inconsistency, but i have a keen sense of what works, so.. i set aside stuff that doesn't work, pending additional information or further clarification.. i am interested in what Life 'is', so i pay attention in every way i can, and.. if i am honest about my interest in Life's actuality, i will pay attention without the expectations of beliefs.. i will 'look' with unconditional sincerity..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

 

Maybe.. but, personally, i also allow for experience to be perceived through insight and transrational experience.. then, i set aside those interpretations that are inconsistent with what 'is'.. i do not reject inconsistency, but i have a keen sense of what works, so.. i set aside stuff that doesn't work, pending additional information or further clarification.. i am interested in what Life 'is', so i pay attention in every way i can, and.. if i am honest about my interest in Life's actuality, i will pay attention without the expectations of beliefs.. i will 'look' with unconditional sincerity..

 

Be well..

 

True, very well put.

 

I would suggest though that others do have different experiences and the expressions that may reflect these experiences might seem like mere beliefs to some, but I suggest allowing the space to consider that they might be reflective of your experiential potential as well.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

True, very well put.

 

I would suggest though that others do have different experiences and the expressions that may reflect these experiences might seem like mere beliefs to some, but I suggest allowing the space to consider that they might be reflective of your experiential potential as well.

Agreed.. 'space' is created as they are set aside pending further clarification or additional information, and.. in the interval, i simply account for what i have seen and experienced that works..

 

Be well..

[Mahberry]

Even if your experience is limited by the 5 senses, no self should be very clear.

 

There is hearing, no hearer. Seeing, no seer. Thinking, no thinker.

Hey xabir (and Vajra and CowTao), yesterday I was observing my thoughts trying to look for an I. Something shifted and I see the only I that ever existed was in the thoughts. There is an I because the thoughts said so.

 

It was so obvious there was never an I apart from the thoughts. Thing is the moment I try to describe the experience, the I has slowly crept back in and I'm back to living my thoughts again.

 

I've almost forgotten what the seeing is like and now all that's left is an understanding the seeing left behind.

 

Hearer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am hearing." Seer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am seeing." Thinker was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am thinking."

 

There was no truth to anything apart from what the thought says, if I am confused or frustrated it was because the thoughts said so. I will never know otherwise because I was never not my thoughts.

 

The seeing was doubtlessly real but if it can be lost, might it be a false seeing?

 

I'm still trying to get back into seeing as of now.

[Vajrahridaya]

The seeing was doubtlessly real but if it can be lost, might it be a false seeing?

 

I'm still trying to get back into seeing as of now.

 

Like anything, it takes practice. You glimpsed, but didn't realize, that's all.

 

Just practice!

 

Just remember what brought you there and what it felt like, and the more and more you familiarize yourself with that glimpse, the more and more it will permeate your day to day activities.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Mahberry]

Like anything, it takes practice. You glimpsed, but didn't realize, that's all.

 

Just practice!

That's reassuring.

 

Thank you! I guess all I need is more seeing for it to sink in.

[xabir2005]

Hey xabir (and Vajra and CowTao), yesterday I was observing my thoughts trying to look for an I. Something shifted and I see the only I that ever existed was in the thoughts. There is an I because the thoughts said so.

More precisely, it is simply a thought about I, but never a real I... just like a thought of santa claus does not make santa claus real.

It was so obvious there was never an I apart from the thoughts.

Good insight.

Thing is the moment I try to describe the experience, the I has slowly crept back in and I'm back to living my thoughts again.

No, there is no 'you' to be living your thoughts, and more precisely, they are not 'your thoughts'. Thoughts are not 'yours' and there is no 'you'.

I've almost forgotten what the seeing is like and now all that's left is an understanding the seeing left behind.

Forget whatever you think you experienced.

 

No-self is a fact Right Now... it does not reside in a past experience or insight.

 

Right Now.... there is just hearing, seeing, sounds, thoughts, scenery... no 'I' apart from that isn't it? Isn't hearing, thinking, a self-occuring, self-aware cognizant process without a separate controller or perceiver apart from them?

 

Hearer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am hearing." Seer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am seeing." Thinker was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am thinking."

Good.

There was no truth to anything apart from what the thought says, if I am confused or frustrated it was because the thoughts said so. I will never know otherwise because I was never not my thoughts.

It just takes some investigation, that's all. Whatever you seen is a good start.

The seeing was doubtlessly real but if it can be lost, might it be a false seeing?

 

I'm still trying to get back into seeing as of now.

What you need to realize is that, in seeing there is ALWAYS just the seen without seer.... in hearing there is ALWAYS just the sound without hearer.... in thinking, just thoughts without thinker - always.

 

Once you realize that this is the nature of reality and not a maintenance state that can be 'gained' or 'lost', you can never unsee it.

[xabir2005]

'Sailor' Bob:

 

"Truth or Reality cannot be stored, cannot be amassed--it does not accumulate.

 

The value of any insight, understanding, or realisation can only be in the ever-fresh presence of the moment.

 

Yesterday's realisation is not a bit of good. Now it is dead. Now it has lost it's vitality.

 

It is useless to try and cling to or hold onto an insight, an understanding, or a realisation, for only in it's movement can there be the enabling of ever-fresh and new insights of Truth or Reality to appear.

 

The idea of enlightenment or self-realisation as a onetime event or a lasting and permanent state or experience is an erroneous concept.

 

Understand-ING or know-ING is alive in the immediacy which can never be negated. The emphasis is on the activity of know-ING which is going on as the immediacy now--not the dead concept 'I understand' or 'I know'".

[Cat Pillar]

Hey xabir (and Vajra and CowTao), yesterday I was observing my thoughts trying to look for an I. Something shifted and I see the only I that ever existed was in the thoughts. There is an I because the thoughts said so.

 

It was so obvious there was never an I apart from the thoughts. Thing is the moment I try to describe the experience, the I has slowly crept back in and I'm back to living my thoughts again.

 

I've almost forgotten what the seeing is like and now all that's left is an understanding the seeing left behind.

 

Hearer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am hearing." Seer was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am seeing." Thinker was never there, it was only a thought that says "I am thinking."

 

There was no truth to anything apart from what the thought says, if I am confused or frustrated it was because the thoughts said so. I will never know otherwise because I was never not my thoughts.

 

The seeing was doubtlessly real but if it can be lost, might it be a false seeing?

 

I'm still trying to get back into seeing as of now.

 

I'm in the same boat as you, Mahberry. I caught a glimpse of not-self (insert preferred descriptor if so described) while observing the experience of riding the bus home. I also started recognizing the "state" from past experiences of getting "lost" in music. Where is the "I" when totally absorbed in something?

 

The thing I'm having difficulty understanding now is the relationship with creativity, will, and intent. Intent obviously exists, creativity obviously exists, and choices are obviously made...but without being able to attribute those to an "I" it kind of leaves a big question mark as to their source.

[xabir2005]

I'm in the same boat as you, Mahberry. I caught a glimpse of not-self (insert preferred descriptor if so described) while observing the experience of riding the bus home. I also started recognizing the "state" from past experiences of getting "lost" in music. Where is the "I" when totally absorbed in something?

This morning I was going through some of Thusness's older posts.

 

This is relevant, from January 2006:

Yes LongChen,

 

I agree with what you said. There shouldn’t be a separation. Smile There are 2 seeds that I sense lying deep in Galen’s Consciousness:

 

1. The meditative experience he gained on the aspect of 'No-Self'

2. The meditative experience of the 'ISness Presence, Knowingness Presence

 

However the imprint of the Knowingness Presence' is stronger than the understanding of 'No-Self' and serves as the seed that makes Galen remarked 'We are the Watcher, not the thinker, or the doer, or the experiencer', thus, creating separation.

 

The meditative experience of “AMness” is a very powerful one. It creates the impression of Certainty, Absoluteness and Realness. It creates the impression that we have touched the innermost reality of our own core being where thoughts play absolutely no role in that moment of experience. This is a very unique and sacred experience but is a double edge sword. It must be cleansed with the “Emptiness” truth otherwise there will always be separation.

What is the ultimate nature of this “ISness” Presence? Is the “ISness” Presence still the “Presence” when there is separation? When we are listening to a piece of music, where and what is this Ultimate Presence right at that moment? During meditation or when one is totally submerged in appreciating the piece of music, he might exclaim, “I become the music”, “I am the listening itself” or “I am the music itself”. The Presence is the Music is the Awareness is the ‘I’. Does it mean that the subject, the object and the action have suddenly become one? Or is there really no separation from beginning?

 

Separation is often the result of wrong identification, labeling and attachment. This is the problem of language and attachment. When one is free from labeling and experience is direct, there is really only listening, there is no ‘I’. This is what really is happening if we are not hypnotized and deceived by thoughts and labeling -- One complete co-arising emptiness flow, ever present and ever clear. There is no ‘ghost’ and ‘shadow’ in between, the ‘I’ is unnecessary and separation is illusionary.

Edited July 24, 2011 by xabir2005

[Cat Pillar]

Interesting...makes sense, though. Thanks, Xabir!

 

Guess I'll just have to explore it more. Still so many mysteries to play with.

[johndoe2012]

I don't see any problems with no-self from a Taoist perspective although I haven't realised no-self.

 

When 'I' put my awareness on the lower dantian I can then watch thoughts appear with the I content in them. Through the senses there is no I, only experience, hearing, seeing, feeling and so on.

 

No-self might be a part of wu-wei. A no-self Being who is not-Doing by Listening.

 

Also in bringing up my son - 2 years old now - I can understand how this misunderstanding might form; the duality of language is enforcing the concept of I.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Who catches "a glimpse of not-self"? does 'not self' experience its 'not selfness'? Who tells this story about 'not selness'? 'self' tells itself a story, and tells others a story about how it hides from itself, but.. it can't, look and see the 'selfs' functioning in plain view in the forum, then.. look and see the 'story' selfs try to convince each other is true.. in its entirety, the self is not relevant, except when it is used to create the confusion of a 'self vs. no-self' distraction from living Life sincerely..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

Who catches "a glimpse of not-self"? does 'not self' experience its 'not selfness'? Who tells this story about 'not selness'? 'self' tells itself a story, and tells others a story about how it hides from itself, but.. it can't, look and see the 'selfs' functioning in plain view in the forum, then.. look and see the 'story' selfs try to convince each other is true.. in its entirety, the self is not relevant, except when it is used to create the confusion of a 'self vs. no-self' distraction from living Life sincerely..

 

Be well..

 

The self is a relative incarnation arisen dependent upon all else. It does not inherently exist, nor does the self, self exist. It's existence and expressions arise dependently, thus it does not ultimately exist.

 

This is all anatta (not-self) means in Buddhism. It's an attempt at intellectually pointing to expansive, self transcendent awareness while being quite self aware. As being self aware should naturally lead to expansive self transcendence as you are not an island that popped itself out of infinity. You are an inter-dependent arising.

[Informer]

I'm in the same boat as you, Mahberry. I caught a glimpse of not-self (insert preferred descriptor if so described) while observing the experience of riding the bus home. I also started recognizing the "state" from past experiences of getting "lost" in music. Where is the "I" when totally absorbed in something?

 

The thing I'm having difficulty understanding now is the relationship with creativity, will, and intent. Intent obviously exists, creativity obviously exists, and choices are obviously made...but without being able to attribute those to an "I" it kind of leaves a big question mark as to their source.

 

Really that is the insight, and no it is not enlightenment. It simply shows that the self is not the thought, or the reflection. Like the residual self-image, it is a construct.

 

So you know what it is not, but you do not know that it is not or what it is. What you thought of as self was incorrect. That is as far as it should go, otherwise you are simply drawing conclusions from assumptions, which isn't reality.

 

No one has ever proved there is no self, only that the idea or thought of what self is was false.

 

Expanding that single realization into a totality is the opposite of enlightenment.

 

Imagine how much must be assumed to conclude that there is not a self in anyway . . .

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The self is a relative incarnation arisen dependent upon all else. It does not inherently exist, nor does the self, self exist. It's existence and expressions arise dependently, thus it does not ultimately exist.

 

This is all anatta (not-self) means in Buddhism. It's an attempt at intellectually pointing to expansive, self transcendent awareness while being quite self aware. As being self aware should naturally lead to expansive self transcendence as you are not an island that popped itself out of infinity. You are an inter-dependent arising.

I understand the meaning and appreciate pointing at the infinite eternal, then.. 'that' which is aware of this conversation, is also aware that without the vehicle of 'self', this conversation and this awareness of the infinite and eternal would not 'be'.. so, an abiding and deep appreciation for the vehicle that manifests awareness of existence arises, dependent on the vehicle and its differentiation.. the 'story' isn't told without the 'teller' that experiences its relationship with existence and non-existence..

 

Be well..