'No self' my experience so far...

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe you missed the question as well, I didn't ask how you exist, I ask if you "Vajrahridaya" or whatever your real name may be, is existing?

 

I don't see how you guys make this so hard.

 

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/exist

 

1.

to have actual being; - Do you have actual being?

 

2.

to have life or animation - Are you alive?

 

3. to continue to be or live: Are you being alive?

 

 

The first one, no... I do not actually exist. There is no part of me that "ACTUALLY" exists.

 

The other two.. yes. But relatively so, not actually so.

 

You should try to viscerally understand the statements I made previously, and not deflect them intellectually. They are good statements and are liberating.

 

Allowing to be, without clinging to being.

[Informer]

So you don't like that the 1st one is kinda implying ownership?

 

I see what you mean.

[Vajrahridaya]

So you don't like that the 1st one is kinda implying ownership?

 

I see what you mean.

 

[xabir2005]

"Do I exist" is like asking does weather exist?

 

Conventionally speaking, yes.

 

But as an actual entity that can be pinned down somewhere? No.

 

"Self" is like that. A convention for the dependently originated process of the five aggregates, but it cannot be pinned down as an actual independent entity.

 

Because there is no independent and unchanging "self" that can be pinned down, "is" or "is not" does not apply.

 

Seeing occurs without seer, hearing happens without hearer.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

liberation requires a quantum shift of perception. Because even if you have temporary experiences where the sense of self temporarily dissolves, as long as you still believe that the "self" is real, you will forever be back in the loop of seeing a self and trying to chase it away. Like being in a dream of monsters and trying hard to get rid of that monster in the dream not realizing it was all just a fictitious thought.

 

In the same way, no-self does not point to an experience, does not point to temporary unitive experiences where the sense of self is temporarily forgotten (this is quite common). Rather it points to a fact about reality, and it is not a belief but it can be directly realized and verified: the fact of no self.

 

Hearing, seeing, thinking, everything is not and cannot be denied... It is only that notion, sense of agent that must be investigated and seen through.

 

I cannot stress how important that quantum shift of perception is... Otherwise no matter how you practice or attempt to let go of self, you can never realize that no self is already the natural state and already always so.

 

That is, in seeing always just scenery without seer. In hearing always just sound no hearer... Etc.

 

The view that posits "is" or "is not" with regards to a self, which means the view of inherent existence, is the cause behind all grasping. In order to treat our afflictions, we must treat it from the root - the conceit of "I am" as Buddha calls it.

 

That conceit, that view must be thoroughly abandoned not by efforting but by realization.

 

I have not long ago written something about the view: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/view.html

I agree that "liberation requires a quantum shift of perception". But it also requires action. Both yin and yang.

 

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of "no self", although I think it's foolish to take it (or any spiritual teaching) literally.

 

I think it is simplistic and not very helpful, to preach "no self" without including within that teaching, what it means to have "no self". Because life still needs to be lived, and habits still need to be dissolved.

 

The regulars on RT all preach this "truth", but they do not show signs of dissolving the habits of self. Their posts are full of assumption, projection, defensiveness, belief that they can see "the true nature of reality". All of this is the delusion of self, just without the name.

 

Looking inward, I can see that this "mind", this sense of "I'm making these thoughts, etc. happen" are false.

 

However, I still have to take responsibility for my thoughts, my emotions, and my actions. I still have to live my life. I still go to jail if I commit a crime. I still need to floss my teeth. I still need to change my baby's diapers. None of this changes, just because I no longer believe in the "self". Somehow, even without that self, wtf?, I'm still here! Life goes on.

 

So, that has to be dealt with. Once "I" am revealed as "not existing", then how come I still exist? And what happens to this life, to this body, to the relationships and responsibilities that were there?

 

These are all the subtleties that IMO have to be dealt with, if one is to teach "no self".

 

Like in the "how to start a cult" video that was recently posted here, the cult usually starts with some important truth (or in this case, half-truth), which gets the followers to question their previous way of thinking. But the cult really shows its colors, after that "truth" is given. Is there room for subtlety in understanding? Is there tolerance of parallel metaphors, which don't say precisely "no self", but include that understanding? Is there guidance through the ramifications of what "no self" leads to? No, in RT's case, there is only an attempt to recruit the converted, and get them to join the gang. And the gang doesn't even understand the "truth" it preaches, because their arguments are shallow and specious. That's not liberation; that's closer to brainwashing.

 

I think the Buddha recognized all this, when he taught the middle way. No literal interpretations! Neither "self" nor "non-self". That's why he was not a cult leader. But there is no middle way in RT; it's all "our way or the highway".

[Otis]

What I am saying is that once no-self is realized, you don't "feel the wind" - you are the wind, and even that is not quite right, there is simply the wind blowing and there is no feeler. There is an unbounded freedom from constriction, the sense of a body-mind is dropped off and there is great bliss and intensity of non-dual luminosity or clarity as a result.

I totally agree with this part, Xabir. My metaphor is different than yours, that's all. I call it "living in the first person", rather than "living in the 3rd person", which is my previous habit of mistaking the mirror of mind as a self.

 

What I don't agree with is this:

 

after true experience and realization, whatever I said will make perfect sense.

Once you start throwing around words like "true", then you are in dualism again. You are claiming that your point of view on the world is accurate, and that is a self-description that defies your claims of "no self".

 

It is not (the general metaphor of) no self that I have a problem with. It is the certainty that accompanies it.

 

Surrender of self, IME is the same as surrender of certainty. Otherwise, you've just exchanged the old "self" for a new no-self self, that is even more "self" than before, because it declares itself to be "right", to be possessed of a clear accurate view of the "actual".

 

But how would you (or for that matter, me) know if we had reached an accurate view? There is no non-human reference point that says "beyond here is the real truth". All we have are feedback loops of our experiences, and the words of others. Don't you see the contradiction in claiming "no self" but then also claiming insight into "Truth"?

[Otis]

Because there is no independent and unchanging "self" that can be pinned down, "is" or "is not" does not apply.

Here again, I want to call attention to the contradiction.

 

You say:

"is" or "is not" does not apply.

right after you say:

there is no independent and unchanging "self"

 

Well, which is it? If "is" and "is not" do not apply, then you cannot say whether there is a self or not. Because the "is" is inherently inaccurate.

[Informer]

It's sad how your brain is tangled xabir. You don't realize what has happened.

 

I am going to lay it out bare for you that you might understand.

 

The original ponderance when you went to that site was about the "self" not "you" .

 

There is a difference between the self and you, what happened is that after you pondered what is the self, they subtly switched it to you not existing.

 

Of course the weather doesn't have a self, does that mean that weather doesn't exist?

 

 

You initial reaction after reading this is going to be to formulate a rebuttal, I am going to ask you to hold off on that for only 1 minute and think about why you are formulating a rebuttal.

[Birch]

I'm a bit upset no-one asked me if I exist

 

 

toot toot toot

[Informer]

I'm a bit upset no-one asked me if I exist

 

 

toot toot toot

 

I know you exist -K-. It is always a rhetorical question when I ask it and I honestly feel silly asking it.

 

Do you exist?

Edited July 27, 2011 by Informer

[Birch]

I know you exist -K-. It is always a rhetorical question when I ask it and I honestly feel silly asking it.

 

Do you exist?

 

Why thank you! Yes I do

Is this where I'm supposed to add some kind of caveat about the relative boundaries of identity, it's nature as 'process' and consciousness vs latency or something?

 

Wouldn't this 'no-self' teaching thing be a hell of a lot easier if different metaphors were used? Like a 'movie' for example? Going around telling people they don't exist is shocking. Is it supposed to be shocking? What for?

[Informer]

Like the Cartesian Theatre?

[Vajrahridaya]

What about the psychologists who do "past life regression therapy?" Is this delusion on the part of the individual or is it "self-suggestion" from believing reincarnation beliefs? Or does the psychologist implant these ideas into thier heads before doing this "past life regression therapy?"

 

Could be a number of causes.

 

But, if the past life regression is like that of the Dalai Lama, where he remembered where he hid the teeth of his last incarnation, not having told anyone from his previous life, that's ample proof.

 

Or if it's like that of the kid who knew details of how he died in a previous life, and it was found to be public record, that's ample proof.

 

I have a hard time believing in past life regression therapy. I think the only ones trustworthy are those that arise naturally during practice of de-conditioning, letting go, meditating on the nature of mind directly.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

When you say "your Taoism;" Do you mean his interpretation of Taoism?

 

Because I have found that there are many teachings from Taoism that are not contradictory to the teachings of Buddhism. In fact Taoists, just like the Buddhists, cultivated the Dharmakaya. They cultivated realization into the nature of self and phenomena, before and after the influence of Buddhism in China.

 

Yes, I meant, "His" Taoism. I might agree with you SJ. I know that after Buddhism in China that's the case. I'm not very familiar with a very thoroughly developed form of Taoism pryer to the Buddhist introduction into China. Are there actual written texts that existed from then to prove this? I'm just wondering... I would be really interested in finding out.

[stan herman]

Why thank you! Yes I do

Is this where I'm supposed to add some kind of caveat about the relative boundaries of identity, it's nature as 'process' and consciousness vs latency or something?

 

Wouldn't this 'no-self' teaching thing be a hell of a lot easier if different metaphors were used? Like a 'movie' for example? Going around telling people they don't exist is shocking. Is it supposed to be shocking? What for?

 

Seems clear, just as the sound of a tree falling in the forest depends upon a 'hearer', your existence depends upon a 'perceiver'.

 

Nevertheless, one may think of the world as a movie, and the self as the projector. Thus, the whole world is here just for you. Without paradox there is nothing.

[Vajrahridaya]

Why thank you! Yes I do

Going around telling people they don't exist is shocking. Is it supposed to be shocking? What for?

 

For the sake of removing the many layers of self clinging, for the sake of blissful liberation from self clinging.

[Informer]

For the sake of removing the many layers of self clinging, for the sake of blissful liberation from self clinging.

 

I didn't find the realization that I am not that reflection that I had once thought of as myself shocking. I thought it was really funny.

[Vajrahridaya]

I didn't find the realization that I am not that reflection that I had once thought of as myself shocking. I thought it was really funny.

 

Well... I've experienced shock, giddiness, sadness, anger, disappointment... all of it, all dependent upon the layer or depth it was that I was seeing through. The deeper one goes, the more liberating and blissful this realization becomes.

[thuscomeone]

Here again, I want to call attention to the contradiction.

 

You say:

 

right after you say:

 

 

Well, which is it? If "is" and "is not" do not apply, then you cannot say whether there is a self or not. Because the "is" is inherently inaccurate.

This is just it. Xabir and I have shared many insights. He is at the point now where he's starting to see that concepts and views are the problem.

 

But he doesn't yet realize that he still clings to views. Now, people ask how you can be free from views. Isn't that just another view? No, there is something beyond views which isn't another view. What is it? Just the fact of your experience. Just the skandhas pre-conceptualization. Just pure activity.

 

That's timeless. Oh, and guess what. "D.O." has NOTHING to do with it. As soon as you call it "d.o." or "no self", you distort it.

Edited July 28, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Birch]

Like the Cartesian Theatre?

 

Not sure what that is. I guess they just didn't have movies back then

[Informer]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

[Birch]

For the sake of removing the many layers of self clinging, for the sake of blissful liberation from self clinging.

 

Right. But where does this clinging business come from in the first place? Because if I (sic) can get rid of it as easy as pie in this lifetime then I wonder if it ain't just an unnatural 'thing' ('thing' being not an actual bounded 'thing' but you get the drift) in the first place. And if it ain't natural, where does it come from? I kind of have some ideas but I want to find out what other peopling thinking

[Birch]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

 

Thanking youing!

And why a fried egg? Yes this stuff fries your brain :-)

What I didn't know was (from the wikipedia link)

 

"Descartes originally claimed that consciousness requires an immaterial soul, which interacts with the body via the pineal gland of the brain"

 

Now how did he get to that point and then veer off? I suspect because of the/a church who said 'leave off of all that stuff because it's our playground and the king said so, upon pain of death' or something. And didn't Darwin have to tippy-toe around that too?