'No self' my experience so far...

[Lucky7Strikes]

Was the statement above by you a living reality itself or just an idea?

 

Is there such thing as "skull", "mind" or "perception" outside of concepts?

 

Is eating pizza more than eating pizza?

 

When you scoop up some water from the sea and hold it in your hand, is it any longer the sea?

Then what makes you different from a dog?

[Vajrahridaya]

Then what makes you different from a dog?

 

Exactly. The consideration of past and future is part of the path to enlightenment, the revelations that come from delving into ones subconscious and unconscious is part of the path of self realization.

 

Enlightenment is not an ignorant submerging into the sense perceivable now without awareness of it's causes and conditions.

 

When you attain realization, or full enlightenment, or even during the process as it deepens, sure... you are released in the senses, but not as bound by them anymore. "In it, but not of it."

 

Humans are not merely animals, nor are we merely mammals, we have a deeper self transcending potential.

[Otis]

Humans are not merely animals, nor are we merely mammals, we have a deeper self transcending potential.

Be careful you don't malign non-human animals unnecessarily. Mothers in particular, of many species, show unbelievable transcendence of self! I don't personally know any humans who act more transcendent than them.

[Vajrahridaya]

Be careful you don't malign non-human animals unnecessarily. Mothers in particular, of many species, show unbelievable transcendence of self! I don't personally know any humans who act more transcendent than them.

 

They generally act selflessly out of instinct to help their young without much self consideration. Some do show some activities that are compassionate, you can see them on youtube.com

 

Like videos of inter-species compassion and stuff. Yes indeed. I think this goes with the Jadaka Tales of how the Buddha talks about having been a monkey and putting his life on the line to save his monkey friends and family from a burning tree I think?

 

Anyway... yes, you're right! Who knows, maybe even some bugs too!! I just don't see it as developed as it is in the human potential.

 

Thanks for the reminder though.

[C T]

I believe animals have no concept of a self at all. Could be wrong. Generally speaking, Human ideas relating to self is the cause of dualistic thinking, which is not present in beings other than humans.

[Vajrahridaya]

I believe animals have no concept of a self at all. Could be wrong. Generally speaking, Human ideas relating to self is the cause of dualistic thinking, which is not present in beings other than humans.

 

Feelings of duality exist in the non-conceptual, emotional levels as well. You don't have to have concepts to be trapped in dualism and conflicting states of mind. It actually helps to have concepts in order to learn discernment. There are all sorts of neurotic activities that animals do, like enjoying the hunt before the kill, watching the victim squirm in suffering. My cat get's scared of invisible things, and jumps 3 to 4 feet into the air out of fear of a bug. He's not a hunter, obviously. Anyway, the list goes on. Animals are far from enlightened beings or Buddhas.

[Cat Pillar]

There are all sorts of neurotic activities that animals do, like enjoying the hunt before the kill, watching the victim squirm in suffering.

 

This seems odd to me. How is an animal supposed to feel when it hunts?

[Vajrahridaya]

This seems odd to me. How is an animal supposed to feel when it hunts?

 

If you've hunted before, you will know. There is compassionate hunting and there is malicious hunting, since animals are capable of both types... they have individual personalities without having concepts in the way's that we do. They think in images and feelings based upon experiences relating to the images, conditioned intuitions and such. This shows that bondage is not predicated upon concepts, and clearing your mind of concepts is not going to bring true and lasting liberation, in the Buddhist sense at least. Also, living from intuition is not necessarily liberation, as intuition is conditioned as well.

 

One really has to delve into the subconscious, and then of course the unconscious. We also flutter through the images, feelings related to these images based upon experiences, etc on fast levels. We have the very same brain as animals on core levels, there are just more developments in other areas which allow us to have more complexity.

[C T]

Feelings of duality exist in the non-conceptual, emotional levels as well. You don't have to have concepts to be trapped in dualism and conflicting states of mind. It actually helps to have concepts in order to learn discernment. There are all sorts of neurotic activities that animals do, like enjoying the hunt before the kill, watching the victim squirm in suffering. My cat get's scared of invisible things, and jumps 3 to 4 feet into the air out of fear of a bug. He's not a hunter, obviously. Anyway, the list goes on. Animals are far from enlightened beings or Buddhas.

one of the rare times i disagree with you, VJ.

 

We do not really want to create a problem just so to feel smarter by solving the problem, or create conditions where there is none, just to attain freedom from such.

 

I see concepts as those things which causes a sense of separation. In effect, there is no duality. The human mind, conditioned by grasping and aversion, creates the possibilities for such desires to arise. Even though animals are subject to grasping and aversion, the emotional attachments are absent. They may go after a toy, or another weaker animal, or jump with fright, but they have no concept of loss, followed by the subsequent emotional response to loss, like humans do. Nothing inherently wrong with losing someone, or something, but its the quality of emotional responses that determine one's level of appropriating corrective right thoughts, feelings and actions or incorrect wrong reactions arising from wrong view.

[Vajrahridaya]

one of the rare times i disagree with you, VJ.

 

SACRILEGE!

 

We do not really want to create a problem just so to feel smarter by solving the problem, or create conditions where there is none, just to attain freedom from such.

 

I see concepts as those things which causes a sense of separation. In effect, there is no duality. The human mind, conditioned by grasping and aversion, creates the possibilities for such desires to arise. Even though animals are subject to grasping and aversion, the emotional attachments are absent. They may go after a toy, or another weaker animal, or jump with fright, but they have no concept of loss, followed by the subsequent emotional response to loss, like humans do.

 

 

Well buddy, you'll just have to have more animals in your life and watch their way of being with more avid attention.

 

I definitely feel that their sense of loss and attachment go further than that. Many times animals get sick when people they love leave them, stop eating, whine all day, etc. What about that video on youtube of the lions that remembered their owners years after they were set free in the wild, they certainly enacted long term positive attachment when they saw them again and hugged and licked them with such an obvious show of recognition and love. They also have a tendency to go towards those people that treat them well on a more consistent basis, showing emotional memory. Also, one of my cat's would enact revenge, waiting for the right time to strike back after chillin' out for a while, looking all innocent, then he'd walk by me, then quickly attack my leg and swipe it if I had chastised him for something half an hour earlier, my boy Istha was a bad kitty... very mischievous. I loved him for it! I could go on and on. Not to get all new agey spacey... but, I don't want to include my lucid dreams and states of meditation and psychic intuitions concerning the states of mind of an animal. I bet people think I'm already pretty crazy as it is.

 

Dude, animals have more human tendencies than you may be aware of at this time.

[C T]

SACRILEGE!

 

 

 

 

Well buddy, you'll just have to have more animals in your life and watch their way of being with more avid attention.

 

I definitely feel that their sense of loss and attachment go further than that. Many times animals get sick when people they love leave them, stop eating, whine all day, etc. What about that video on youtube of the lions that remembered their owners years after they were set free in the wild, they certainly enacted long term positive attachment when they saw them again and hugged and licked them with such an obvious show of recognition and love. They also have a tendency to go towards those people that treat them well on a more consistent basis, showing emotional memory. Also, one of my cat's would enact revenge, waiting for the right time to strike back after chillin' out for a while, looking all innocent, then he'd walk by me, then quickly attack my leg and swipe it if I had chastised him for something half an hour earlier, my boy Istha was a bad kitty... very mischievous. I loved him for it! I could go on and on. Not to get all new agey spacey... but, I don't want to include my lucid dreams and states of meditation and psychic intuitions concerning the states of mind of an animal. I bet people think I'm already pretty crazy as it is.

 

Dude, animals have more human tendencies than you may be aware of at this time.

SO BE IT!!

 

 

Not denying any of the points you raised at all. I grew up with animals, and often learn stuff from them. Dogs are my thing - have two presently - nicknamed Long Ears (she's a basset hound haha) and Gremlin (a bull terrier pup who sure looks like one).

 

The point i was making is that animals do not weave stories in their mind like humans tend to. They simply act according to stimulus. This does not mean they have the same emotional fabric like humans do. Not saying its wrong to have it, its just that humans have this unenlightened potential to, let me use a metaphor here, hoard a lot of emotional clutter. Some do tend to make this a habit, going as far as to say it makes them feel alive and useful. Animals do not have such tendencies. Because humans have this potential to clutter the mind, they also have a greater potential for decluttering it - nature is fair like that. But this should not equate to purposefully choking oneself just to appreciate what it means to breathe enthusiastically! Unfortunately, many people unknowingly do this. Animals have no such trickery in their thought processes. They may have the necessary intelligence to enhance the satisfaction of their needs, which is their prime motive, but comparatively, humans are never satisfied - hence the rise of suffering!

[Vajrahridaya]

SO BE IT!!

 

 

Not denying any of the points you raised at all. I grew up with animals, and often learn stuff from them. Dogs are my thing - have two presently - nicknamed Long Ears (she's a basset hound haha) and Gremlin (a bull terrier pup who sure looks like one).

 

The point i was making is that animals do not weave stories in their mind like humans tend to. They simply act according to stimulus. This does not mean they have the same emotional fabric like humans do. Not saying its wrong to have it, its just that humans have this unenlightened potential to, let me use a metaphor here, hoard a lot of emotional clutter. Some do tend to make this a habit, going as far as to say it makes them feel alive and useful. Animals do not have such tendencies. Because humans have this potential to clutter the mind, they also have a greater potential for decluttering it - nature is fair like that. But this should not equate to purposefully choking oneself just to appreciate what it means to breathe enthusiastically! Unfortunately, many people unknowingly do this. Animals have no such trickery in their thought processes. They may have the necessary intelligence to enhance the satisfaction of their needs, which is their prime motive, but comparatively, humans are never satisfied - hence the rise of suffering!

 

Oh ok... I get what you're saying, yes of course! They aren't as complex with their emotional attachments...

 

I did state that, didn't I? That we are more complex about it all? I agree with you now. I thought you were saying they were already Buddhas or something? Though there are stories of Buddhist masters guiding their animals to liberation in the bardo. I have an intuitive inkling of how that's possible, but not enough to lay it out clearly through concepts.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Oh ok... I get what you're saying, yes of course! They aren't as complex with their emotional attachments...

 

I did state that, didn't I? That we are more complex about it all? I agree with you now. I thought you were saying they were already Buddhas or something? Though there are stories of Buddhist masters guiding their animals to liberation in the bardo. I have an intuitive inkling of how that's possible, but not enough to lay it out clearly through concepts.

Here's the 'thing'.. between you and Cow Tao there is this 'call-and-response' story-telling about stuff you 'believe' about animals and cats.. and, there is just the simplicity of, let's watch animals and cats in particular.. let's pay attention to what they 'do', not speculate on how their mind's work.. it seems there's always a 'story' told to reinforce the beliefs people favor.. there is a difference between telling stories about what we see and experience, and weaving beliefs and imagination into those stories.. this a very subtle agreement to join a 'support group', using a particular story theme to bond the 'group' into a defense against flying solo.. uncomfortable with, or unwilling, stepping into Life as who 'you' are is rejected in favor of a relationship with the 'story'..

 

When all of the stories are gone, 'you' are still there.. Be well..

[xabir2005]

When all of the stories are gone, 'you' are still there.. Be well..

What are you?

[C T]

Greetings..

 

 

Here's the 'thing'.. between you and Cow Tao there is this 'call-and-response' story-telling about stuff you 'believe' about animals and cats.. and, there is just the simplicity of, let's watch animals and cats in particular.. let's pay attention to what they 'do', not speculate on how their mind's work.. it seems there's always a 'story' told to reinforce the beliefs people favor.. there is a difference between telling stories about what we see and experience, and weaving beliefs and imagination into those stories.. this a very subtle agreement to join a 'support group', using a particular story theme to bond the 'group' into a defense against flying solo.. uncomfortable with, or unwilling, stepping into Life as who 'you' are is rejected in favor of a relationship with the 'story'..

 

When all of the stories are gone, 'you' are still there.. Be well..

Yeah, its an example of weaving stories alright. Sometimes it could be fun when there is no neuroticism attached to the stories. Great nations and sensitive poems, besides many other worthy quests were born out of story-telling, and themselves the cause of even more adventurous pursuits.

 

You do know how to have a fun discussion, i trust?

 

Not all exchanges between 2 or more people need to be construed as attempts to enmesh a 'support group' as you subtly alluded to...

 

 

You, too, be well.

[Marblehead]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Has anyone found their "true Self" yet?

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

 

Here's the 'thing'.. between you and Cow Tao there is this 'call-and-response' story-telling about stuff you 'believe' about animals and cats.. and, there is just the simplicity of, let's watch animals and cats in particular.. let's pay attention to what they 'do', not speculate on how their mind's work.. it seems there's always a 'story' told to reinforce the beliefs people favor.. there is a difference between telling stories about what we see and experience, and weaving beliefs and imagination into those stories.. this a very subtle agreement to join a 'support group', using a particular story theme to bond the 'group' into a defense against flying solo.. uncomfortable with, or unwilling, stepping into Life as who 'you' are is rejected in favor of a relationship with the 'story'..

 

When all of the stories are gone, 'you' are still there.. Be well..

 

 

There are those caught up in a lower level jhanic bliss who think "no-thinking" coming from "no insight" is enlightenment.

 

Mind numbing bliss junkies think that all our expressions are mere conceptual levels of knowledge and not the joyous labor of putting insight onto page?

 

Tell me Mr. Why are you here? To teach us not to think? I've already gone through that stage. Mind stilling, Jhanic bliss, peace percolating throughout my body. Ah!!! The cosmos opens up into blissful splendor through the senses. This is very good indeed. Just go deeper my dear. This is a key, not the lock.

 

These aren't stories, these are revelations of how the mind works. The mind of a sentient being is a multilayered hall of mirrors, and the deeper you go, the smaller and more compressed the information held in the chards get, and you find yourself in quantum paradigms of processes within you. This you are ignoring for sense perceived jhanic bliss, it's peace blindness, which happens with lots of yogi's and they stop going deeper. Your bondage is subtler than your conceptual thought. You have numbed yourself from going deeper by believing this circular logic you keep presenting about not thinking and just "being" without exploring the "nature of being". Without exploring the actual capacity of what it is to be in a human body. If you don't exercise these capacities soon, you will have wasted your life in the human body and die without knowledge of it's capacity. There are deeper vistas of insight available to you, if you'd only drop your pride and projection, drop the story you keep telling yourself about our stories... you might learn something more about yourself and how you work.

 

You don't seem to have any realization about why you are here, who you really are, where you've been and where you might be going? You seem to be no better than a dog, without questioning anything, you're satisfied through ignorance with just living and sense experiencing without having delved into the mystery's of birth, sickness, old age, and death. You've meditated and chi'd your way into physical satiation of body health and mind numbed jhanic peace, without actual insight. This is just a sense experience, nothing deep.

 

If you are satisfied with the answers that modern science has presented to you about your nature, considering this to be the holy grail determinator of the nature of reality? Then that's fine. But please respect the fact that we wish to go deeper.

[Vajrahridaya]

How judgemental!

 

Not at all. Just honest insight... perception penetrating surface reflecting whatever depth I've gone within.

 

Animals have Buddhanature, and plenty to teach us of ourselves, no doubt. But, fully realized Buddhas? I don't delude myself with such idealizations.

[xabir2005]

It's funny, because what I'm talking about is the natural result of full realization of what "emptiness is form" is pointing to. But d.o., anatta, etc. are not facts about the nature of reality as you claim them to be. They are just pointers.

Have already discussed this. D.O. is a pointer to the realization of Shunyata and Maha as a natural state.

 

The realization of Shunyata and Maha is completely non-conceptual. It is not a view, it is freedom from all views.

When I came to this realization, I saw that I could abandon all other views. Because only this is true. And that truth doesn't depend on d.o., anatta. The truth is just non-conceptual, timeless suchness. But remember, these are only words. They don't capture it.

Even those at "I AM" makes the statement. Even those at substantial non-duality makes the same statement.

 

What you have to realize is that it is the realization of the twofold emptiness that liberates you from inherent view.

 

When you are liberated from inherent view, you are free from the constructs/concepts of 'is' and 'is not' - and therefore being free from such constructs, you are left with the suchness of experience.

 

But what is essential is the realization of the twofold emptiness. Because you can have non-dual experience and realization... you can have non-conceptual experiences, and talk about 'suchness'. Whether before realization, or after 'I AM', or after substantial non-duality... people all talk about Suchness and deem it as highest.

 

But they are unable to overcome inherent views, and they had ample non-conceptual experiences but non-conceptual experiences does not liberate - only realization does.

 

Anyway when you realize anatta one striking thing (like all previous realizations) is how free of constructs and conceptualization and direct it is - I mean what more direct can be 'in seeing just seen, in hearing just heard' etc. Anatta, emptiness, etc are non-conceptual realizations.

 

There is no such thing as an anatta view or emptiness view. Maybe to the unenlightened, they understand it intellectually and hold them to be a view. When you realize it, they are not views at all... it is just a non-conceptual realization that causes you to drop all views, without leaving even a 'anatta/shunyata view'. Just like you wake up from a dream of chasing monsters means 'full stop'. Freedom. Awakeness. You don't create another dream of 'no chasing monsters'.

You need to see that it is concepts themselves (when clung to) that create the self. Not just one particular concept.

All concepts - body, i am my body, i am my mind, i am ...

 

All come down to a basic misperception of 'is' and 'is not' due to not comprehend the emptiness of self and objects.

 

It is not the gross concepts 'I am so and so...' that is the problem - it is the underlying view and belief that 'I Am' is a truth. Buddha calls it 'the conceit of I Am'. Therefore it is a view, and from which stems other grosser conceptualizations and thoughts like 'I am such and such'... but when you cease conceptualizations, you realize and experience a bare naked fact of being and awareness to be the luminous essence of mind, you still do not overcome that view of 'I Am' - in fact that bare naked non-dual fact of presence and awareness is then quickly reified as the pure I AMness even without that thought of I AM, in other words we still cling to it as an independent and unchanging essence. People generally call this the 'I AM' prior to 'I am this and that' - the I AM prior to concepts. And those who realize this tend to treat this as ultimate, so they spend all their effort trying to abide as that non-conceptual, non-dual Self. There is realization and experience of the non-conceptual luminous essence, but not the empty nature.

 

By not realizing anatta, i.e. in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard, we conceive of some independent, separate, unchanging self that is behind and perceiving things... some kind of independent agent.

 

This view can only be dissolved by realization, no other ways.

There are no facts about the nature of reality, except for the fact of that which is before concepts.

Those who have realization of luminosity will say this - even at I AM level, or substantial non-dual level, much less anatta insight. But they have not overcome inherent view so aren't liberated.

 

You aren't being clear about what causes liberation... it is not as simple as being non-conceptual. If not, any people who realized I AM or even the ordinary mindfulness therapy teacher would have attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi.

 

I can remember always talking about the non-conceptual truth of presence, ungraspable by any concepts or thoughts, 'suchness', when I first attained self-realization over a year ago.

Concepts themselves

...are not the problem. You aren't being honest if you say you don't make use concepts and thoughts in daily lives. At the same time it is possible not to confuse concepts and thoughts as simply useful and convenient tools, with actual experience. i.e. abstract concepts like 'nature', 'weather', 'wind' are useful for communication but there is no inherent nature-ness, weather-ness, wind-ness, car-ness, self-ness, etc.

 

"Conceptual thoughts are in nature great awareness" - Milarepa

, or rather entanglement in concepts, is the entire problem.

Precisely.

 

And you can only get entangled in concepts when you posit a truth or reality 'is' or 'is not' to those labels, concepts, conventions. Otherwise it is like useful conventions - weather, wind, river, but there is nothing to grasp - literally... then you can use concepts but not be 'used' by them.

"what is" is beyond time in that it is always now. It's been called the eternal now.

No, there is no eternal now. There is no now. There is no ground. There is literally nothing that abides.

 

My blog name is a bad hippie nick created by a friend in 2004 in sgforums (actually he just called it that because he thought he sounded cool but he didn't know it has 'spiritual connotations'), which I then overtook his account along with the Buddhist forum shortly after. I kept that name elsewhere because people recognized that name.

 

The Diamond Sutra says, “The past mind cannot be grasped; the present mind cannot be grasped; the future mind cannot be grasped.”

Concepts create time and past, present and future. From this, there arises the false idea of becoming, getting something. And then suffering.

Even without concepts, people still cling to an inherent Now-ness. Why? Attachments lie deeper than gross conceptualizations.

 

Even though Now is just a belief, a thought, people generally don't recognize that. Just like 'Self', 'Awareness', etc.

 

They see that Now, Self, Awareness are inherently existing and independent, whether we have thoughts or not. So they kept referring back to this sense of Now-ness, Self-ness, Aware-ness.

 

They can get very grounded and very non-conceptual, but they are unable to overcome the view of inherency. Staying thoughtless, non-conceptual, and abiding in samadhi all day isn't going to help either. Some people can abide in non-dual, non-conceptual samadhi all day and still not realize and overcome the view of inherency.

 

What is required for liberation is realization into the twofold emptiness.

"Now that I have experienced that tada is itself great perfection, I can at last repay your countless benefactions, and I am overjoyed." - Yaeko Iwasaki

 

(Footnote by Philip Kapleau): Literally "only," "just," "nothing but." Thus if one is eating, one must be absorbed in just eating. If the mind entertains any ideas or concepts during eating, it is not in tada. Every moment of life lived as tada is the eternal Now.

 

-- From Yaeko Iwasaki's Enlightenment letters to Harada-roshi and his Comments, The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau

 

"So, we are saying, to eliminate this conflict, psychologically, it's very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed. If he is not, then the observer is the observed, and therefore conflict ends. I'll explain, go into this a little more. I hope you are working with the speaker, that you're not merely listening to a series of words, ideas, conclusions, but rather using the speaker, the words, as a mirror in which you are seeing actually yourself. So that you are aware of yourself, because we're talking about human being, which is you. That human being is the story of the totality of mankind. And when you investigate that, when you look at it, you see the conflict has always existed between man and woman, between... in himself. So part of this meditation is to eliminate totally all conflict, inwardly, and therefore outwardly. And to eliminate this conflict, one has to understand this basic principle, which is, the observer is not different from the observed, psychologically. Are we meeting each other? Yes? Do you see the fact, not the acceptance of what I'm saying?

 

Look, when there is anger, there is no 'I', but a second later the thought creates the 'I' and says, 'I have been angry', and there is the idea that I should not be angry. So there is 'me' who have been angry, and I should not be angry, so the division brings conflict. I hope you understand this. Please. I hope you understand this because we are going to something which demands that you pay complete attention to this, which is the essence of meditation, and to eliminate totally, completely every form of conflict, otherwise there is no peace in the world. You may have peace in heaven, but actually to live in this world with complete inward peace, therefore every action is born out of that peace. So it's very important to understand that the observer is the observed. When that takes place - please listen - that is, one is jealous - of which you all know - one is jealous; is jealousy different from the observer? You understand my question? Or the observer is the observed, therefore he is jealous. There is not 'I am jealous', but there is only jealousy. Right?

 

Then what takes place? You understand? Before, there was division between me and jealousy, and then I tried to conquer it, I tried to suppress it, rationalise it, put away from, but now when I see the 'me' is jealous - right? - then what takes place? Before, I tried to conquer it, suppress it, understand it, rationalise it, or say, 'Yes, why shouldn't I be jealous?' And therefore in all that process there is conflict. Whereas, we are saying, when there is no division between the observer and the observed, and therefore only the thing that is, which is jealousy, then what takes place? Does jealousy go on? Or is there a total ending of jealousy? You understand my problem, my question? I wonder.

 

When jealousy occurs, when there is no observer, you let it blossom and then end. You understand the question? Like a flower that blooms, withers and dies away. But as long as you're fighting it, as long as you're resisting it or rationalising it, you're giving life to it. So we are saying that the observer is the observed, and when there is this jealousy, let it... when the observer is the observed then jealousy blossoms, grows, and naturally dies. And therefore there is no conflict in it. I wonder if you see this. Right, sir? Please, madame."

-J. Krishnamurti

 

http://www.jkrishnam...32&w=meditation

Bad bad hearer.

What K is talking about here is the exact same practice advocated by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta

Which is just a method. Satipatthana is a gradual method, albeit one that does lead to true experience and insight.

 

JK talks about nondual experience but there is no clarity about realization of anatta in what he said there - though some of the stuff he said is quite good.

[Vajrahridaya]

Even without concepts, people still cling to an inherent Now-ness. Why? Attachments lie deeper than gross conceptualizations.

 

Even though Now is just a belief, a thought, people generally don't recognize that. Just like 'Self', 'Awareness', etc.

 

They see that Now, Self, Awareness are inherently existing and independent, whether we have thoughts or not. So they kept referring back to this sense of Now-ness, Self-ness, Aware-ness.

 

They can get very grounded and very non-conceptual, but they are unable to overcome the view of inherency. Staying thoughtless, non-conceptual, and abiding in samadhi all day isn't going to help either. Some people can abide in non-dual, non-conceptual samadhi all day and still not realize and overcome the view of inherency.

 

Yup, I know, I've been there, done that... I still ended up falling into activity reflecting delusion when I quit following the conditions for manifesting this type of bliss and wonder. Revealing that I hadn't actually realized complete liberation, I didn't couple insight with blissful awareness as I was mistaking blissful awareness as the "Self" of all. Even though I was doing activity reflecting delusion integrated with blissful awareness... considering everything "Shiva." it wasn't reflecting insight into the bodhi of the Buddhas.

[xabir2005]

Yup, I know, I've been there, done that... I still ended up falling into activity reflecting delusion when I quit following the conditions for manifesting this type of bliss and wonder. Revealing that I hadn't actually realized complete liberation, I didn't couple insight with blissful awareness as I was mistaking blissful awareness as the "Self" of all. Even though I was doing activity reflecting delusion integrated with blissful awareness... considering everything "Shiva." it wasn't reflecting insight into the bodhi of the Buddhas.

Yes... non-dual experience can be very very blissful and wonderful.

 

But not liberating.

 

Blissful does not equal liberating.

 

Liberating means liberation from false views... from all views, and thereby all forms of clinging subtle to gross.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

If you are satisfied with the answers that modern science has presented to you about your nature, considering this to be the holy grail determinator of the nature of reality? Then that's fine. But please respect the fact that we wish to go deeper.

I'm not satisfied with anything at all, i keep sincerely 'looking'.. attaching to a preferred story, diminishes the sincerity of 'looking', it creates the expectations of the story.. but, yes, i do respect the illusion of deeper, in equal measure to the respect offered for those that are simply looking..

You don't seem to have any realization about why you are here, who you really are, where you've been and where you might be going? You seem to be no better than a dog, without questioning anything, you're satisfied through ignorance with just living and sense experiencing without having delved into the mystery's of birth, sickness, old age, and death. You've meditated and chi'd your way into physical satiation of body health and mind numbed jhanic peace, without actual insight. This is just a sense experience, nothing deep.

I am clear as to why i am here, it is to have my own direct experience with Life.. it is not to be manipulated by the beliefs of others, Buddhas, and Tao, and such.. and it's that simple. I question everything, you just prefer i didn't question your beliefs..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

I am clear as to why i am here, it is to have my own direct experience with Life.. it is not to manipulated by the beliefs of others, Buddhas, and Tao, and such.. and it's that simple. I question everything, you just prefer i didn't question your beliefs..

 

Be well..

 

Your sense of self assuredness that they are merely "beliefs" does not reveal much of the openness that you seem to "believe" you have.

 

p.s. See, you don't actually question them, you tell yourself stories of what you think they are in order to dismiss them. This is because they make you feel uncomfortable about what you think you know to be true thus far.

[Otis]

Hey Xabir, you totally passed this by.

 

"No self" is only a pointer. It's two words. The question is: what does it point at?

 

Does it mean: there is no body? Or there is no personality? Or there is no cognitive function? Or there is no organism, which is doing the thinking and the hearing?

 

None of the above even seem remotely plausible. I've never heard or seen any good arguments to support the above statements, whereas their opposites seem utterly obviously so.

 

Or, does it mean: there is no homunculus in me, pulling levers, and making my body do what it wants? Does it mean: the mind that I observe is only a feedback loop, a funhouse mirror, reflecting various processes of my brain? Or perhaps: there is no separate soul, that is distinct from the body? Or: the "I" is merely a function (e.g. a conduit for awareness) among many other functions, but mistakes itself as the greater part of the being? Or: part of the process of living includes sensing, which includes sensing the interior landscape of cognition, which gives rise to the illusion of "mind"? Or: many, many neurons give rise to an emergence, which senses itself as a "self"? Or: the "self" that is experienced is nothing but a cluster of habits, including the habits of consciousness and perception? Or: living life as life, rather than as a separate individual, is a path toward freedom?

 

All these interpretations of "no self" make total sense to me. They all fit very well with "my" experience of "my" "self". But they do require not being dogmatic about "no self", and they require taking the time to be nuanced in one's observations.

 

What "basic fact" are you pointing at, when you say "no self", and why do you believe it to be true?

Please let me know what it is you mean by "no self", rather than just saying it's a fact.

[xabir2005]

Hey Xabir, you totally passed this by.

 

 

Please let me know what it is you mean by "no self", rather than just saying it's a fact.

Sorry, yeah I missed it.

 

Anatta means there is in seeing just the seen, no agent/seer behind seeing. Seeing is just the experience of scenery.

 

Same goes to hearing/heard, thinking/thought, etc etc.

 

The self-luminous process of hearing/seeing/thinking activities is self-luminous ('self-cognizant') rolls on its own accord due to dependent origination, without an agent, a perceiver, or a doer, or a separate self behind them.

 

As for 'there is no organism doing the hearing and seeing' - actually the organism is simply the process of varying dependently originated bodily and mental activities, including hearing and seeing. I am not denying hearing and seeing as a process, I am denying an independent, unchanging, and inherent organism-self.

 

Just like the word 'weather' does not refer to a thing-in-itself, but an ungraspable ever-changing process of clouds passing, wind, lightning, rain, etc etc.

 

Therefore there is no organism 'behind hearing and seeing' since 'organism' is simply a label or convention for the various activities including hearing and seeing, just as there is no such thing as 'a weather behind clouds and raining' as 'weather' is simply a label for a conglomerate of ever-changing activities like clouds, rain, lightning, etc etc.

 

There is no separate agent, hearer, seer, behind perception... just as there is no windness behind blowing, weatherness behind raining, riverness behind flowing, etc.