'No self' my experience so far...

[Informer]

which is immediately followed by "This is not the case, "

 

They are not talking about a mentally constructed self or ego in contrast to a truly existing self.

 

They are questioning the assumption of a truly existing self.

 

They are not saying anything about you don't exist.

 

I'll save you the trouble and let you know you won't find it anywhere, because it doesn't exist.

 

"The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging"

[Otis]

you are still running on the assumption that there is an actual world out there with inherent existence, just that its not knowable.

 

Having cognized dependent origination and emptiness, I do not hold on to the view of an inherent self or inherent object... Much less one that is unknowable. All that is perceived is vividly known or experienced - but utterly unestablished. Therefore I am utterly free from all beliefs and views of a true existent, and propositions of "is" and "is not".

The big question that you continue not to answer, is how you justify (even to yourself) the claim that you see the "true nature of reality"? Without that special vision power of yours, the rest of your argument falls apart into delusional pieces. So, that seems like the crux of everything you assert. You have made no logical arguments, nor have you made any attempt to connect your assertions to mundane experience or scientific research. All you have, are your claims of omniscience, and some appeals to (selective parts of) Buddhist authority.

 

Any willingness to explain why you (non-)believe that your (non-) view allows the (non-)you to see the "true nature of reality"?

[xabir2005]

They are not saying anything about you don't exist.

 

I'll save you the trouble and let you know you won't find it anywhere, because it doesn't exist.

 

"The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging"

no ego clinging means no clinging at a true existent self

 

My quoted passages are as clear as can be.

 

Self is a mere convention but no selfness of self can be located in or outside the aggregates.

 

The Buddha already clearly said this so did countless other buddhist masters

[xabir2005]

The big question that you continue not to answer, is how you justify (even to yourself) the claim that you see the "true nature of reality"? Without that special vision power of yours, the rest of your argument falls apart into delusional pieces. So, that seems like the crux of everything you assert. You have made no logical arguments, nor have you made any attempt to connect your assertions to mundane experience or scientific research. All you have, are your claims of omniscience, and some appeals to (selective parts of) Buddhist authority.

 

Any willingness to explain why you (non-)believe that your (non-) view allows the (non-)you to see the "true nature of reality"?

you don't need omniscience to see facts of emptiness, dependent origination, no self, and so on.

 

Everything is just manifestation and no self can be found inside or apart from it

[Informer]

no ego clinging means no clinging at a true existent self

 

My quoted passages are as clear as can be.

 

Self is a mere convention but no selfness of self can be located in or outside the aggregates.

 

The Buddha already clearly said this so did countless other buddhist masters

 

Xabir, no matter how clear you percieve the passages to be, it still is in reference to self and ego.

 

It says Nothing about: you don't exist, I don't exist, or they don't exist . . etc.

[Otis]

you don't need omniscience to see facts of emptiness, dependent origination, no self, and so on.

 

Everything is just manifestation and no self can be found inside or apart from it

You DO need to be omniscient to know the "true nature of things".

 

For example, above you called something "permanent", but of course, the only way you could justify saying this, is if you had existed for all time, and witnessed that indeed, that permanence was true.

 

In the classic "blind men and the elephant" story, no matter how clear you think your vision is, you can still only experience the part of the elephant which is immediately available (in time and space and breadth of senses, etc.). Only an omniscient being could see the "true nature" of the world, because what is available to an individual is just the flow which immediately surrounds him/her.

 

How would you "know" things which are beyond your experience?

 

How can you know that you are not deluded, since the exact same facilities (consciousness, senses, etc.) which compare your interpretation of the world to the world itself, are the very same facilities with which you engage the world? You are just comparing your view with your view, and pronouncing it "reality".

 

Are you always right about everything? Can you predict any physical phenomena, in its entirety, ad infinitum? If not, then you should question your claims to seeing "the true nature of reality".

[JustARandomPanda]

Xabir, have you realized/attained Buddhahood via D.O and Shunyata?

 

*is curious*

[Marblehead]

It says Nothing about: you don't exist, I don't exist, or they don't exist . . etc.

 

Stop that!!! I exist! Hehehe. I have an ego too. "I" am my "Self". No, I am not going to describe what all makes up "me". Far too much to consider and I would likely miss 75% of what all makes "me".

 

But now I have to go pee pee.

 

C U Later

[Birch]

no ego clinging means no clinging at a true existent self

 

My quoted passages are as clear as can be.

 

Self is a mere convention but no selfness of self can be located in or outside the aggregates.

 

The Buddha already clearly said this so did countless other buddhist masters

 

 

I'm not sure I'd equate 'self' with 'mere convention'. Conventions hold a lot of power. Actually, I was wondering this morning whether this 'self' term hadn't gotten all mixed up with 'Brahman' at one point? Is 'self' really the translated term?

 

My current experience of 'no self' is that beyond the silly stories and thoughts "about" myself there's still a 'being' which in its relationship with everything else forms a unique expression of, well, itself and everything else:-) So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.

[JustARandomPanda]

My current experience of 'no self' is that beyond the silly stories and thoughts "about" myself there's still a 'being' which in its relationship with everything else forms a unique expression of, well, itself and everything else:-) So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.

 

Fascinating.

 

So -K-, I take it you've directly experienced this "no-self" realization Xabir is talking about?

[goldisheavy]

Fascinating. I once used this same line explaining how I have intellectually come to understand some Buddhist teachings but GiH corrected me saying this line of thinking is wrong. In order for thinking to exist, he said it must reflect off Mind. Without Mind there would be no seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, etc. In order for these things to arise they must reflect off Mind like one's image reflects off a mirror. Or at least I think that's what he said.

 

I confess I still do not know how to reconcile what he said with Buddhist teachings. Of course I later found out that GiH no longer agrees with many Buddhist teachings so it may be this is one of those things where he thinks Buddhism (or at least some Buddhists) gets it wrong? In this line of thinking at least it sounded to me like GiH inclined a bit more toward agreeing with some Hindu-ish explanations.

 

OK, when I was talking about the mirror, I asked not to take the comparison literally.

 

The mind is like the mirror only in some ways but not in the others. For example, the mirror is usually considered to be a thing in its own right, but the mind I spoke of is not a thing among things. The mind is like the mirror in its effortless and purity aspects. The mirror doesn't struggle to reflect, and the mind doesn't struggle to cognize. That's the effortlessness aspect. The mirror can reflect dirt without getting dirty itself and the mind can cognize dirt without getting dirty itself also. That's the purity aspect. Because the mind is unique there is no example for it in the natural world that is 100% accurate. Thus, no example should be taken literally. If the mirror is facing away from us, it reflects nothing. The mind cannot face toward or away from anything and it cognizes one experience or another at all times. Mirrors don't have intentionality, minds do. Mirrors are dead and the minds are alive.

 

And when it comes to saying things like "In seeing, just the seen" these kinds of expressions have a good side and a bad side. Just like the formulaic example of the mirror is not accurate 100%, neither is the formulaic saying "in seeing, just the seen."

 

So the good, helpful side of saying "in seeing, just the seen" is that it gives you an idea not to construe whatever is suggested by appearances. So for example, when an ordinary person sees an appearance suggestive of wood, such being thinks, "Aha, I am looking at wood." Even if such thinking doesn't arise explicitly, there is an implicit belief that there is an actual substance of wood behind the appearance of wood. We can say upon seeing an appearance suggestive of wood, an ordinary being construes wood. Upon seeing an appearance suggestive of the sky, an ordinary being construes the sky. Upon seeing an appearance suggestive of distance, an ordinary being construes distance. Upon seeing an appearance suggestive of earth, an ordinary being construes earth. So ordinary beings are lead away by the suggestions inherent in all the appearances. So the positive quality of saying "in seeing just the seen" is that if you're seeing an appearance suggestive of a wooden table, you're not construing a wooden table. In other words, you don't reify the appearance. It also means you don't strain to see something other than whatever appears. So there is implied relaxation and effortlessness. So if you see a wooden table in front of you, you can relax with that vision without trying to see dependent arising there or any other thing or non-thing. In other words, you don't have to be mentally busy. It means whatever experiences appear to your conscious awareness, they are all effortless and relaxing appearances, like clouds passing effortlessly through the sky without leaving a trace.

 

So for an example of how to see suggestive appearances without construing what they suggest, consider the following. When you go see the movies, and in the movies you see a wooden table take shape on the movie screen, it appears as though there is a table there made of wood, but you know there is actually nothing other than the movie screen and the projector generating an appearance suggestive of wood. So while you are watching the movies you are not led away by the suggestive appearances (unless you forget it's just a movie). Like all examples, again, this example is not to be taken literally. (So in the movies you're just a passive observer, while in life you're an active participant, etc.)

 

But there is also a negative side to saying "in seeing, just the seen." The negative side is that it gives the person an impression that all meanings arise from their own side. So for example, if you're experience an appearance suggestive of a wooden table, even though you don't construe an actual wooden table, you may think the meaning of "tableness" comes directly from the seen independent of any other factors. In other words, why do tables look like tables? Why don't tables change shape arbitrarily when you look at them? So obviously it's somewhat deceitful to say "in seeing, just the seen." So then you may realize the meaning of a table has no meaning outside the meaning of a surface, and it has no meaning outside the idea that the surface of a table is usually flat, and tables make no sense without the corresponding meanings of up and down, nor do tables make any sense without the idea of object integrity, meaning, things don't pass through the surface of the table. And we generally understand tables are not the same as desks, and a kitchen counter while having a flat surface is not a table either. The ideas of up and down make no sense without the ideas of physical space. The idea of a table also makes no sense without the idea of convenience and the idea of convenience makes no sense without the idea of some being who is to benefit from convenience. So the contextuality of meaning stretches infinitely. Each known meaning is contextualized by all other known meanings, and all known meanings are also contextualized by currently unknown potential meanings. So contextualization is endless and without contextualization meanings would not mean anything. So the appearance suggestive of a wooden table is not meaningful from its own side. The meaning of wood is not itself replete with "woodness" and the meaning of a table is not itself replete with "tableness". The meaning of the table needs to involve the known and the unknown universes of meaning to really be what it is. Same goes for the meaning of wood. So from this point of view instead of saying "in seeing there is just the seen" it's more accurate to say "in seeing there is the whole known universe and the currently unknown universe of limitless potential."

 

I've also explained the innerness of vision. Imagine a bunch of black dots randomly flying against white background. When the black dots are randomly positioned, they look only like a bunch of disparate dots. Now imagine those dots fly into the shape of a cat. Where is the cat? The cat is not in the dots. It's in your mind. If you didn't already know what cats look like it would be impossible for you to recognize the shape of a cat in the dots' arrangement. Then imagine the dots separate and fly around again. Again they look like dots. Now the dots fly into the shape of letters. What if you didn't know what letters looked like? Would such an appearance have any meaning to you? Of course not. So where are the letters? They are in your mind again. The letters are not in the dots. In fact, this computer screen works like that. It simply lights up various pixels and it looks as though things appear on the screen. In reality things appear in your mind and not "out there" on the screen. If you didn't already know what these things might be like, then the pixel lighting arrangements would mean nothing to you and wouldn't be recognizable as anything at all. That's the innerness of vision. So if you understand what I am pointing at, then you'll also understand when you're walking along a street and the street appears to you, it's not "out there". It's in your mind. You're walking in your own mind and seeing the street in your own mind. Apart from your own mind, there is no street to be seen and nowhere to walk.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.

Precisely.. it's a bit like inventing a problem so you can find a solution..

 

As i have posted previously, "We are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle"..

 

Be well..

[Birch]

Fascinating.

 

So -K-, I take it you've directly experienced this "no-self" realization Xabir is talking about?

 

I've had experiences that I'd describe as something like that. But they don't last (thank god) and after them I get back to being me with a very clear sense that I am and other people are and the world is and religions suck.

[goldisheavy]

Mind is the fact of knowing. There is no way to think and not know that you're thinking. People tend to associate the mind with a thing, like say, the brain, or the body, and they tend to locate the mind in the world as if it were a thing among things. Sometimes people completely reify the mind and claim that the mind is not just associated with a thing, but that it is a thing in its own right. Believing that the mind is a thing is a limiting belief. (ex: the mind is the brain) Believing that the mind is associated with any one thing is a limiting belief. (ex: the mind is associated with the brain) Failing to recognize the mind at all is also limiting, because if you ignore the fact of intentional knowing, you'll never be the master of knowing. You can't master that which you ignore. Hence mindfulness.

 

So for example, people pay attention to world appearances such as cars, tables, bodies, the sky and so on. They don't ignore these. Because of that, people acquire a limited amount of mastery related to the limited amount of non-ignoring that people engage in. That's why people know how to build cars, and when the pipes get clogged, people know how to unclog them, but only in a mechanical and non-magical manner which is always consistent with the suggestions inherent in worldly appearances. This is why a car mechanic cannot wave a feather to fix the car.

 

But people pay attention in a limited way because people are lead astray by the suggestions inherent in appearances. So by paying attention to worldly appearances in a worldly manner people somewhat ignore their own minds. By viewing their own minds through the lens of 10,000 misconceptions regarding their own minds people somewhat ignore the truth of their own minds. So worldly paying attention is a kind of ignorance.

 

When you pay attention to the truth of your own mind you have a heavenly attention instead of a worldly one. Heavenly attention is also a kind of ignorance because it somewhat ignores the suggestions inherent in appearances. Heavenly attention grants one power over the process of knowing, and thus, over all appearances, but this power is limited because it doesn't include all the modalities of worldly ignorance into its sphere.

 

You can pick and choose your own limitations. So in a sense you're not limited because limitations are intentional and temporary.

[Todd]

And when it comes to saying things like "In seeing, just the seen" these kinds of expressions have a good side and a bad side. Just like the formulaic example of the mirror is not accurate 100%, neither is the formulaic saying "in seeing, just the seen."

 

 

 

This is good.

 

So the good, helpful side of saying "in seeing, just the seen" is that it gives you an idea not to construe whatever is suggested by appearances. So for example, when an ordinary person sees an appearance suggestive of wood, such being thinks, "Aha, I am looking at wood." Even if such thinking doesn't arise explicitly, there is an implicit belief that there is an actual substance of wood behind the appearance of wood.

 

It is not just substance of wood that is construed, but the substance of an "I" who is looking at wood. You included it in your example, "Aha, I am looking at wood." I think this is another viewpoint that "in seeing, just the seen" can loosen, and I think that this is the main reason that Xabir refers to it. The negative aspect of this is that such an absence can be reified.

 

I enjoyed your pointing out the other aspects of the phrase.

[xabir2005]

Xabir, no matter how clear you percieve the passages to be, it still is in reference to self and ego.

 

It says Nothing about: you don't exist, I don't exist, or they don't exist . . etc.

what is being analyzed is self, not ego. It is very clear.

 

You should also read bahiya sutta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html?m=0

[xabir2005]

You DO need to be omniscient to know the "true nature of things".

 

For example, above you called something "permanent", but of course, the only way you could justify saying this, is if you had existed for all time, and witnessed that indeed, that permanence was true.

 

In the classic "blind men and the elephant" story, no matter how clear you think your vision is, you can still only experience the part of the elephant which is immediately available (in time and space and breadth of senses, etc.). Only an omniscient being could see the "true nature" of the world, because what is available to an individual is just the flow which immediately surrounds him/her.

 

How would you "know" things which are beyond your experience?

 

How can you know that you are not deluded, since the exact same facilities (consciousness, senses, etc.) which compare your interpretation of the world to the world itself, are the very same facilities with which you engage the world? You are just comparing your view with your view, and pronouncing it "reality".

 

Are you always right about everything? Can you predict any physical phenomena, in its entirety, ad infinitum? If not, then you should question your claims to seeing "the true nature of reality".

I am not omniscient about the contents of phenomena (buddha is, however)

 

What I do know is that the nature of all phenomena is that they cannot arise without causes and conditions, each manifestation arises due to dependent origination and hence is empty. What kind of causes and conditions for what manifestation, I may not know all... But the basic fact of dependent origination is always so. It cannot be otherwise.

 

I also know impermanence, no-self, to be facts via direct realization into the nature of dharmas.

 

They are called Dharma Seals by Buddha because this is the characteristic of reality that can be realized.

[xabir2005]

This is good.

 

 

 

It is not just substance of wood that is construed, but the substance of an "I" who is looking at wood. You included it in your example, "Aha, I am looking at wood." I think this is another viewpoint that "in seeing, just the seen" can loosen, and I think that this is the main reason that Xabir refers to it. The negative aspect of this is that such an absence can be reified.

 

I enjoyed your pointing out the other aspects of the phrase.

yes. I was referring to the emptiness of subject.

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

I'm not sure I'd equate 'self' with 'mere convention'. Conventions hold a lot of power. Actually, I was wondering this morning whether this 'self' term hadn't gotten all mixed up with 'Brahman' at one point? Is 'self' really the translated term?

 

My current experience of 'no self' is that beyond the silly stories and thoughts "about" myself there's still a 'being' which in its relationship with everything else forms a unique expression of, well, itself and everything else:-) So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.

what you described is not anatta.

 

There is not "being", only "becoming". Just as wind is only blowing.

 

Your sense of self is due to the view of inherency.

 

As for brahman: it is an inherent true self.

 

Buddhism rejects the notion of a true existent.

[TzuJanLi]

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Xabir

 

There is a great difference in your approach to spirituality compared to others on this thread and the tao bums in general. In a majority of your posts there is an over reliance on proof by authority rather than secular explanations of your realizations. Much of your statements are no more than "this is a realization, because it's in this quote" (not to mention that all those quotes can be interpreted differently in wider contexts). Or more frighteningly, "this is just how it is, because I see it that way." There is a noticeable lack of just... explanations.

 

I don't see how this is different than a Christian fundamentalist exclaiming, "I realize everything is made by God, because as it is said in passage x in the Bible" or "I know God is up there in the sky. I see it that way and you don't." If you have direct realizations of the nature of reality, why not just explain it in your own language, rather than using lofty terms like "dependent origination" or "emptiness" or at least explain them according to how you've come to understand them? I think a lot of Buddhist jargon alienates people who have chosen to rely on their personal abilities to reason and wade through authoritative dogma.

 

And because many spiritual practitioners have respect for Buddhism, it does disservice to take advantage of this by throwing quotes at people, making it look like you are the master of Buddhist teachings. It's even more insulting to tell people to go read some hand picked sutra when you are well aware that many Buddhist sutras are diverse in their teachings and sometimes seemingly contradictory in meaning. It's also as if you are already assuming that that person should succumb to Buddhist teachings. This isn't a Buddhist board like dharmawheel.net. If Namdrol posted on thetaobums the way he does on that board, it would look like sheer religious dogma because he chooses to explain things only in Buddhist terms.

[Lucky7Strikes]

you don't need omniscience to see facts of emptiness, dependent origination, no self, and so on.

 

Everything is just manifestation and no self can be found inside or apart from it

This is an example of replying to a sensible post from Otis without any explanations but just flat out, "this is just the way it is!"

[thuscomeone]

My god, Xabir. You are so trapped in your own view. You claim that my insights are wrong. Yet, guess what? My insights are the truth of what you claim to have realized -- "emptiness is form." You are ignorant even of the truth you claim to know. You have not seen what emptiness is form is pointing to. You are still ignorant of it. Every response you type up is the same thing. Same quotes, same repetitive words. You have gone far, but not far enough.

 

I knew you would claim that I'm being a substantialist. When I alk about "this", it is talking about YOU. For gods sake, man. You can't even see your own nose in front of your face. YOU are the most undeniable fact that there is. Seeing, hearing, smelling, thinking. These are undeniable. But these facts are beyond and before concepts."The eternal now" is referring to presence, being. It is before ANY description -- including d.o. Whatever you want to call it. It's just a fact. To me, right now, you don't understand much. You don't understand

 

1.) The nature of the self. This is the most important thing.

 

2.) How attachment to the content of any thought is what creates the self.

 

3.) Time as attachment to concepts in relation to the timeless as beyond attachment to concepts.

 

4.) The nature of suffering as attachment to concepts. Which creates time, becoming, suffering, division, comparison. Fear, anxiety, stress, etc.

 

5.) "rebirth" as #4 above

 

6.) And most embarassing, is that you don't even understand d.o. The very "truth" that you incessantly preach here. You don't get that it is NOT truth, it is NOT how things are. It is NOT a fact. It is skillful means that lead you beyond it. Again, JUST skillful means. And how don't get how d.o. leads to seeing 1-5 above.

[xabir2005]

@ Xabir

 

There is a great difference in your approach to spirituality compared to others on this thread and the tao bums in general. In a majority of your posts there is an over reliance on proof by authority rather than secular explanations of your realizations. Much of your statements are no more than "this is a realization, because it's in this quote" (not to mention that all those quotes can be interpreted differently in wider contexts). Or more frighteningly, "this is just how it is, because I see it that way." There is a noticeable lack of just... explanations.

 

I don't see how this is different than a Christian fundamentalist exclaiming, "I realize everything is made by God, because as it is said in passage x in the Bible" or "I know God is up there in the sky. I see it that way and you don't." If you have direct realizations of the nature of reality, why not just explain it in your own language, rather than using lofty terms like "dependent origination" or "emptiness" or at least explain them according to how you've come to understand them? I think a lot of Buddhist jargon alienates people who have chosen to rely on their personal abilities to reason and wade through authoritative dogma.

 

And because many spiritual practitioners have respect for Buddhism, it does disservice to take advantage of this by throwing quotes at people, making it look like you are the master of Buddhist teachings. It's even more insulting to tell people to go read some hand picked sutra when you are well aware that many Buddhist sutras are diverse in their teachings and sometimes seemingly contradictory in meaning. It's also as if you are already assuming that that person should succumb to Buddhist teachings. This isn't a Buddhist board like dharmawheel.net. If Namdrol posted on thetaobums the way he does on that board, it would look like sheer religious dogma because he chooses to explain things only in Buddhist terms.

actually I have given analysis and reasonings. I have quoted chandrakirti.. There is an article on the sevenfold reasonings of selflessness, its a good read. http://awakeningtore...nquiry.html?m=0

 

This article is also good: http://awakeningtore...irk%20Mosig?m=0

 

 

There is a limit to reasonings and explanation though. They can lead to an intellectual conviction, but doesn't lead one to the actual non conceptual, non inferential direct seeing.

 

Like asking, why is mind luminous? Why is mind empty? Why is phenomena impermanent? Why does grasping and craving result in suffering?

 

This is obviously the nature of all experiences... And this is simply seen to be so, no 'why'.

 

Just like when you realize I AM, you don't say I AM because... Or when you realize non dual, you don't say, I infer that consciousness should be non dual because....rather It is simply seen to be so, the nature of consciousness. These are just some plain obvious facts about the nature of mind that can be discovered through an experiential investigation.

 

But when explaining of course, some reasonings and analysis can be offered or discuss, but they only reach so far.