'No self' my experience so far...

[Informer]

Actually you said "Feel free to answer with an opinion" in response to me. Why are you acting like a child?

 

The opinion is noted, and says quite a bit about you.

[Sunya]

The opinion is noted, and says quite a bit about you.

 

Yeah, I don't like children

[Informer]

Yeah, I don't like children

 

Ah, but it is your perspective which lends me that insight.

 

Nice to meet you

 

Thank you for sharing.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Informer

[Vajrahridaya]

Vaj, would you say there is no soul?

 

Inherently no, relatively yes... and this relativity of the individual mind stream goes very, very deep and is connected to all being of many dimensions.

 

You can tell when people are in touch with their soul, there is love in their eyes, a sense of compassion and a sense of reason. People who are out of touch with their soul have an emptiness (not in the Buddhist sense) in the eyes and only have external, physical level awareness and even in the recesses of their own mind, it's only social thinking, no contemplation. "What are they going to think of me, how should I dress, what looks good?" Etc. We generally have that to one degree or another, but there are people who live there lives never enriching their inner life with spiritual, soul-istic contemplation.

 

But really... there is no soul, it's a subtle relative arising as deep as the alayavijnana, inter-dependent and without self essence.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah, I don't like children

 

Aw Sunya... sweet innocent kid's? Come on... what do they have to do with this? LOL!

 

[Informer]

Inherently no, relatively yes... and this relativity of the individual mind stream goes very, very deep and is connected to all being of many dimensions.

 

You can tell when people are in touch with their soul, there is love in their eyes, a sense of compassion and a sense of reason. People who are out of touch with their soul have an emptiness (not in the Buddhist sense) in the eyes and only have external, physical level awareness and even in the recesses of their own mind, it's only social thinking, no contemplation. "What are they going to think of me, how should I dress, what looks good?" Etc. We generally have that to one degree or another, but there are people who live there lives never enriching their inner life with spiritual, soul-istic contemplation.

 

But really... there is no soul, it's a subtle relative arising as deep as the alayavijnana, inter-dependent and without self essence.

 

You are referring to the Eighth Consciousness of the Mahayana, which could be equivallent to a soul, just not so termed, or a different way of defining it.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are referring to the Eighth Consciousness of the Mahayana, which could be equivallent to a soul, just not so termed, or a different way of defining it.

 

Only because, generally speaking, the context that the term "soul" takes place in is in Christianity, and it's something of an inherent, and individually unique existence. The mystics expand on this concept more so, but still lead more to eternalistic view points about it so would not lead to the same level of realization as someone following the path via the middle.

[Sunya]

Only because, generally speaking, the context that the term "soul" takes place in is in Christianity, and it's something of an inherent, and individually unique existence. The mystics expand on this concept more so, but still lead more to eternalistic view points about it so would not lead to the same level of realization as someone following the path via the middle.

 

I think the concept 'soul' prevents people from realizing that there is no separation between subject/object, self and world. The idea of soul is an independent immortal body, so it's just another form of self but not physical. Clinging to this notion will prevent people from getting past the sense that they are a separate being looking out at the world through behind the eyes, which only causes suffering. Even modern mystics who are into OBE or soul travel talk about the soul as having senses, so they are still very much stuck on the self-concept.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think the concept 'soul' prevents people from realizing that there is no separation between subject/object, self and world. The idea of soul is an independent immortal body, so it's just another form of self but not physical. Clinging to this notion will prevent people from getting past the sense that they are a separate being looking out at the world through behind the eyes, which only causes suffering. Even modern mystics who are into OBE or soul travel talk about the soul as having senses, so they are still very much stuck on the self-concept.

 

I agree.

[Informer]

I think the concept 'soul' prevents people from realizing that there is no separation between subject/object, self and world. The idea of soul is an independent immortal body, so it's just another form of self but not physical. Clinging to this notion will prevent people from getting past the sense that they are a separate being looking out at the world through behind the eyes, which only causes suffering. Even modern mystics who are into OBE or soul travel talk about the soul as having senses, so they are still very much stuck on the self-concept.

 

Who are you to decide?

 

Do you think you consider you a shepherd?

[Maddie]

I was reading the original post and found it very interesting. So yesterday what started off as doing a Vipassana session to deal with desire led to the contemplation of what self really is or isn't. This happened several times yesterday and this morning when I originally did meditation to look into desire, craving, and stuff like that. Each time it eventually kept coming back to "but what is this self"?

 

I also read that when Seth got to this point things got very intense for a while, and that also seems to be how my day feels today. So I'm trying to sort this out, but since I'm in the midst of it, its a little confusing.

[Maddie]

Found this to be interesting

 

I've noticed that for what ever reason it seems like the deeper insight I get into the "no-self" I have a corresponding emotional protest from my subconscious. weird.

 

Also found this fascinating

http://www.no-self.com/

Edited May 20, 2013 by dmattwads

[C T]

Just find out if your awareness is static or fluid. Its this same awareness that is used to locate the self. Some folks do have quite a static awareness, hence their notion of the self is lodged quite firmly in their relationship with things around them. Those who possess a more fluid awareness will fare a bit better in dislodging the natural tendency to grasp or reject things, in light of which the potential causes of discontent or suffering could be allayed.

 

Meditation in many ways is the continuous practice to limber up the awareness so that we do not remain stuck in terms of past, present and future mind. Perhaps by becoming unstuck gradually, and being aware of this in each and every moment, is another way of saying 'no self'.

[Simple_Jack]

Found this to be interesting

 

I've noticed that for what ever reason it seems like the deeper insight I get into the "no-self" I have a corresponding emotional protest from my subconscious. weird.

 

Also found this fascinating

http://www.no-self.com/

 

Those two sources are just going to throw you off instead of clarifying anatta for you: they are best to be avoided if you want an accurate understanding of anatta. The latter especially will just put you in an endless loop of affirmation and negation or worst, easily leading to reification (i.e. 'You' are not your body; 'You' are not your personality; 'You' are not your thoughts, etc. It doesn't help either, when it says at the top of the page: "proof that We are All One").

 

It's best if you go by authoritative sources from the traditions where this concept comes from, especially if you want an accurate understanding. For this, one of the best references to go to is the traditional suttas:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

 

Alwayson, had it right, when he said that you are only a bundle of 5 skandha. It doesn't get any easier to understand anatta if you only remember this. Don't succumb to the trap of interpretations such as "ego", "awareness", "Being", etc.

 

Understand the 3 characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) and investigate them in all sensate experiences; each moment to moment, keeping mindful of how they arise and cease.

 

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Munindra

"Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing.

 

As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on."

 

~ Living This Life Fully: Stories and Teachings of Munindra by Mirka Knaster

[Maddie]

Ah that's wise advice. I felt myself settling down as I read it haha. That website did have me confused lol.

[hydrogen]

Anyway, someone suggested shifting focus, and lying in bed one night, contemplating the days discussions I suddenly 'saw' as clear as day that I have never seen the slightest evidence for this 'alleged self' and there is quite clearly - No self! Never has been, never will be.

 

I kind of agree on "never has been". I don't know I agree on "never will be".

 

To be honest, I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

[paulno]

This very post sent me out on my quest to learn about nonduality. While the phiosophy is more than intriguing, I was dismayed to find how many charlatans are involved in it. But, you could say that about every and any ideology under the sun.

 

There's a site called Buddha At The Gas Pump run by a guy named Rich Archer. He does a great job of interviewing Nonduality teachers, facilitators, guides, gurus etc. Anyone who is interested should check it out.

[Jetsun]

If your worried about charlatans find a lineage of teachers because if a master can bring students to a realization he must have some knowledge, so for this sort of teaching one lineage is Ramana Maharshi » Papaji » Mooji, who have some interesting things to say about no self. There are quite a few good videos of Mooji on YouTube, he says his path is the "lazy man's way to enlightenment" lol or others would say its the direct path.

[paulno]

I'm not really focused on the charlatans. Just mentioning them. Mooji does have some good stuff.