2 step awakening process

[johndoe2012]

Maybe someone will like this talk here

 

http://www.en.openheart.fi/113

 

Contains a video on how to dissolve the sense of self.

[Stosh]

Instead, why dont you KEEP your sense of self, take ownership of your name ,and be a decent person going forward, since theres no virtue in not existing.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Instead, why dont you KEEP your sense of self, take ownership of your name ,and be a decent person going forward, since theres no virtue in not existing.

I didnt even click the link but what Stosh said makes a lot of sense in many situations.

[Aetherous]

I think it's only a Buddhist concept that our sense of selfhood is the root of all negativity.

For instance, let's say someone insults you in a very demeaning way in public, in front of some people that you're trying to impress...that kind of situation can lead to pretty strong feelings - perhaps of embarrassment, inadequacy, shame, anger, fear, etc. All of these unwanted feelings lead to bad results, like committing negative actions...even experiencing them is bad...the opposite of peace. On the other hand, if a person isn't operating from a sense of self, that could happen to them but they're not trying to defend anything. They could be fully aware that the insulting person is being rude, but it doesn't stir them up at all. There's no place for the negativity to stick in them. They would be just as calm as if it hadn't happened.

The theory goes that if you could sever the problem at the root, if you could be liberated from the notion of yourself, then there would only be peace and therefore enlightenment.

This is really only an aspect of the skillful means of Buddhist enlightenment, I think. Other forms of enlightenment might depend on not having negative emotions, too, but they don't encourage such mental gymnastics as becoming unaware of oneself as a self. Some others might even expand the territory of oneself as a "skillful means"...for instance, if there is some emotional problem, becoming aware of the scope of the universe and our place in it can kind of ameliorate the intensity of the issue. We're just a speck on earth, one of billions...throughout history, so many trillions of people have lived and died with the same problems as us, or worse. How are we any different? Beyond earth, there are so many planets in just our galaxy...and there are so many galaxies, many bigger than our own. We don't know how many different populated places exist. To really contemplate this and imagine it shows us the signficance of our emotional problem...very small. So this is an example of mind training that maintains the self, even expanding its territory.

I think people naturally take up and abandon the sense of self throughout the day. It's not like non-Buddhists have a sense of self that's always there...nor is it like Buddhists have a lack of a sense of self (if they truly did, they'd be a Buddha, I think). When we're listening to a song we love, there's not a sense of self there...it's just the experience. The notion of onself is taken up as is necessary, or as is habitually done.

[Stosh]

Thats well said. im not Buddhist, , though I like some of yalls stuff. Even so ,I dislike this whole trying not to exist thing. Yeah, If I didnt exist I wouldnt have any arguments. I wouldnt make any noises, eat food take up space, or breathe air . That much is undoubtedly true. But without the mental construct I dont think you can take care of your family, earn your wage, challenge badness etc. Im sue folks would say otherwise, I just dont believe it. Even my cat ! has a sense of self,.

My proof for her is very simple, ,she can tell where she is relative to her food bowl. To get to it she must have 1 an idea that it exists and she exists , 2 the idea that its not under her nose 3 motivation to eat

One could argue that she can move her limbs not knowing why nor having expectation that the bowl will have food. But when she finishes the food , even if she is still hungry, she walks away, without searching, So she must know that food is not there now. ..and had no expectation that its elsewhere, she understands that she ate it.

Anyway ,so even if someone masters the mental gymnastic of dissolving the sense of self while sitting on a cushion, eventually they will have to at least perform like they still have a self.

[johndoe2012]

Thats well said. im not Buddhist, , though I like some of yalls stuff. Even so ,I dislike this whole trying not to exist thing. Yeah, If I didnt exist I wouldnt have any arguments. I wouldnt make any noises, eat food take up space, or breathe air . That much is undoubtedly true. But without the mental construct I dont think you can take care of your family, earn your wage, challenge badness etc. Im sue folks would say otherwise, I just dont believe it. Even my cat ! has a sense of self,.

My proof for her is very simple, ,she can tell where she is relative to her food bowl. To get to it she must have 1 an idea that it exists and she exists , 2 the idea that its not under her nose 3 motivation to eat

One could argue that she can move her limbs not knowing why nor having expectation that the bowl will have food. But when she finishes the food , even if she is still hungry, she walks away, without searching, So she must know that food is not there now. ..and had no expectation that its elsewhere, she understands that she ate it.

Anyway ,so even if someone masters the mental gymnastic of dissolving the sense of self while sitting on a cushion, eventually they will have to at least perform like they still have a self.

So a cloud also has a sense of self because it should know where it is going?

 

So we can include the wind and other phenomenon too.

[Stosh]

So a cloud also has a sense of self because it should know where it is going?

So we can include the wind and other phenomenon too.

We arent clouds and dont know What they think. Can the wind eat a bowl of rice? Edited March 12, 2017 by Stosh

[johndoe2012]

We arent clouds and dont know What they think. Can the wind eat a bowl of rice?

Maybe... In another dimension :-)

Edited March 12, 2017 by johndoe2012

[johndoe2012]

Stosh according to your argument about the cat take a look at this

 

 

It is a car using machine learning to do drift in a circle.

 

So this car has memory and learns the environment and has some kind of sensory feedback.

 

Thus the car must have a sense of self according to your theory.

[dwai]

Stosh according to your argument about the cat take a look at this

 

https://youtu.be/opsmd5yuBF0

 

It is a car using machine learning to do drift in a circle.

 

So this car has memory and learns the environment and has some kind of sensory feedback.

 

Thus the car must have a sense of self according to your theory.

Is the car aware of itself? You and I are

[Spotless]

It is interesting to see the topic derailed in concepts from of the illusion. Assumptions built on assumptions built from position - all fear based.

 

It has been derailed from the standpoint of pinheadedness and with the puffery that is instilled from the illusion it has ingratiated upon itself the notions that limiting "I" ness is the better Way - like arguing that ignorance is bliss and better.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Spotless

[Spotless]

I make no argument for the video - did not view it but did look at some of the written material.

In general ungluing ourselves and Awakening can be viewed as an expansion from the cat and mouse self "I" - nothing is lost whatsoever - clarification takes place and massive continuing expansion vs increasing constriction and solidification in position, ignorance and eventually flatline.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Spotless

[Spotless]

 

Of course we can sit with our cup of drink, pinkies flared out and peck back and forth but the arguement for onesidedness / ignorance / "I" "me" / the Bliss of obscurance - is conceptual and has its only standing from within its trenches - trenches so high that it cannot see above them and can only hear echoes from within it.

[Stosh]

We Are still circling the subject , the car does simulate a learning process , there is a physical feedback loop. But we dont consider the car to have volition , the action of the car is direct consequence of the physical parameters which are designed into it. More complicated but essentially Like falling down stairs. So far, that Can indeed be considered identical to the mechanism for living creatures ,as it seems to be to an outside observer, however ,The idea to circle the target or not, however, did exist ,it was the engineers. Without the directions of the engineer , the components would just sit still. The generalized idea of food exists for the cat, the car doesnt generalize. A sophisticated robot can mimic having symbolic thought , but you end up requiring volition somewhere in the process.

So lets say you are walking zombielike , where is it you will go? why will it eat ,wipe its bum ,hug its kids?

[Brian]

Food for thought:

Integrated Information Theory

[Aetherous]

An important distinction to make regarding no-self, is that our ideas of what that way of being is like can be misleading...even if they're very reasonable from the perspective they come from. It's not necessarily true that we'd become zombies...that's just a guess about what it'd be like.

Actually, we already have no self experiences from time to time each day, and we're not zombies. It's just any time that we're in pure experience, and not thinking about ourselves.

Here's something to consider: it's a fact that our sense of self is entirely a mental construct. Of course, we're distinct people with distinct personalities (that is not only a mental construct)...but our notions of ourselves are just notions. Now, what if we operated from this real perspective at all times, viewing the construct as only a construct that's taken up as needed? We could still utilize the sense of self, but it wouldn't come with the attachment that believing we are the notion of ourselves comes with. Our perspective would be more accurate.

Anyway...it's a huge challenge to try and intellectually understand no-self. Tibetan Buddhism has people experience it through practices...it has to be experiential to be truly understood. What it's actually like is more about liberation, equanimity, and clarity...than it is about being brain dead.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Aetherous

[Stosh]

Id say yeah, we are not paying attention to our being individuals much of the time. Starting there, 1 its no big trick to do. 2, we need no instruction 3 We all do in fact know what this is. 4 If we do drop out of that terriffic mode, we probably have good reason to do so ,as we see it. If we have reason to drop out of that mode then artificially training ourselves not to reduces our viability or reduces some of the things we value.

I think we need this sense of self to recognize our own family, body, needs ,and capabilities. Can I jump that obstacle? If I dont know who I am , and how healthy I feel , I cant conclude yes or no.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Even if you're fully aware and accepting of yourself, mechanisms of clinging, bias and projection, isnt there room for error and dynamic change in behaviour, response and so on?

If it's skillful means and right thinking then shouldnt the focus be on dealing properly with as little disturbance as possible instead of magically only caring about and reacting to certain things?

I dont get buddhism very well, i like the no-nonsense of zen, but if the goal for those who arent awake is to wake up and pierce the veil of their illusions, that sounds like accepting that the reins are in their hands just as much as simply being a lowly driver of a worn buggy somewhere in the middle of a pretty unimportant and filthy place?

 

I'm not trying to be slick, i just dont understand how to tie the bag together really...

[Stosh]

Even if you're fully aware and accepting of yourself, mechanisms of clinging, bias and projection, isnt there room for error and dynamic change in behaviour, response and so on?

If it's skillful means and right thinking then shouldnt the focus be on dealing properly with as little disturbance as possible instead of magically only caring about and reacting to certain things?

I dont get buddhism very well, i like the no-nonsense of zen, but if the goal for those who arent awake is to wake up and pierce the veil of their illusions, that sounds like accepting that the reins are in their hands just as much as simply being a lowly driver of a worn buggy somewhere in the middle of a pretty unimportant and filthy place?

I'm not trying to be slick, i just dont understand how to tie the bag together really...

I suppose theres room for improvement,,I certainly can set a goal fo me to try to get to. Caring about onesself is Magical? Interesting idea, I dont know what to think of that. Hmmmmmm

[Stosh]

If, you the zen thing, I take it ,you .. sit zazen and consider it ... maintenance? You,, like it ? Thats practical.

[z00se]

Thats well said. im not Buddhist, , though I like some of yalls stuff. Even so ,I dislike this whole trying not to exist thing.

 

That's well said too... "I like some of" .... "I dislike this whole"...

 

I think deciding what's right or what's wrong is less important than deciding what i like or what i don't like, so long as the decision is taken from a point of experience not assumption.

 

People seem to be drawn to (and like) things that balance them, so then those predispositioned to focus on the self get the most benefits from practices that help lose themselves, and those that have lost themselves gain more by focusing on themselves. I think aspects of different cultures leads to the type of popular practices in those regions.

 

Feeling my way through, from practices i've borrowed from different paths selfless to self centered I can know whats best for me at any particular time.

 

So a cloud also has a sense of self because it should know where it is going?

 

So we can include the wind and other phenomenon too.

 

 

Clouds float along, they have little root, little sense of self. It floats along where the world takes it. When the cloud turns into rain it consolidates, has more root, more sense of self then knows where it should be going. Down it goes following gravity to the ground, following the shortest path to the sea.

 

 

An important distinction to make regarding no-self, is that our ideas of what that way of being is like can be misleading...even if they're very reasonable from the perspective they come from. It's not necessarily true that we'd become zombies...that's just a guess about what it'd be like.

 

 

But equally true is it that some people's ideas of self are different to other ideas of self, because of stronger or weaker aspects of individual personalities. My experience of self is much different to anybody else's. Then, surely it must be true that a person who has no-self can have a different experience of no-self than somebody else depending on the environment they were in, since they become part of the environment.

 

Consider the possible experiences of people who embrace themselves, or those who aim to lose themselves in some of these instances: Being part of a loving caring family, Being single and alone, Being a slave, Being a leader or follower.

 

So then is trying to convince others of something a waste of time? Perhaps the best we can do for others is offer good opportunities and let them choose what they like.

[Stosh]

Very sound considerations, most of that I will need to chew on.. but for , Is convincing someone stuff a waste of time,, in some ways yes , it doesnt do me any good.. in another ,no its not ,because the intent I (and I assume other people ) is really to share what we feel is valid with another. Yes we want to be understood and recognized , but I think we examine these things earnestly so what we are saying is stuff we ourselves think is valid helpful and so forth. In a way , the discussion is almost a side effect of our intents.

 

Is our sense of self a real thing? In your opinion. IF not, then our sense ouf self cant be different person to person. It would merely be a baseless word. If it is a real thing, then its not an illusion to dispose of, it would be who we are, Im thinking. If it is who we are, then its the thing that bestows meaning to our

existence and to any spiritual development. .. Right?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Stosh

[z00se]

Is our sense of self a real thing? In your opinion. IF not, then our sense ouf self cant be different person to person. It would merely be a baseless word. If it is a real thing, then its not an illusion to dispose of, it would be who we are, Im thinking. If it is who we are, then its the thing that bestows meaning to our

existence and to any spiritual development. .. Right?

 

I think our sense of self is a real thing, and yes it bestows meaning to our existence and spiritual development. For the truth seeker most certainly, but even the overly compassionate one's body makes up part of the environment they consider that is themselves.

 

But it's only a real thing because we make it a real thing. In one view there are no illusions. Without meaning there would be only life.

 

 

[Stosh]

I suppose I can run with that, and while anyone may disagree somewhere,,to me it implies that if you dont value yourself, lost in selfnessnes , then I see no way that others could be seen as having value, because theyd be in the same selfness category. No selves no individuals nor compassion purpose meaning spirituality or even observer of reality... Its end of everything but the material as a formless tasteless soup. Bad mojo.

[z00se]

I suppose I can run with that, and while anyone may disagree somewhere,,to me it implies that if you dont value yourself, lost in selfnessnes , then I see no way that others could be seen as having value, because theyd be in the same selfness category. No selves no individuals nor compassion purpose meaning spirituality or even observer of reality... Its end of everything but the material as a formless tasteless soup. Bad mojo.

 

Mmmm a nice way of putting it that i didn't consider. Thanks!