'No self' my experience so far...

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

The seeing and hearing is the activity of the mind perceiving without clinging. He's not talking about the things, or just being the senses per say, one is engaged but self liberated. Of course there is still a mind, it just sees through itself.

[xabir2005]

What is the fascination with D.O.? Everything exists in comparison with something that it is not. Your choosing to hold such inflexible beliefs, that without "intrinsic characteristics or core" no reality exists "in itself", is fundamentally false.. as you are not equipped, by reason of experience or apparatus of sufficient sensory range, to claim any certainty regarding existence or reality.. your claim of D.O. and realization is sufficient to impeach your beliefs, as it is a 'self-assured' belief, leaving no room for revision.

 

 

Liberation is freedom from expectations.. you demonstrate no understanding of liberation, you expect a path to lead you where only your feet can find their way..

 

 

You do not understand suffering, and your delusion blinds you.. i have no understanding regarding your claim of being an "asshole", that is another of your 'expectations'.. existence is existence, until it isn't.. you, and some Buddhists and some RT fundamentalist evangelicals are attached to beliefs, you have selected your beliefs excluding other possibilities, your mind is no longer open. Your beliefs exist only conceptually, no actuality supports your beliefs, D.O. is an observable fact that is the fundamental basis of existence.. without it, nothing exists, no thought, no you, no anything and no nothing.. absolute absence.

 

 

Buddha set out to avenge his misappropriated youth, he so feared suffering and pain, and aging that he contrived an elaborate pretense.. and, as you can see, people's weakness for escaping truth attracts them to such a provocative pretense..

 

 

Thinking happens, and we are that.. it is temporary, like the person through which the thoughts manifest, but the energy that animates the processes will change form, shape, and shift its mass to accommodate the evolution of the cosmos.. there is indeed a self, but you and Buddhists, and others so inclined have not yet understood that which you deny.. and, your denial is proof, you return for additional reinforcement that the interaction you encounter with others might validate the 'self' you claim is not so.. you claim there is no self, yet want to save us from it.. you create resistance where there was none.

 

Be well..

I am free from beliefs. I understand how suffering arise: they arise due to delusion of inherent existence (unchanging, independent, truly existent), which leads to grasping, craving, aversion, attachments. My realization is of a direct experiential seeing of the nature of reality, the luminous and empty nature of phenomena occuring via dependent origination.

 

D.O. Is indeed an observable fact... What what dependently originates is empty, so all appearances are empty of a graspable and locatable core or essence since phenomena arises due to dependent origination. This too is observable and realizable in direct experience and has nothing to do with beliefs. I mean sure, you can believe in it like I believed it for years - until true realization arises and then it no longer remains as a belief... All beliefs, views and clingings about reality dissolves.

[xabir2005]

And once again I will agree with this ...

 

 

 

... but disagree with this.

they actually mean the same thing

[xabir2005]

You can develop all the wisdom in the world around no self etc but unless it is combined with equal development of compassion it is unbalanced and pretty much worthless, the basic message of the Buddha is one of wisdom and compassion, they support each other but one does not obviously follow another and if you only develop wisdom with inquiry into no self without training in compassion then you just develop lopsided. There have been Nazis and serial killers in the past who had wisdom so on it's own it can just lead you to hell.

I agree wisdom must be complemented with compassion which is very important.

 

However I disagree that nazis and killers have wisdom. They had intelligence, cleverness, which is a whole different thing from wisdom. With wisdom you will not be able to use intelligence to do harm unto yourself and others.

 

Also when the realization and experience of no self is developed to the max, you will overcome the mental afflictions of craving, anger/aversion and ignorance. You will be rendered incapable of even being angry or fall under the chains of craving, much less commit crimes out of these afflictions.

[xabir2005]

Here is an example of one who was "liberated" a while ago.

 

"I have been away from RT for few months now, not able to post because I could not even sit down and write about this let alone think about it without triggering what seemed like a very deep psychosis, yes that’s right madness. I am posting here to suggest that there should be a warning to participants in here that the seeing through the illusion is only the tip of the mountain, there is so, so much more to be done. In fact it can be incredibly dangerous for some, the collapse of the structure of self cracked open an avalanche of what seemed like stored thought patterns and memory and all of it monsterously negative and fucking crazy. This thought storm would rush in when the mind was most vulnerable just before dawn, for weeks and weeks and it was fucking hell, it drove me to the edge of insanity. The secret I discovered after weeks of shit, was to just let it happen, not as easy as you think, but just to declare that it was ok to go mad or die, let it fucking happen I don’t care, give me you’re best shot then fuck off.

All I am saying is that while it is worth it in the end ( hind sight) once you’re on that roller coaster tower of terror there an’t no getting off.

Good Luck!"

 

http://www.ruthlesst....php?f=3&t=1324

 

There are things like this all over their forums, and there was more but they get deleted as well.

I never experienced anything like that. I think he probably haven't realized anatta yet. He could be going through what spirituality calls the dark night of the soul.

 

http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram's%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/740E1DCD-75A5-4859-8530-13214BE1BA33.html

[xabir2005]

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.

GIH view is closer to Hinduism.

 

It is ok to say all is mind, if you understand mind is to activities as "wind" is to blowing activities. Mere conventions, nothing inherent.

 

Mind is merely mindstream, the process itself rolls and knows without knower, mind is not an inherent subject or seer.

[xabir2005]

Then how do you get off claiming you don't exist. That has nothing to do with self . .

 

You have claimed that "you do not exist" have you not?

 

Have you not claimed this an absolute truth?

 

Because what you are saying now is very similar to the Cartesian Theatre . . .

 

Are you saying the self doesn't exist within you as a single point that you can point to?

no, as the Buddha said, since a self-entity cannot be pinned down in or apart from the five aggregates, you cannot posit the existence or non-existence of a self-entity.

 

The extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither only applies to an independent entity. If there is no self-ness in or outside the five skandhas, such propositions cannot be established.

 

Also:

 

http://www.accesstoi...eel414.html#ch2

 

WOULD AN ARAHANT SAY "I" OR "MINE"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

 

"Consummate with taints destroyed,

One who bears his final body,

Would he still say 'I speak'?

And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

 

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

 

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

 

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;

For him all knots of conceit are consumed.

When the wise one has transcended the conceived

He might still say 'I speak,'

And he might say 'They speak to me.'

Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

[Marblehead]

they actually mean the same thing

 

Well, make them say the same thing and maybe I can agree with the totality. Hehehe.

[Informer]

no, as the Buddha said, since a self-entity cannot be pinned down in or apart from the five aggregates, you cannot posit the existence or non-existence of a self-entity.

 

The extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither only applies to an independent entity. If there is no self-ness in or outside the five skandhas, such propositions cannot be established.

 

Also:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html#ch2

 

WOULD AN ARAHANT SAY "I" OR "MINE"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

 

"Consummate with taints destroyed,

One who bears his final body,

Would he still say 'I speak'?

And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

 

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

 

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

 

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;

For him all knots of conceit are consumed.

When the wise one has transcended the conceived

He might still say 'I speak,'

And he might say 'They speak to me.'

Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)

 

Now for the big question, do you exist?

 

I don't give a shit about self, I am not asking about self, I am asking do you exist.

[xabir2005]

GIH view is closer to Hinduism.

 

It is ok to say all is mind, if you understand mind is to activities as "wind" is to blowing activities. Mere conventions, nothing inherent.

 

Mind is merely mindstream, the process itself rolls and knows without knower, mind is not an inherent subject or seer.

http://awakeningtore...ung%20Dorje?m=0

 

third karmapa:

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.

By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

 

..........

 

http://dharmawheel.n...w=unread#unread

 

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

 

- namdrol

[xabir2005]

Now for the big question, do you exist?

 

I don't give a shit about self, I am not asking about self, I am asking do you exist.

I have actually answered you. Your question presumes there is an independent "me" that can be pinned down as a reality or truth, and as Buddha said, if a "me" cannot be pinned down as a (independent, unchanging, truly existent with core) reality or truth, how can existence, non-existence, both or neither be applicable.

 

"Me", "self" is therefore a convention for an ungraspable process of the five aggregates.

 

To say "weather does not right in terms of conventional truth, but ultimately no weather-ness entity is there (to exist, not-exist, etc). Same goes for self.

[Informer]

I have actually answered you. Your question presumes there is a "me" that can be pinned down as a reality or truth, and as Buddha said, if a "me" cannot be pinned down as a reality or truth, how can existence, non-existence, both or neither be applicable.

 

"Me", "self" is therefore a convention for an ungraspable process of the five aggregates.

 

To say "weather does not right in terms of conventional truth, but ultimately no weather-ness entity is there (to exist, not-exist, etc). Same goes for self.

 

No it doesn't, you are reading shit into it. It is such an easy question a kindergartener could answer it.

 

It is not a freaking trick question.

[xabir2005]

I think RT is very elite, xabir, since you refer to the in-crowd as "liberated". You are a bunch of people who think that they're enlightened.

 

But it was not RT I was referring to as a**holes, but the larger group of those with utter certainty that their view is the correct one. I'm talking about people who believe that they see the "true nature of reality". People like members of the Westboro Baptist Church, racists, nationalists, fundamentalists of all stripes. These are all people who choose to ignore phenomena, when it does not agree with their predetermined self-enlightenment. These are people who refuse to consider that they might be misinterpreting, or that some other model has validity. The darkest villains of history all fit into this category. And most of them saw themselves as "fighting the good fight".

 

I'm offering these examples, as a mirror to what certainty usually accompanies. Of course, I expect you to (non-)believe that you are exempt from that group, despite your self-appointed privileged (non-)view.

 

I know I cannot change your mind, but I will leave you with two small challenges, should you choose to accept them.

 

1. Really explore the questions of "what can I really know?" and "is it really possible for a human being to experience the actual world?" and "how can I really justify my claims of being right?" Explore without immediately bridging the gap in explanation with the standard "this is not a belief/view, but direct insight". Don't give yourself any easy out, and don't take any short-cuts, because if you are truly liberated, you should be able to withstand the most intense scrutiny.

 

2. Explore the nature of certainty, and what its relationship is to delusion and ego. Explore what the opposite of certainty is (what I'm calling "emptiness"), and why it might be very worthwhile spiritual discovery, to practice in that state. Ask yourself: is it possible that I have mistaken "more free than I have yet experienced" for "liberated"? Is it possible that I mistook "no inherent existence in my mental model of reality" for "no inherent existence in the actual world"? Is it possible that I mistook "enhanced clarity" for "the true nature of reality"?

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".

 

Just as Buddha taught in the Kalaka Sutta:

 

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"

 

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]

 

"If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me.

 

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

 

"When hearing...

 

"When sensing...

 

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

 

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

 

 

"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed

and fastened onto as true by others,

One who is Such — among the self-fettered —

wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

 

"Having seen well in advance that arrow

where generations are fastened & hung

— 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —

there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."

[Informer]

Hey Xabir,

 

Everything you read about self from now on, replace the word self with ego, and see what you can make of it or if the conclusions are different.

[xabir2005]

No it doesn't, you are reading shit into it. It is such an easy question a kindergartener could answer it.

 

It is not a freaking trick question.

you are asking "is" or "is not"

 

I am telling you I am free from such views.

 

As I do not project there to be an unchanging entity that "is" or "is not"

 

Also you may ask, does weather exist. I say yes, as a conventional truth. But ultimately that convention does not point to a true existent, so ultimately there is no weathernes of weather. Same for self.

 

So you must be clear when I say "I exist" it is merely parlance and conventions, but ultimately that is not true (not pointing to a true existent).

[Informer]

Test what I have said, get your favorite quote about self that you thinks exclaims your view and replace self with ego and then see if it still coincides.

[Informer]

you are asking "is" or "is not"

 

I am telling you I am free from such views.

 

As I do not project there to be an unchanging entity that "is" or "is not"

 

Also you may ask, does weather exist. I say yes, as a conventional truth. But ultimately that convention does not point to a true existent, so ultimately there is no weathernes of weather. Same for self.

 

So you must be clear when I say "I exist" it is merely parlance and conventions, but ultimately that is not true (not pointing to a true existent).

 

Ah, but you are not, you have claimed that you don't exist.

[xabir2005]

Hey Xabir,

 

Everything you read about self from now on, replace the word self with ego, and see what you can make of it or if the conclusions are different.

no. No ego is not the same as anatta.

 

I have been through that stage where I see through ego but identify with pure consciousness as the ultimate self.

 

This is not anatta yet.

[Informer]

no. No ego is not the same as anatta.

 

I have been through that stage where I see through ego but identify with pure consciousness as the ultimate self.

 

This is not anatta yet.

 

Prove it, where does anyone of your favorite teachers say they don't exist?

 

By this I don't mean something that could be interpreted either way, I mean firmly states as an absolute fact that they do not exist, that I do not exist and that you do not exist.

[xabir2005]

Ah, but you are not, you have claimed that you don't exist.

there is no "you" to be existing or not...

 

For example the qn, does santa claus exist after death? If you say he exist, you are wrong. If you say he does not exist, equally wrong either.

 

This is because you cannot pin a real santa claus as a truth or reality to begin with.

 

For a thing to have existence or not have existence presumes that there is a reality or thing there in the first place.

 

Same goes for self.

 

http://www.accesstoi...4.002.than.html

 

""And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

[Informer]

Prove it, where does anyone of your favorite teachers say they don't exist?

 

By this I don't mean something that could be interpreted either way, I mean firmly states as an absolute fact that they do not exist, that I do not exist and that you do not exist.

[Informer]

[xabir2005]

[Informer]

So wheres the proof?

 

Sounds like they are talking about the self and ego, not about I don't exist.

 

"If the first were true, there would exist some other substance."

[xabir2005]

So wheres the proof?

 

Sounds like they are talking about the self and ego, not about I don't exist.

 

"If the first were true, there would exist some other substance."

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.