'No self' my experience so far...

[tragblack]

When I posted, "Act on the fact," I was thinking of Krishnamurti...

[Birch]

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. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

Oh, you are wrong. Concepts themselves, or rather entanglement in concepts, is the entire problem. "what is" is beyond time in that it is always now. It's been called the eternal now. Concepts create time and past, present and future. From this, there arises the false idea of becoming, getting something. And then suffering.

 

"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.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=1230&chid=932&w=meditation

 

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

 

" as long as you're fighting it, as long as you're resisting it or rationalising it, you're giving life to it."

 

Or you're killing yourself?

So why do we fight (it)? I also have some ideas on this one-ing.

The irony is not lost on me BTW (just in case).

[thuscomeone]

" as long as you're fighting it, as long as you're resisting it or rationalising it, you're giving life to it."

 

Or you're killing yourself?

So why do we fight (it)? I also have some ideas on this one-ing.

The irony is not lost on me BTW (just in case).

I think we fight it because it's our nature to do do. It's our nature to have preferences and believe in illusions. To prefer happiness to suffering. I don't believe we should get rid of this or try to. Rather, we just have to integrate it with what is beyond it.

 

When we see the "big", then and only then does the "small" truly fall into place.

[Seth Ananda]

 

When one has achieved "no-self", heartmind, buddha nature, whatever you want to call it, they've achieved nothing, for there is nothing to achieve, rather they have reached a place of stillness where nothing resides, it is not even empty, for there is nothing to be empty, rather it is just stillness, no thought, no desire, nothing but what is(n't).

 

I would disagree. What has been achieved is just simply clearly seeing what already is.

That is not nothing. Also 'No self' is not a place of stillness, as all the content of the mind/emotions is still present. You just no longer mistakenly believe they rotate around or exist within a 'Self'. They are just Dependently arising phenomena.

[Birch]

So Seth, you're saying we put ourselves through this for nothing then?

Sounds weird as hell to me.

[Seth Ananda]

So Seth, you're saying we put ourselves through this for nothing then?

Sounds weird as hell to me.

no, Its a very valuable Insight.

Even though the 'Content' is all still there, the 'Context' of a self holding it all together makes the 'Content' seem much more Important, Intense, Real and ready to go to war for.

 

When that 'Context' of a self is seen to be false, everything gets easier with all the 'Content' stuff.

 

Not only that but it also quickens your spiritual path a lot.

 

Since dropping that 'Context' I have never had such ease of entry into Non Dual and other altered states...

[Birch]

no, Its a very valuable Insight.

Even though the 'Content' is all still there, the 'Context' of a self holding it all together makes the 'Content' seem much more Important, Intense, Real and ready to go to war for.

 

When that 'Context' of a self is seen to be false, everything gets easier with all the 'Content' stuff.

 

Not only that but it also quickens your spiritual path a lot.

 

Since dropping that 'Context' I have never had such ease of entry into Non Dual and other altered states...

 

And sunglasses, apparently.

 

Sure. It's all very nice. But while all of this is all very nice and we're feeling all nice about it. in other parts of the world/elsewhere. Not so nice things are happening. Are you saying there's nothing to be done? Let 'em all suffer under the hand of god??

[Aaron]

I would disagree. What has been achieved is just simply clearly seeing what already is.

That is not nothing. Also 'No self' is not a place of stillness, as all the content of the mind/emotions is still present. You just no longer mistakenly believe they rotate around or exist within a 'Self'. They are just Dependently arising phenomena.

 

 

Hmm... well you've obviously experienced it in a different way then I did. When I experienced it, there was no thought, no content of mind/emotions, nothing but, as I said, stillness, which really isn't a good explanation of it. Perhaps you're reaching the early plateaus or experienced a different type of no-self? Thanks for the observation.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I would also recommend that you keep in mind that an intellectual understanding of these premises, does not constitute an experience. Merely understanding the concept is not enough, even though it can have a profound change on your life, in most cases that change is short lived, unless you strive to pursue it further and actually experience no-mind as it is.

[Seth Ananda]

Hmm... well you've obviously experienced it in a different way then I did. When I experienced it, there was no thought, no content of mind/emotions, nothing but, as I said, stillness, which really isn't a good explanation of it. Perhaps you're reaching the early plateaus or experienced a different type of no-self? Thanks for the observation.

 

Aaron

Ahh yes, the problem of Language. What you describe, I would refer too as No Mind, as the early zen readings i did, {if i understood them right} described it as a thoughtless state. I have experienced that many times and it is great, but i am talking about an ongoing realization into the nature of our experience as a person.

 

If you can be bothered and are still Interested, reread my first post, understanding how I mean the term

[Informer]

Since dropping that 'Context' I have never had such ease of entry into Non Dual and other altered states...

 

The dangling apple.

 

So you are entering non-dual states? How is that even possible when you don't exist?

[Seth Ananda]

The dangling apple.

 

So you are entering non-dual states? How is that even possible when you don't exist?

Unless you are willing to try to get an understanding of what I mean by 'relative' and 'absolute' there is no point in me trying to converse with you.

 

I have explained over and over to you 'how' I mean 'No self', and that the relative and absolute can not be separated. Therefore, while it is true [using Buddhist language] that I have no self in an 'absolute' sense, i am still a person with thoughts/feelings/memories/likes and dislikes/desires and afflictions in a relative sense. That person is sitting here typing out a reply. A bit later, I will relax more and enter into some Nondual goodness! Yum.

 

If you do not try, I will assume that you are either not nearly as Intelligent as you would like to think, or that you are just a troll, cluttering up interesting threads with stupid questions like this one, and I will cease communication with you.

 

Seth.

[Informer]

Do you exist?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

If you say yes, then go explain it to the guys at RT how you can exist.

 

Then post a link so either

 

A. Your point is proven, and they aren't convincing people they don't exist

 

B. My point is proven and they are convincing people they don't exist.

 

Ask anyone of the blue's/red's if they exist, or if it is possible to exist.

 

Sounds absurd right? Just look.

 

 

I think we are at this point still Seth.

[Informer]

What a coincidence, we posted at the same time and my response answered you.

[Seth Ananda]

I think we are at this point still Seth.

No, you are in your head.

 

I am enjoying the obvious fruits of my realization.

 

You are annoyed because you do not get it.

 

[edit]Ok, if that was a simultaneous post I will not write you off so quickly.

[Informer]

No, you are in your head.

 

I am enjoying the obvious fruits of my realization.

 

You are annoyed because you do not get it.

 

[edit]Ok, if that was a simultaneous post I will not write you off so quickly.

 

Ah, so you claim ownerships still, are you sure that it is your realization or your fruits?

[thuscomeone]

No, you are in your head.

 

I am enjoying the obvious fruits of my realization.

 

You are annoyed because you do not get it.

 

[edit]Ok, if that was a simultaneous post I will not write you off so quickly.

There is no "relative" and "absolute" outside of your skull.

 

Getting up and walking around, reading the words on this page, scarfing down some pizza. Where are relative and absolute there?

[Informer]

I know you think I have some agenda and are suspiscious of me for reasons of your own, talk to thuscomeone for a bit, he seems to have a firm grasp.

[Seth Ananda]

Ah, so you claim ownerships still, what hypocracy.

 

Relatively yes. why can't you get that? No hypocrisy whatsoever, just you needing to have my realization mean nothing because you yourself seem incapable of getting it

 

Fruits of your realization, rofl.

Yes, great fruits. Re read my first post. To me these considerable benefits {which seem to be getting better and better} definitely constitute Fruits.

 

That's why I am here telling others about it. It has been great for me. I wish to share and Inspire others who have the Inclination to walk this path.

 

You can not 'talk' away what I have experienced just because you don't like it.

[Seth Ananda]

There is no "relative" and "absolute" outside of your skull.

 

Getting up and walking around, reading the words on this page, scarfing down some pizza. Where are relative and absolute there?

Are perception or mind entirely inside your skull?

[thuscomeone]

Are perception or mind entirely inside your skull?

 

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?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I would disagree. What has been achieved is just simply clearly seeing what already is.

That is not nothing. Also 'No self' is not a place of stillness, as all the content of the mind/emotions is still present. You just no longer mistakenly believe they rotate around or exist within a 'Self'. They are just Dependently arising phenomena.

Hi Seth: It's this 'story' you keep repeating, it seems so 'ruthlessly true' to you, but.. it's that 'thing' you are attached to, that keeps reappearing as variations on a theme.. "Dependently arising" or 'D.O.' or whatever version anchors you to your 'self', the 'story' that you repeat because it is how you identify 'you', it's a part of your 'self-reference'.. It is like the difference between Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu.. Chuang Tzu told very engaging stories that revealed a relationship between Tao and Life.. Lao Tzu used examples to explain Tao.. similar, but Lao Tzu had an agenda and a structure.. Chuang Tzu let Life tell its own story, and let the reader find their own way to Tao in whatever way they were capable of understanding it, nicely holistic..

 

The story you tell seems so sterile, so unrelated to the lives of the living.. well practiced, almost like it is being read from the 'study guide' for a course on 'Ruthless Truth Meets Buddhism', kinda like the following post..

no, Its a very valuable Insight.

Even though the 'Content' is all still there, the 'Context' of a self holding it all together makes the 'Content' seem much more Important, Intense, Real and ready to go to war for.

 

When that 'Context' of a self is seen to be false, everything gets easier with all the 'Content' stuff.

 

Not only that but it also quickens your spiritual path a lot.

 

Since dropping that 'Context' I have never had such ease of entry into Non Dual and other altered states...

Like so much of the Buddhist process, it seems so contrived, so formulated.. yes, i know, i'm not qualified to render meaningful opinion because i don't agree, but that's just it.. neither of us know if i agree or not. If i were of the nature to try to fit something spontaneous and organic into a formula that required a belief in someone else's interpretation of the 'spontaneous and organic' process i was already intimately experiencing.. i might suppose that your explanation and your formula was very agreeable, but.. i'm not inclined to abandon the spontaneous and organic truth i experience, to follow a formula and explanation that someone tells me will bring me the result i already experience.. similarly, it is likely you are not willing to abandon the story you know, for the story i tell, and you will probably not consider that i have discovered what you have, without agreeing with the story you tell..

 

I don't know what you have experienced, but.. from what i have experienced, the stories you tell are inconsistent with simply looking, and seeing.. because that's all there is to it, no 'dependent originating contexts' or 'false content', or whatever other stories are told beyond "look, and see what is".. you look, and see 'selfs' happening, then.. you 'think', you imagine, you compare stories and decide that you 'prefer' a story about no self, to what you see.... what did you see, when you 'simply looked'? of course, you see 'selfs' happening, if it were not so, you wouldn't be saying there are no selfs.. all of which is 'self-evident', though..

 

I hadn't meant to get this involved, but.. that's spontaneity for ya.. Be well..

[Seth Ananda]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi Seth: It's this 'story' you keep repeating, it seems so 'ruthlessly true' to you, but.. it's that 'thing' you are attached to, that keeps reappearing as variations on a theme.. "Dependently arising" or 'D.O.' or whatever version anchors you to your 'self', the 'story' that you repeat because it is how you identify 'you', it's a part of your 'self-reference'.. It is like the difference between Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu.. Chuang Tzu told very engaging stories that revealed a relationship between Tao and Life.. Lao Tzu used examples to explain Tao.. similar, but Lao Tzu had an agenda and a structure.. Chuang Tzu let Life tell its own story, and let the reader find their own way to Tao in whatever way they were capable of understanding it, nicely holistic..

 

The story you tell seems so sterile, so unrelated to the lives of the living.. well practiced, almost like it is being read from the 'study guide' for a course on 'Ruthless Truth Meets Buddhism', kinda like the following post..

 

Like so much of the Buddhist process, it seems so contrived, so formulated.. yes, i know, i'm not qualified to render meaningful opinion because i don't agree, but that's just it.. neither of us know if i agree or not. If i were of the nature to try to fit something spontaneous and organic into a formula that required a belief in someone else's interpretation of the 'spontaneous and organic' process i was already intimately experiencing.. i might suppose that your explanation and your formula was very agreeable, but.. i'm not inclined to abandon the spontaneous and organic truth i experience, to follow a formula and explanation that someone tells me will bring me the result i already experience.. similarly, it is likely you are not willing to abandon the story you know, for the story i tell, and you will probably not consider that i have discovered what you have, without agreeing with the story you tell..

 

I don't know what you have experienced, but.. from what i have experienced, the stories you tell are inconsistent with simply looking, and seeing.. because that's all there is to it, no 'dependent originating contexts' or 'false content', or whatever other stories are told beyond "look, and see what is".. you look, and see 'selfs' happening, then.. you 'think', you imagine, you compare stories and decide that you 'prefer' a story about no self, to what you see.... what did you see, when you 'simply looked'? of course, you see 'selfs' happening, if it were not so, you wouldn't be saying there are no selfs.. all of which is 'self-evident', though..

 

I hadn't meant to get this involved, but.. that's spontaneity for ya.. Be well..

Well, that is great, for you

For some it does not seem sterile at all, and they are the people I am talking too.

 

For me this is living reality. Right now I look and see that there is no self, but there is obviously still a person here.

Relative and absolute are simply very useful ways to describe this fact, with language.

 

Also, when I describe my experiences as in my first post I was describing from my lived experience, and from the responses it seems people did not find it sterile. But yes it does get dryer when we just start talking the philosophy of it. I do not know how to avoid this. Can you tell me? I say my actual moment to moment experiences, then someone says no thats not true, you dont experience that, and chucks back some twisted philosophical version as if that is what i said. I then seek to clarify my position.

 

And my Language is if anything Nagajuna meets Buddhism, not that of RT. Rt stops at No self, and I think they confuse people like Informer, because they do not explain the differences between relative and absolute. Nagajuna points out the worlds lack of inherent existence [in an absolute manner] as well.

 

Anyway I wish you the best on your Taoist path, and I think they can go similar places in different ways. Blessings!

[Vajrahridaya]

I hadn't meant to get this involved, but.. that's spontaneity for ya.. Be well..

 

Actually no, your response arose due to causes and conditions, it does not self exist.

 

Also, you think that being without concepts is ultimate truth. It's clear when one goes deeper that clinging happens on subtler levels than conceptual.

 

The first level jhanas where your body is filled with peaceful energy and a still mind, blinds many mystics and yogis.

 

The cosmos is formulation-ing, the cosmos is inter-causation-ing, this is not a concept, this is a reality. Your body, which you experience until your death is formulated through causes and conditions of endless ramifications, this includes your consciousness which you think is free if it doesn't think.

 

You mistake the key for the lock. There is deeper to go.

[thuscomeone]

Actually no, your response arose due to causes and conditions, it does not self exist.

 

Also, you think that being without concepts is ultimate truth. It's clear when one goes deeper that clinging happens on subtler levels than conceptual.

 

The first level jhanas where your body is filled with peaceful energy and a still mind, blinds many mystics and yogis.

 

The cosmos is formulation-ing, the cosmos is inter-causation-ing, this is not a concept, this is a reality. Your body, which you experience until your death is formulated through causes and conditions of endless ramifications, this includes your consciousness which you think is free if it doesn't think.

 

You mistake the key for the lock. There is deeper to go.

I was blind before, vaj. But now I can see your true face.

 

You don't see what is right in front of you. You go and and on about d.o. and the cosmos, rebirth, etc. None of that matters. It's all in time and can't touch what is timeless. And what is timeless is staring you in the face. At this point, I'm not sure you've ever had an experience or real realization of rigpa. Past and future don't matter in that. Rebirth, who cares? If you keep thinking about that, you'll continue to be caught in the cycle of becoming

 

You are caught in concepts, as many others on this board have pointed put. If you ever want to see nakedly, you're going to have to drop d.o. and everything else you go on about. This is not a jhana that I'm talking about. Although you will continue to claim that it is. It is beyond jhanas and beyond d.o.

 

Dzogchen doesn't endlessly hold on to d.o. as you claim and advocate. That would be called being caught in sems. I'm not even a dzogchen practioner and even I know this.

 

Frankly, I think your endless harping on about rebirth is just instilling fear in people and only serving to move them further away from the natural state, which is only now and has absolutely nothing to do with later.

[Vajrahridaya]

I was blind before, vaj. But now I can see your true face.

You don't see what is right in front of you. You go and and on about d.o. and the cosmos, rebirth, etc. None of that matters. It's all in time and can't touch what is timeless. And what is timeless is staring you in the face. At this point, I'm not sure you've ever had an experience or real realization of rigpa. Past and future don't matter in that. Rebirth, who cares? If you keep thinking about that, you'll continue to be caught in the cycle of becoming

 

They are all empty, including timelessness. If you've really untied the knot within your formless states of mind, your body will sleep with total awareness. You will have no more unconscious.

 

Again, you are taking a peek experience and labeling it as ultimate truth.

 

Yes, Rigpa is timeless, but not as a state of mind that transcends the experience of time.

 

 

You are caught in concepts, as many others on this board have pointed put. If you ever want to see nakedly, you're going to have to drop d.o. and everything else you go on about. This is not a jhana that I'm talking about. Although you will continue to claim that it is. It is beyond jhanas and beyond d.o.

 

Uh hu.

 

Dzogchen doesn't endlessly hold on to d.o. as you claim and advocate. That would be called being caught in sems. I'm not even a dzogchen practioner and even I know this.

 

I know this too... are you qualified to teach Dzogchen on here dude? What is one going to do, come onto a discussion board and just sit there, say nothing? Or repeat over and over again, "Merge with the light"? Or use concepts which other minds are going to be reading and working out an understanding from that may or may not reference personal experiences.

 

Frankly, I think your endless harping on about rebirth is just instilling fear in people and only serving to move them further away from the natural state, which is only now and has absolutely nothing to do with later.

 

Oh, so "now" truly exists as your senses are experiencing it? I don't have much faith in your proclamations of enlightenment. Your understanding shows no consistency, you flop around like a fish out of water changing your understanding from day to day.

 

Emptiness means freedom from concepts while they occur, freedom from your being while it occurs. Direct experience of emptiness also has an omniscience because all of time unites with now as well... so various powers of perception do actualize if you really have insight into "Rigpa" as you are not trapped by the sense perceivable now. Since now is connected to all of time, everything becomes transparent, even your deep sleep state. Enlightenment as a Buddha is not just a state of ignorant peace.

 

If you experience fear when rebirth is talked about, that has something to do with you, not the fact of rebirth. The topic is touching a sense of fear you have within your own psyche and you are playing the blame game instead of finding it's causes and conditions deep within. Take this peace you've found and use it as a key to dive deep into the lock of yourself to unlock your selfless nature.