No self?

@ Jake: "Oh, and "integral" is a broad movement, so I think those with critiques
of Wilber should consider the word itself as generic, not as a
specifically Wilberian brand. After all, two of Wilber's key sources
were Jean Gebser, who coined the phrase in the context of his views of
historical development of world-views as a post-rational world-view, and
Sri Aurobindo whose Integral Yoga referred to a holistic integration of
the traditional yogas of knowledge, devotion, works, meditation,
kundalini, and etc. with modern approaches like physical science,
psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and so on."

Thanks for the encouragement to reclaim and redeem the word! One of the annoying features of our cultural moment is that the enterprising and brash have this tendency to 'brand' all sorts of things from the common speech-- and thereby diminish the value to the rest of us. Up against the wall, mofo 'wisdom' merchants!

But back to the substance of the thread: I was reading this, encountered at semi-random this morning--

http://approachingaro.org/aro-gter-emptiness

celebrate form as the basis of compassion and appreciation

The Aro presentation is somewhat unusual in giving equal value to
form and emptiness, and emphasizing their nonduality. The best-known
interpretations of Madhyamaka are rooted in Sutrayana ,
which prioritizes emptiness over form. From point of view of Sutrayana,
form is impure and contaminating, and should be renounced. Versions of
Madhyamaka that are based in Tantra or Dzogchen celebrate form as the
basis of compassion and appreciation.
Such interpretations are typical
of the Nyingma Tradition.

I have found the Aro presentation of form and emptiness, of their
nonduality, and of the Four Extremes, hugely helpful in understanding
everyday experience, meditation experiences, and formal teachings on
emptiness such as Madhyamaka.

[Somehow, reading this inspired the understanding that, into the 'empty' space vacated by the 'self' rushes 'the All of It', known as intimately as if from the inside of the self of all of it.]

You guys kill me! (In a good way.)

Without trying or intending to -- I'm studying this quesiton a lot. Through just a compelled observation of what is going on.

Two things are clear to me:

- There really is "nobody home." There is no self - as individuals we are so unsubstantial that we don't exist, never have, never will.

and

- At each moment there arises powerful individual separate selves that have wants and needs and histories and that act upon each other in ways that are both awful and wonderful. And, this cannot be stopped and shouldn't be stopped but, instead should be honored and care-for and celebrated.

How both things can be true at the very same time is quite a thing and something that I truly do not understand. Though I'm suspecting that learning a skillful way to navigate life fully aware of both facts is a wonderful thing and a good way to keep one out of too much trouble.

More later

Note: I don't think I've discovered anything original here, of course. But, since I don't just take what I read as truth, I'm tring to report on how my own investigation may or may no correspond to what I read or hear is the truth.

Does that make sense? It's very important to me to be as clear as possible on what is something I've gotten second hand (and that would be basically everything written or said about dharma) and what is something I'm actually discovering. With or without the help of pointers.

I think what you're talking about here, Mike, is the TOTALITY of Dharma [keeping in mind dharma= 'as it is']. There is what is written and said by others-- in the olden days, and contemporary times-- which may be plausible, or not; but we don't really GET it until our own experience makes it real for us.

When I say 'dharma' here I mean the teaching of the "buddha" in buddhism. You know all the stuff -- the three characteristics, etc. all the detail and myriad categories of truths and techniqes that are part of Buddhism.

And, by "second hand" I mean all the things people say or write about spiritual/philosophical/existential truths -- I'm not sure why I just put "dharma" in that parenthetical phrase, probably because this is a "dharma forum refuge camp."

Within Buddhism of course dharma has the two meanings, the teachings of the buddha, and the "truth" itself.

That was what you meant, kate, right?

Who is this guy? Gary Weber?

It's amazing how many people are out there talking about this stuff.

Is it just me or does it seem like Mr. Weber and a lot of other "no self" people have a kind of negative, almost judgmental attitude towards the self?

Please don't take this as argumentative -- but I feel like something is happening that at least acts like a self and because it turns out that it isn't the permenant fixed thing that we at first thought that that means it should be diminshed in value or worth somehow. Does anyone else hear this?

Here's his blog:
[url]

-cmarti

Wow, okay thanks. More good stuff to read and work witih.

Holy shnikies there's some interesting stuff on that blog! I'd love to take a closer look at the research he mentions at the end of the "what thoughts are ok and what aren't?" entry (an unfortunately worded title?)

Hopefully the following Gary Weber excerpts aren't long enough to create any copywright violation worries:

"It is the "me" that is worried about going away, not surviving, extinguishing, etc. i did not find the loss of the "I, me" to be a big problem, in fact, to the contrary, "life" is so much sweeter, easier and fuller w/o the "I". i can't believe i put up with the &^%*& "I" as long as i did.

The "I" puts up a big fuss, worry and show about how existence isn't possible w/o it; it just isn't true. It's just a mental construct, it never has been real, never will be real; it's just a crazy quilt of old memories patched together. The "I" is at the root of all of our problems, guilt, pain, anger, despair, etc. W/o the "I", those fade away.

Planning, solving problems and "living" itself, are so much easier w/o the "I" and all of its background worrying, projecting, etc."

Again, I'm curious, do any of you see a sort of desire here by an "I" to extinguish the "I" ?? The I sees that the I is causing all this trouble so the I gets all head up about how awful the I is and how it is the root of all our problems? And the I likes the idea of itself being eliminated so much that it runs around trying to eliminate itself so that it can feel better? (It's like he is creating his own version of a Satan or Devil)

Now, Mr. Weber might say that it's just a natural process, that through awareness, insight, he (!) sees all the trouble the I causes and the I just naturally slips or fades away (I don't believe this for a second, it will always pop right back up like a cork pushed underwater) -- that he didn't or doesn't fight against his I. He probably says that somewhere, I'll check.

However, I think this kind of rhetoric (the quote in italics above) is odd.

Does some wiser, more realistic attitude toward the self necessarily mean that the self is treated and talked about as some horrible thing (the $?##@@# I)? I'm still feeling that the "I' not being real is only half the story. The other half is that it is real, it just isn't what we were lead to believe it was. And, to repeat myself sort of, that a mature awakening would involve a sort of honoring and nuturing of ones self in order to live in some harmony/intimacy.

I guess the key to my point of view on this is my continued conviction that any desire to eliminate the "I" and all it's feelings, desires, emotions, histories, values -- is not constructive. Only the I could come up with such an idea and the I would never eliminate itself. I also -- and this is something I could only think because it has never happened to me -- do not believe that some kind of transformation in which the "I" never comes up again is possible or desirable. The I -- no matter what its true nature is an inevitable (and often insidious) part of true life. It's us.

So I don't understand or believe in what Mr. Weber says here:

Seeing that progress was impossible with attachments, I surrendered completely and something shifted. The “I” blew out, irrevocably, thoughts stopped; stillness beyond imagination. I was not body, nor thoughts, but unchanging consciousness. Everything complete just as it was; all One

Now, if he were describing an "experience" that was temporary I would have no problem with this statement. But, the key word, is "irrevocably" -- he is actually claiming that his "I" blew out for good.

Does some wiser, more realistic attitude toward the self necessarily mean that the self is treated and talked about as some horrible thing (the $?##@@# I)? I'm still feeling that the "I' not being real is only half the story. The other half is that it is real, it just isn't what we were lead to believe it was. And, to repeat myself sort of, that a mature awakening would involve a sort of honoring and nuturing of ones self in order to live in some harmony/intimacy.
I guess the key to my point of view on this is my continued conviction that any desire to eliminate the "I" and all it's feelings, desires, emotions, histories, values -- is not constructive. Only the I could come up with such an idea and the I would never eliminate itself. I also -- and this is something I could only think because it has never happened to me -- do not believe that some kind of transformation in which the "I" never comes up again is possible or desirable. The I -- no matter what its true nature is an inevitable (and often insidious) part of true life. It's us.
So I don't understand or believe in what Mr. Weber says here:
Seeing that progress was impossible with attachments, I surrendered completely and something shifted. The “I” blew out, irrevocably, thoughts stopped; stillness beyond imagination. I was not body, nor thoughts, but unchanging consciousness. Everything complete just as it was; all One
Now, if he were describing an "experience" that was temporary I would have no problem with this statement. But, the key word, is "irrevocably" -- he is actually claiming that his "I" blew out for good.

-michaelmonson

Bless your stubborn, plainspoken heart, Mike. What you say here, down to earth as it is, addresses what I believe is a rather sophisticated level of delusion that is unfortunately prevalent in spiritual circles of the 'nondual' variety.

Ngak'chang Rinpoche said something like this when he said that what we want is not so much enlightenment, as to arrive at that sweet spot millimeters this side of it, so as to admire our accomplishment. If the self were REALLY obliterated, who'd be taking credit for this accomplishment? Who'd be getting into arguments about whether the achievement were valid/ the best, furthest, highest, most final possible? Who'd care?

Sometimes I suspect that one day we're gonna be cringing like the ex-EST participants who experienced the rush of 'getting it,' If it sobers us up enough to stick at the real work that will be a great thing.

[acknowleged: overuse of 'we' and 'us'-- "Whaddaya mean, 'we', old lady?"]

Thanks, Kate. I love having a stubborn plainspoken heart and I love having it blessed by a heart such as yours

Chris: I was just responding to first, his tone or attitude toward the "I" as I thought it was representative of something very common and general in the dharma/non-dual culture, and, second, to his claim that his "I" had irrevocably gone away.



I wasn't addressing anything else on his sight and imagine that much of it is valid and worth of investigation.

Not much time to post this week, as I am on UnRetreat, but in the context of this discussion I wonder if it is useful to distinguish people's descriptions of how they experience things from practice instructions? ie if I say "awakeness feels like this to me" that doesn't mean it is useful for someone else to say "oh, let me try to feel like she describes, and that will be awakeness". Thoughts?

I have been reflecting a bit both on the content of this particular thread and on my own style of posting-- which I sometimes suspect comes off both as dogmatic and contentious. This is not my intention, and I've been thinking about how to do better.

I think I need to up the ratio of time spent considering matters to time spent spouting off, so that I have a better sense of how challenging I'm likely to sound and how I might specify and contextualize things. As often as not, I'm in the thrall of enthusiasm for an idea I've not thought through long enough.

wrt the 'no self' issue: as of today, my best understanding is that being knocked out by the experience-- and hence overstating the case-- is a phase of development. It seems to me to be a HUGE milestone and an absolutely necessary experience. The feeling-tone of the experience seems likely to vary; and this may color the inference the practitioner takes away from it.

Today, it seems to me that 'integration' is a combination of deconstructive phases followed by reconstructive phases-- and that 'no self' is a major deconstruction. It would not function well to simply set up shop in the rubble, however, from that day forward...

I don't know who has had much to say about the 'reconstruction' that I'm inferring from a few little personal clues-- except maybe, in highly figurative language, in Taoist or other works on 'alchemy'. I guess that's why I'm so interested in those, lately.