No self?

I don't have time to post all that much this morning but is Gary Weber really just examining how the sense of self, the I, is developed and how certain thoughts and patterns of thoughts contribute to that?I'm reading his book so when I'm done I hope to be able to discuss this here in much more detail.

-cmarti

Thanks for putting the Gary Weber stuff into discussion, Chris. I've been reading some of his blog and watched one of his videos. I've ordered his book from Amazon too (although there seems to be a glitch with Amazon updating my credit card expiry date or something, so I probably won't get the book as soon as I'd like).

My initial impression of Weber is that he is the "real deal." Based on the results of his fMRI tests and how well he scored on Jeffery Martin's psychological tests, I'm inclined to believe that his level of realization is very great. So I've been wondering about the roots of his success. Was it the 10,000+ hours of yoga and meditation he claims to have racked up over the years? Was it that "Ramana came to him" (his words for encountering the writings of Ramana Maharshi...or maybe MORE than just Ramana's writings?).

At any rate, I'm delighted that Weber is working so closely with neuroscientists and psychologists. With his example plus those of Tibetan Buddhists and others advanced meditators, there could come better understanding of the whole spiritual process and improved tools for Westerners (and others) to progress.

My initial impression of Weber is that he is the "real deal." Based on the results of his fMRI tests and how well he scored on Jeffery Martin's psychological tests, I'm inclined to believe that his level of realization is very great. So I've been wondering about the roots of his success. Was it the 10,000+ hours of yoga and meditation he claims to have racked up over the years? Was it that "Ramana came to him" (his words for encountering the writings of Ramana Maharshi...or maybe MORE than just Ramana's writings?).

-mlatorra

Since sometimes it is hard to understand tone on internet postings, I just have to respectfully ask if you are being a bit sarcastic here?

Please say yes.

Since sometimes it is hard to understand tone on internet postings, I just have to respectfully ask if you are being a bit sarcastic here? Please say yes.

-michaelmonson

Uhhh...no, sorry Mike. I was not being sarcastic. Perhaps overly earnest?

Where's my literary tone of voice when I really need it?!

...
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.


-kategowen

Kate - I think you've hit on something important here - that when people write and share about the experience that is most intense and new and fresh for them (ie something that has just "knocked them out") it can come across sounding like the be-all end-all of spiritual practice. This may be particularly true when a person is exploring rather independently - not working within a specific tradition or with a certain teacher. Each new radical experience can then generate enormously enthusiastic books, blogs, forum posts, or coffee-shop conversations with friends. If you talked to that same person a good while later, that particular experience or shift in experience may or may not be so central or important; or it may continue to be important, but be integrated and understood with a different perspective.

Just for a small example, if you asked me about the experience of working with spirits twenty years ago, ten years ago, two years ago, and today, I would give you four different takes on how I experience it and its significance in my life and practice.

Since sometimes it is hard to understand tone on internet postings, I just have to respectfully ask if you are being a bit sarcastic here?
Please say yes.

-michaelmonson

I just finished reading a book ("So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish" by D.N.A) - there's a great bit in there about a scientist who gets visited by angels with golden beards and green wings and wearing Dr. Scholl sandals. He shows the sandals to the protagonist, saying that these were indeed the sandals the angels wore, and adding that, being a scientist, he knows they don't constitute scientific proof.

And that's the feeling I get every single time physiological or psychological evidence is cited in favor of someone being enlightened. We're shown the sandals, but they don't constitute scientific proof for the angels with golden beards and green wings. I wish this important qualification weren't dropped every single time.

Still, it's interesting to know what angels wear on their feet.

Cheers,
Florian

Totally agree with Chris!

One of the great and unexpected pleasures of 'the path' is encountering fellow travelers and listening to them tell their stories in their own way. Each reflection sheds new light on my own understanding.

What you are saying makes me think that the main problem with 'self' is the distorted, severely limited and incomplete, way we habitually define it. A case of mistaken identity. A more enlightened view sees something more inclusive, fluid, responsive-- and is in no hurry to establish a hard boundary. There's less of the anxiety that prompts us to be 'drawing a line' all the time, and more delight in exploring the 'further.'

'Boldly going...' may have some etymological relationship to 'tathagata'-- d'ya think?

Yeah, Tom, you're doing a great job communicating what you're learning.

I continue to reflect on this subject.

I am more and more convinced that anatta is a subtle thing not easily translated to words and concepts. I think that comprehending anatta should be something done by the self to help loosen its grip on the outcomes of life and to begin a process of letting go with wisdom.

However, anatta isn’t anti-self, anti-person, anti-I. Comprehending anatta isn’t an invitation to scorn or reject or try to ignore individual activities, behaviors, needs, desires. Expressing ourselves as ourselves, I think, is an instinct. Just like we were meant to breathe, and eat, and procreate, and love our children, and to desperately fear death – we were meant to express ourselves fully and freely as separate entities. We were meant to feel ourselves and be ourselves and to interact with each other and feel each other.

If we express ourselves with the certainty that we are fixed, separate, permanent selves or souls that live on moment to moment and even after death -- our lives tend to be dark, grasping, fearful, selfish, protective, and endlessly unsatisfying. If we express ourselves with a comprehension of anatta our lives have the possibility to be light, open, wise, intimate, with the ability to let go and surrender at the right moments.

Mike, here's how I would put what you're staying into my own words:

Even those who awaken need a healthy sense of self in order to continually act skillfully in the world, both for their own well-being and for that of others. And that somehow, in some way, this is itself a part of what it means to awaken.

Does that resonate with you?

Wonderful, Mike-- the only small edit I'd add is that we're distinct-- not separate-- from one another. If I drop a brick on your foot, it's not that I don't feel it at all-- it's that I feel it in a different way than if I drop it on my own foot.

Quite awhile back, on the question of 'self', I was remembering something a teacher I spent a short while with, Richard Moss, wrote about in a book called The Second Miracle. The 'miracle' of the title, as I recall, is what you might call 'reflexive self-awareness'-- the uniquely human capacity to be aware of themselves: the image in the mirror is 'me'; my thoughts and memories are 'mine', not just incoming data to be responded to.

I really should reread the book, at least enough to clarify for myself if it is the first miracle, this self-awareness; and the second miracle is penetrating its koan and being liberated from the constrictive aspects of self-awareness. As I write, I think that is so. Anyway, Richard is one of the very few current teachers to acknowledge the value of all the aspects of our ordinary humanity, rather than wanting to 'master' them or 'transcend' them. I greatly respect that, whenever I encounter it.

You don't rip out your fingernails in order to awaken. Neither do you rip out your sense of self.

You realize that your fingernails are not you, yours to own, or your Self.

You realize that your sense of self is not you, yours, or your Self.

The Self is nothing to be afraid of, or afraid for (the sake of), since there is no such experience. The sense of self on the other hand, is simply doing its thing, just like the other physical or psychological organs and functions making up this human being.

Expression of this realization has a lot to do with surrender and with seeing through the illusion of control, letting go, and so on.

At least this is how I'd word it currently.

Cheers,
Florian

Mike, here's how I would put what you're staying into my own words:
Even those who awaken need a healthy sense of self in order to continually act skillfully in the world, both for their own well-being and for that of others. And that somehow, in some way, this is itself a part of what it means to awaken.
Does that resonate with you?

-awouldbehipster

Sure, it resonates.

What I’m mostly working on is getting at what I think of as the red herring of dharma practice – the desire of the self to diminish itself in order to realize a self-centered desire to be enlightened.

A perspective from a workshop I went to yesterday, for your thoughts and musings. This is in my own words, including any misunderstandings and poor communication I may be introducing to the ideas.

We fuss and worry and suffer because we think our "self" is the little agitated manager who lives in our head and seems to run our lives. It is ever-vigilant for danger and dwells in a stream of busy thoughts, memories, anticipation of things happening, etc. But who we really are is infinite, boundless, locationless Awake Awareness. If, at some moments, we can relax and let go of the Peanut Gallery in our heads and surrender, we sometimes glimpse this vast, wise, loving essence which is everything, everywhere. Then Peanut Gallery tends to bust in saying "whoa, don't do that, who knows what might go wrong if you stop paying attention to Me Me Me because I am in charge here!" And we return to fussing and grasping, liking and disliking, fearing, etc. With repeated pointers or reminders we can return again and again to surrender, letting go, and in time the recognition of that vast Ground of Being becomes more clear. It can never be recognized through thinking or doing, only by letting go and not doing. Yet it is self-sustaining, endlessly flowing and vibrant and always "here" "now". The more we recognize it, the more we can begin to live from that "space" through the heart-mind instead of through the intellect, ego and head. And that brings more and more relief and the things that girl on the beach might talk about - expansiveness, peace, wholeness, love, etc.

This is a brief non-technical thought, not an academic treatise, but with that in mind, any thoughts?

@Ona, thoughts:

I would alter what you said a little by stressing that the self, the “little agitated manager” is also a perfect expression of who we are and a peaceful life would include being completely open and accepting of all of it’s activities.

Any impulse or pointer or practice that has even an inkling of an attitude that the self is unimportant, a nuisance, the root of all the trouble, etc. will just bring conflict, division, suffering.

And,

As usual I am confused by such terms as “the vast ground of being.” I still suspect that we are just these organic human things that can have all kinds of experiences, states, and thoughts based upon what our brains are doing. Sometimes our brains can get fine tuned in a way that makes us really peaceful and open and it is so wonderful and better that we need a name for that so we call it something like the “vast ground of being.” But there really isn’t any such thing as the vast ground of being, it’s just what we (the self) call that experience or feeling of unity, stillness, intimacy. I realize this is “the controversy” and I’m open.

And,

I’m still fascinated with the “who” here. Who awakens? Who decides that “awakening” is a cool thing and something it is lacking and then strives to attain it? If or when the pesky “self” disappears what does that leave – awakening/enlightenment? I think some teachings indicate that the less “me” I am the more awake/enlightened I will be. Just get rid of “me” and then “I” will by happy. This can’t be right.

Is awakening some kind of slow process of the self somehow disappearing, leaving this ground of being, or is it some kind of learning by the self to know how to act and think in just the right way to fine tune the brain to create that unitive experience?

Of course, I’m beginning to think that the self is both the problem and the solution and that there actually isn’t anything else going on.

As usual I am confused by such terms as “the vast ground of being.”



-michaelmonson

You know, dear Mike, that as I typed that phrase I thought of you...

@Mike, further to your above. The guy whose workshop I went to uses a lot of hand gestures which I find funny and sometimes apt. When he talks about the "little guy in your head" he wiggles his fingers in front of his forehead, which conveys how most of us feel "stuck in our heads" caught up in worry and fuss and liking and disliking and wanting things to be different from how they are and so on.

The way you talk about accepting everything just as it is (my words, interpreting how I sense your non-practice to be), including accepting the fussing and liking and wanting and everything that arises... well, you say: "Sometimes our brains can get fine
tuned in a way that makes us really peaceful and open and it is so
wonderful and better that we need a name for that"

That's the point. When you "fine tune" in that way, then it's okay if there's fussing or worry or whatever, right? It's fine. It just does its thing and there you are, peaceful and open with a little fussy voice complaining about this or that, no? No problem, right? The difference is you aren't so caught up in the fussy voice that you can't even notice that there's peaceful openness, right? If you are totally caught up in the fussy voice (which many of us are most of the time), then there's no peace and openness. If you notice the peace and openness, the fussing can go on without causing a fuss. It's just another part of what's going on.

We can't really talk to each other except by using words (or waving our hands around), so "ground of being" or "awake awareness" can be a phrase that points towards that kind of feeling, that peaceful, open, wonderful, better "thing/place/way of perceiving/experience/feeling."

That's all. Doesn't have to be technical and complicated, and fussing about terminology can be helpful or it can just be fussing.

Does any of that resonate (to use our favorite word lately)?