- Forum
- Sanghas
- Dharma Forum Refugees Camp
- Dharma Refugees Forum Topics
- General Dharma Discussions
- No self?
No self?
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2212
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
So can we go a little deeper, Mike? What is that thing you just mentioned? What are its attributes?
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2215
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
It seems to be true that every object and action I can look at is "empty of self" and for some reason that is wonderful.
And, when "I" look at stuff it feels like I'm looking at stuff and if I look very carefully at myself looking at stuff I'll actually see an image of my face looking at myself looking at stuff, which is often followed by or simultaneous with a sort of slight tension around my eyebrows which will travel down to my chest and then to my abdomen.
And, when "I" look at stuff it feels like I'm looking at stuff and if I look very carefully at myself looking at stuff I'll actually see an image of my face looking at myself looking at stuff, which is often followed by or simultaneous with a sort of slight tension around my eyebrows which will travel down to my chest and then to my abdomen.
14 years 4 months ago #2216
by Eran
Thanissaro Bhikkhu Writes about the Buddha's
Not-self teaching as a strategy
for finding release rather than an absolute truth about the world. He makes a pretty convincing point that the Buddha never said "there is no self" (rather pointedly avoided saying that) and instead presented this teaching as a way of looking at experience that leads to liberation.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2217
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
This nuanced, in my experience. I think we've hit on the major points in this discussion but please note that I keep insisting that there is no permanent self. That's pretty clear when you look carefully. And yes, as we've discussed, there is a "self" that can exist but it's not the same continuous "self" that we've built up and believed exists over the course of our lives.
So why is this a big deal? Because it speaks, ultimately, to the emptiness of everything, every object. As Mike said, every object appears to be empty of self. To me, every object appears to be empty, period. Nothing, no object anywhere, appears to have an innate nature that is separate from everything else. You cannot draw random borders around things. We, and they (all objects), are the product of interdependent origination, which very definitely IS something the Buddha taught. Self is an object, all attributes of self are objects, as are all the things, thoughts and emotions that we usually attribute to our "self." (Mike's "blood, bones, fear, anger," etc.)
So, when we see objects we see them as empty, empty of self and also simultaneously the same thing as self. To be otherwise would require those random boundaries - the ones that simply aren't. This is an emptiness that is full of possibilities. And it all just is.
Abiding in that is liberation.
So why is this a big deal? Because it speaks, ultimately, to the emptiness of everything, every object. As Mike said, every object appears to be empty of self. To me, every object appears to be empty, period. Nothing, no object anywhere, appears to have an innate nature that is separate from everything else. You cannot draw random borders around things. We, and they (all objects), are the product of interdependent origination, which very definitely IS something the Buddha taught. Self is an object, all attributes of self are objects, as are all the things, thoughts and emotions that we usually attribute to our "self." (Mike's "blood, bones, fear, anger," etc.)
So, when we see objects we see them as empty, empty of self and also simultaneously the same thing as self. To be otherwise would require those random boundaries - the ones that simply aren't. This is an emptiness that is full of possibilities. And it all just is.
Abiding in that is liberation.
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2219
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
More interesting evidence on how stories are constructed by mind to explain what happened. Time sense is just fascinating:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all
It's happening right now.
And right now.
And now.
And now.
And....
(Thanks to Hokai Sobol for the link.)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all
It's happening right now.
And right now.
And now.
And now.
And....
(Thanks to Hokai Sobol for the link.)
14 years 4 months ago #2221
by Tom Otvos
-- tomo
And Hokai posted this video from the same good doctor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LENqnjZGX0A
I am liking this guy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LENqnjZGX0A
I am liking this guy!
-- tomo
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2222
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
TED Talks. wonderful things, they are.
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2223
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
My favorite bits:
The question raises a fundamental issue of consciousness: how much of what we perceive exists outside of us and how much is a product of our minds?
In Eagleman’s essay “Brain Time,” published in the 2009 collection “What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science,” he borrows a conceit from Italo Calvino’s “Invisible Cities.” The brain, he writes, is like Kublai Khan, the great Mongol emperor of the thirteenth century. It sits enthroned in its skull, “encased in darkness and silence,” at a lofty remove from brute reality. Messengers stream in from every corner of the sensory kingdom, bringing word of distant sights, sounds, and smells. Their reports arrive at different rates, often long out of date, yet the details are all stitched together into a seamless chronology. The difference is that Kublai Khan was piecing together the past. The brain is describing the present—processing reams of disjointed data on the fly, editing everything down to an instantaneous now. How does it manage it?
When I started out, you basically weren’t allowed to talk about it,” Eagleman says. “Why does it feel like something to be alive? Why, when you put together millions of parts, does something suddenly have a sense of itself? All of this went out the window after B. F. Skinner. And it took a guy with Crick’s gravitas to come in and say, ‘You know what? This is a scientific problem—the most exciting of our time.’ ” Crick called it the scientific search for the soul.
But not right away: the shock didn’t register for up to half a second—an eternity in brain time. “The implications are quite astounding,” Libet later wrote. “We are not conscious of the actual moment of the present. We are always a little late.”
The question raises a fundamental issue of consciousness: how much of what we perceive exists outside of us and how much is a product of our minds?
In Eagleman’s essay “Brain Time,” published in the 2009 collection “What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science,” he borrows a conceit from Italo Calvino’s “Invisible Cities.” The brain, he writes, is like Kublai Khan, the great Mongol emperor of the thirteenth century. It sits enthroned in its skull, “encased in darkness and silence,” at a lofty remove from brute reality. Messengers stream in from every corner of the sensory kingdom, bringing word of distant sights, sounds, and smells. Their reports arrive at different rates, often long out of date, yet the details are all stitched together into a seamless chronology. The difference is that Kublai Khan was piecing together the past. The brain is describing the present—processing reams of disjointed data on the fly, editing everything down to an instantaneous now. How does it manage it?
When I started out, you basically weren’t allowed to talk about it,” Eagleman says. “Why does it feel like something to be alive? Why, when you put together millions of parts, does something suddenly have a sense of itself? All of this went out the window after B. F. Skinner. And it took a guy with Crick’s gravitas to come in and say, ‘You know what? This is a scientific problem—the most exciting of our time.’ ” Crick called it the scientific search for the soul.
But not right away: the shock didn’t register for up to half a second—an eternity in brain time. “The implications are quite astounding,” Libet later wrote. “We are not conscious of the actual moment of the present. We are always a little late.”
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2224
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
Who decides what scientific data is important and why?
Who interprets the data and who do they communicate it to?
What stories do the scientist and his or her intended audience weave about the data? Are they the same stories? Do the stories change?
What does this guy's study of time tell him about his interest in the nature of conciousness?
Did Crick ever find "the soul?"
Who interprets the data and who do they communicate it to?
What stories do the scientist and his or her intended audience weave about the data? Are they the same stories? Do the stories change?
What does this guy's study of time tell him about his interest in the nature of conciousness?
Did Crick ever find "the soul?"
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2225
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
For me this is more empirical confirmation that what we can all "see" by just sitting down quietly to meditate has taken science (think about this, science is a mind-driven exercise that relies on concepts and ideas and dialogue and so on) hundreds of years to validate. I think science, particularly in the west, has viewed "mind" as a woo woo, mysterious, superstitious kind of thing for centuries, and thus has relied solely on external methods, very indirect methods, to describe mind. Well, guess what? Internal methods provide a pretty direct view into "what's going on."
Amazing.
Amazing.
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2226
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
Okay, here is a question (unlike the ones above) for which I am looking for a specific answer rather than to be used as a spark for thought or discussion:
When vipassana meditators say that we have "synched up" our awareness with our experience, is that really true? Wouldn't it be impossible to synch up with everything that is going on in our bodies/minds at a given moment? Or, perhaps, have we just synched up with one chosen type of experience, such as vibrations?
But then, again, can and do we synch up with whatever it is that we can possibly perceive in a given instant even though it's not everything that is going on? (This seems right to me) And, as things seem to be so slowed down that it can all be preceived as individual vibrations arising and passing?
Edit: I just sat for a couple of minutes and it SEEMS like I am synching up wth the whole of my "conscious awareness" when doing vipassana and by that I mean whatever I am able or am actually aware of at each instant. However, more sitting creates more ability to see more detail and thus, the "whole of my awareness" actually can and will change in quality. So, I can synch up with more gross perceptions or more fine sensations which can make things seem to be faster or slower, depending on the quality of the looking. This quality, OF COURSE, changes all the freaking time.
-- does anyone ever experience sensations from the space outside of their body? I think I do sometimes (or maybe all the time)
-- what STILL freaks me out is that I can synch up and be aware of minute details of my experience arising and passing arising and passing arising and passing and see no self anywhere yet an instant later if I lose concentration I feel myself reflecting on what I just saw.
When vipassana meditators say that we have "synched up" our awareness with our experience, is that really true? Wouldn't it be impossible to synch up with everything that is going on in our bodies/minds at a given moment? Or, perhaps, have we just synched up with one chosen type of experience, such as vibrations?
But then, again, can and do we synch up with whatever it is that we can possibly perceive in a given instant even though it's not everything that is going on? (This seems right to me) And, as things seem to be so slowed down that it can all be preceived as individual vibrations arising and passing?
Edit: I just sat for a couple of minutes and it SEEMS like I am synching up wth the whole of my "conscious awareness" when doing vipassana and by that I mean whatever I am able or am actually aware of at each instant. However, more sitting creates more ability to see more detail and thus, the "whole of my awareness" actually can and will change in quality. So, I can synch up with more gross perceptions or more fine sensations which can make things seem to be faster or slower, depending on the quality of the looking. This quality, OF COURSE, changes all the freaking time.
-- does anyone ever experience sensations from the space outside of their body? I think I do sometimes (or maybe all the time)
-- what STILL freaks me out is that I can synch up and be aware of minute details of my experience arising and passing arising and passing arising and passing and see no self anywhere yet an instant later if I lose concentration I feel myself reflecting on what I just saw.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2227
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
When you meditate or, frankly, when you notice or experience anything, you are only accessing that part of "what really happens" that occurs in your mind. So all you can ever see, all you can ever "sync up" with (whatever that means) is your mind.
EVERYTHING is mind, Mike. That's the only way you can perceive anything.
EVERYTHING is mind, Mike. That's the only way you can perceive anything.
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2229
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
What do you mean by "outside the boundaries of my body/skin?"
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2230
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
Air, wood, carpet, insects, chairs, humans, plants, dirt, light bulbs, electric currents, light, paper, hard drives, birds, cats, dogs, water (rivers, lakes, gutters, swamps, lagoons), all the stuff around me.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2231
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
I'm sure I'm not understanding your question. Can you rephrase it, please?
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2232
by Dharma Comarade
Replied by Dharma Comarade on topic No self?
When one meditates in the vipassana style of noticing or noting experience - sensations, thoughts, feelings, images, perceptions as they arise and pass within our minds, I think the common understanding is that we are noticing stuff occuring INSIDE our bodies, inside the boundaries of our skin.
I sometimes get the impression that I am aware in my mind also of sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. that are going on outside of the normal boundaries of the Mike Monson entity (other people, other living things, or just objects). Does anyone else ever have that impression?
I sometimes get the impression that I am aware in my mind also of sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. that are going on outside of the normal boundaries of the Mike Monson entity (other people, other living things, or just objects). Does anyone else ever have that impression?
14 years 4 months ago #2233
by Tom Otvos
I am really starting to wrestle with this. Part of me simply does not believe that things to not exist without my experiencing them. The Hubble Deep Field, for example, was there before knew it was. But by the same token, it is very clear that a lot of filtering happens in the mind and exactly what/how we see the world is totally influenced by that.
The battle, I guess, is in discovering what exactly is the full and complete implication of this.
Between this article, the Ken McLeod podcast, and a few other things, my head is a-swirlin'.
-- tomo
When you meditate or, frankly, when you notice or experience anything, you are only accessing that part of "what really happens" that occurs in your mind. So all you can ever see, all you can ever "sync up" with (whatever that means) is your mind.EVERYTHING is mind, Mike. That's the only way you can perceive anything.
-cmarti
I am really starting to wrestle with this. Part of me simply does not believe that things to not exist without my experiencing them. The Hubble Deep Field, for example, was there before knew it was. But by the same token, it is very clear that a lot of filtering happens in the mind and exactly what/how we see the world is totally influenced by that.
The battle, I guess, is in discovering what exactly is the full and complete implication of this.
Between this article, the Ken McLeod podcast, and a few other things, my head is a-swirlin'.
-- tomo
- Dharma Comarade
- Topic Author
14 years 4 months ago #2235
by Eran
Yes. Quite a lot. I believe this experience is common enough that it has a name (or maybe several names). Have you heard the term Energy Body or Subtle Body? They're used in Holistic circles to describe the different layers of the body, some of which exist outside the physical body (think chakras, meridians, qi, etc.) I believe that the experience these terms try to encompass is what you are describing. Feeling as if there is stuff (thoughts, feelings, energy, vibrations,...) that is happening right outside the body.
I sometimes get the impression that I am aware in my mind also of sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. that are going on outside of the normal boundaries of the Mike Monson entity (other people, other living things, or just objects). Does anyone else ever have that impression?
-michaelmonson
Yes. Quite a lot. I believe this experience is common enough that it has a name (or maybe several names). Have you heard the term Energy Body or Subtle Body? They're used in Holistic circles to describe the different layers of the body, some of which exist outside the physical body (think chakras, meridians, qi, etc.) I believe that the experience these terms try to encompass is what you are describing. Feeling as if there is stuff (thoughts, feelings, energy, vibrations,...) that is happening right outside the body.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
14 years 4 months ago #2236
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic No self?
" I think the common understanding is that we are noticing stuff occuring INSIDE our bodies, inside the boundaries of our skin."
That's not my interpretation, as I hope I've made clear. And... it is vipassana that leads me to the conclusion that everything, literally everything I experience, is mind. Is there a world "out there?" Yes, I think there is, but it is simply and forever inaccessible to anything other than mind.
I think this is one of those "places" where the rubber meets the road for our practice because, as Tomo says, you have to come to terms with this in a deep way. You really have to feel it. You can intellectualize about it all day long but if you feel it in your bones (Zen reference) things will change. It is about "things" and it is about "you." The Hubble Deep Field? Is there a Hubble Deep Field without mind to perceive it? What IS the Hubble Deep Field, anyway? What is a tree? A rock? What are you?
That's not my interpretation, as I hope I've made clear. And... it is vipassana that leads me to the conclusion that everything, literally everything I experience, is mind. Is there a world "out there?" Yes, I think there is, but it is simply and forever inaccessible to anything other than mind.
I think this is one of those "places" where the rubber meets the road for our practice because, as Tomo says, you have to come to terms with this in a deep way. You really have to feel it. You can intellectualize about it all day long but if you feel it in your bones (Zen reference) things will change. It is about "things" and it is about "you." The Hubble Deep Field? Is there a Hubble Deep Field without mind to perceive it? What IS the Hubble Deep Field, anyway? What is a tree? A rock? What are you?