Restating the 'no-self doctrine'

Kate said on another thread: I think it would be great if someone brilliant re-stated the "no-self doctrine" in our contemporary language. In my experience, that sense of having "blinked out of existence" was relatively fleeting. What remained was the recurring memory that things "are not about me"-- and I mean ALLLL things, particularly "enlightenment."

As a secondary plan (rather than waiting for someone brilliant to do it), perhaps we could have a discussion thread about the ways this concept is understood and misunderstood?

I agree.

So, as a dude that isn't awake, but rather fights for moments of awakeness and falls asleep just as quickly...

It seems like "not self" is true of every thing, yet "no self" is nihilism and completely not true.

Weird, having written that... That's pretty much it, I think.

Part of the problem is that "self"-- like its Latin version "ego"-- means different things to different people in different contexts. Part of what prompted my wish for a better statement of the "doctrine" (a word I chose with some care) is that I see imprecise use of "no-self" discouraging meditators who feel that nothing so radical has happened to them, so they must not be getting anywhere with their practice. And I see it used in a pompous and-- paradoxically-- self-aggrandizing way by some people claiming accomplishment. To my eye, some of these people look more like glib philosophers than real practitioners. They typically use exceptionally awkward language to try to indicate just how different they are from ordinary unenlightened shmoes who use the first person singular pronoun in the usual way.

It seems to me that what remains after the large or small shock of not being the center of the universe is the understanding that much of what we call "ourselves" is a tangled mess of memories, stories, expectations, inferences-- a construct, in short. It doesn't stay put for close examination. It doesn't exist in isolation; the boundaries are fuzzy and sometimes very permeable. So we habitually mis-define it.

Yes, it is "subjective"-- it is the very name we give our subjectivity! But "objectivity" is not really a requirement for existence. Otherwise, only everybody else in the room could verify anyone's existence. Each self could only attest to the others.

There are experiences that are "out of time" where all the reference points (and "self" is a BIG one) are so irrelevant that they don't occur. That is a subjective experience. And there is the business of ordinary life where it is necessary to know what's what and who's who. That is an objective fact. I don't have to be contentious-- me against the world; but I can't be evasive and refuse responsibility for myself, either.

Subjectivity is another one of those words that probably needs its doctrine restated.

Meditation could be called the investigation of the objectivity of subjectivity.

That act (investigation of the thingness of subjectivity) results in non-self understanding, usually by developing "witness" mind and experiencing all of the existential crises that a non-material witness presents... but eventually (it seems more and more true for me) the witness has its own set of sensations that are things and begins to melt away.

So for a while, subjectivity is objectified. But eventually even the sensations of doing objectification (self objectifying other) no longer seem like one's subjectiveness.

For me the blipping out was more of a marker for a type of neurological change, I'm not sure it gave me any real immediate conscious insight, although I think those neurological changes have great impact and contribute massively to the no self thing over time. I had already had experiences with fungi that had let me see the self as an assumption, a useful concept, a very natural assumption particularly given the propaganda of language.

I tend to separate the developmental axis from the direct pointing kind of stuff. It's all the same, but it seems like there is a useful distinction there. My sense is that both are useful, and maybe more axes than that. Like therapy can be helpful.

I was reading Gateless Gatecrashers that someone recommended, and I was amazed at this one practitioner, Shane, who had been meditating 15 years, teaching for 7 years, and yet he didn't seem to get the no self thing. I assume this guy had to have some significant neurological calming going on, but it seems almost criminal that he wasn't getting the whole thing. That's kind of my view of much of the contemplative community in general, with a lot of people "doing it, but not getting it done."

I also sense there are a number of people who get the direct pointing from a more intellectual level, and maybe never really get it from a felt sense, avoiding the developmental stuff, maybe kind of like Kate was pointing to.

There's a level of "being the meat" where the assumed self can be seen on an individual level, and then there is more complete nonduality where everything is all just happening. I guess I'm trying to point at experiential vs. conceptual, and partial vs. "full" realization.

I'm not sure that "direct pointing" and "developmental methods" are (or have to be) seen as so exclusive. That is, there are a few traditions which highly emphasize one or the other, but many traditions actually encompass both together. Even in traditional Theravada, for instance, when you read scriptures or hear teachings, in a sense those are direct pointing: the teacher/text is describing aspects of awakening and delusion, pointing to how things really are, and so on, using various examples. One supplements that with various kinds of sitting practices. I've attended teachings by only one teacher (a former student of Adyashanti) who did five hours of pointing, teaching, talking and NO silent sitting. I've attended others with a similar style who mixed spoken teachings with periods of silent sitting.

I suspect that what works best for a given person is largely to do with their style, aesthetics, personality - that is, you are drawn to the style of practice that fits with your character, and that is the one you will do regularly, therefore it will work best for you. (Rather than the belief that certain methods are super powerful and if only everyone would do THAT everyone would wake up really quickly.) Most solid time-tested traditions work well - if one actually applies what is taught. Of course if one doesn't understand what is being taught, that impedes applying the teachings. I think of a couple stories of students who spent years sweeping the floor at a Zen center before it dawned on them that that was a practice, not a chore to keep them from practicing. Some people do better with less mysterious/subtle teaching. Some do better with more poetic/allegorical teaching.

Thoughts?

Ona Kiser wrote: I suspect that what works best for a given person is largely to do with their style, aesthetics, personality - that is, you are drawn to the style of practice that fits with your character, and that is the one you will do regularly, therefore it will work best for you. (Rather than the belief that certain methods are super powerful and if only everyone would do THAT everyone would wake up really quickly.) Most solid time-tested traditions work well - if one actually applies what is taught. Of course if one doesn't understand what is being taught, that impedes applying the teachings. I think of a couple stories of students who spent years sweeping the floor at a Zen center before it dawned on them that that was a practice, not a chore to keep them from practicing. Some people do better with less mysterious/subtle teaching. Some do better with more poetic/allegorical teaching.

Thoughts?

This is my experience of different "schools" of teaching and methods. I can often see very clearly why all the different teachings and methods could/would/will/do work (bring about transformation) but as you said, it comes down to the individual personality, or I like to think of it as whatever groove resonates. It seems that different school have more or less emphasis on a certain aspect of practice but I haven't come across anything that rejects other methods, but maybe I've been lucky.

Eric wrote: It's all the same, but it seems like there is a useful distinction there.

Mind and body. Intellectual and grokked. I'm not sure I could say that those axes led to different insights in my case, although I could see how it could be that way. I think the intellectual/conceptual side of no self can be helpful, but it's hard to believe that it could really do the job for most people.

The results of the training of attention, openness and relaxation are useful in getting the neurology to where it can sit still, let go of unnecessary crap, and pay attention long enough to grok this stuff directly.

My hypothesis is that the "degree of enlightenment" among recipients of direct pointing would measure out as "higher" and more sustainable and continuous in someone who is already well trained developmentally. I got the conceptual view a long time ago, read the books, dabbled with meditation, listened to tons of advaita, etc. but to me any realization was partial as my mind was not free. For me at least, the developmental part ranks as extremely important.

Ultimately you have to learn to snow ski by trial and error, a felt sense. Along the way it may be useful to hear some pointers like "bend zee knees" or keep your weight on the downhill ski. Those will help, but you could read a million books and watch a million videos about snow skiing and never really get it. Both axes are useful, but I'd have to lean on the developmental side if I had to choose. You throw a 10 year old kid a season pass at a ski resort, that kid is going to learn how to ski, lessons or not.

Which makes me think of neuroplasticity. If done in concert with contemplative practice, anything that helps with neuroplasticity, like exercise and omega 3s (and apparently major psychedelics) could play a part. All that walking in traditional Theravada practice makes some sense, or yoga. That 10 year old kid has tons of natural neuroplasticity.

I was thinking about it at the gym

No self, to me, seems dead simple. I'm not sure what to say about it. Everything is. Done. No "not me", just is.

Stream entry was very useful in terms of stilling and quieting the mind and increasing mindfulness. I LOVE those aspects. And there may be some level of deep neurological understanding in the blip, the exposure to complete emptiness, although it seems like deep sleep would do that. I don't know, I suppose it did fade me out a little bit. But it didn't do a tremendous amount for me consciously on the no-self axis.

On no-self I got a lot more out of fungi where it was a direct realization of oneness/ego-death or whatever you want to label it or that "oh, this is all just happening" or finally, the assumption of a doer was simply forgotten - dropped away and then seen as an assumption, as something extra.

The koan practice seems particularly amenable to sudden insight, as they're often set up like a joke that you have to get. I guess you could kind of call the psychedelic insights sudden, not always, but relative to developmental progress, yes. Maybe I'm talking above my pay grade. All I know is that on fungi I'm 4th path , I don't see how there could be more to it.

Dependent origination didn't really blow my mind. Maybe it should. Just kinda seems like physics. I do think noting is very conducive to seeing DO.

I'm finding the direct path stuff more valuable nowadays, or just being aware, period, as opposed to formal practice. For later paths it just seems like a continuing journey of de-conditioning, letting go of all those little assumptions and bringing it home into daily life, embodying it. And I think given the depth of conditioning, it takes a lot of repeated pointers. At least for me.

The fungi put you in a nice non-dual state, yes? Do not confuse this for what it is like to be awake. Enlightenment is not a state. I am out and about right now so that's all I have time for right now.

(Late night analogy was really bad and irrelevant - deleted in favor of a simpler question.) I don't quite get the "facets" thing. Any Facet would be a partial understanding or way of explaining some kinds of experiences/perceptions, and useful in that regard, but not the same as the Whole, no?

Russell wrote: The fungi put you in a nice non-dual state, yes? Do not confuse this for what it is like to be awake. Enlightenment is not a state. I am out and about right now so that's all I have time for right now.

To me this points to the difference between being temporarily flown to the top of the mountain in a helicopter, versus slowly hiking up on foot with the goal of living on the top of the mountain. Which is like sudden insight vs. developmental progress. But the top of the mountain is the top of the mountain, yes? or not?

I did some investigating with that substance the other day, thinking about this thread and the people here (which was a nice pointer ). Not sure what to say, there was nothing there, no agency, silent, still ... gone ...

Not convinced there is anything beyond that, but I do see room for improvement in day to day life.

I think of it more as a magnifying glass or as a lubricant as opposed to a producer of a separate state, at least in the miniscule quantities I use. But maybe I doth protest too much.

***

For me the angle on no-self that I found most helpful was grokking that a little pre-verbal primate animal was taught, through language and behavior and culture, a particular set of beliefs about self and that just like Santa Claus, those beliefs can be substantially seen thru and let go of. I'm seeing DO as another angle on the same thing, albeit maybe at a more fundamental level. Which I think is kind of what you were saying, Chris, top down and bottom up. Maybe I need to grok more from the bottom up. The bottom up is pretty all-encompassing.

I keep thinking of a story from a Thai restaurant where my friend asked about the difference between two soups. The waitress said, "they all the same."

"To me this points to the difference between being temporarily flown to the top of the mountain in a helicopter, versus slowly hiking up on foot with the goal of living on the top of the mountain. Which is like sudden insight vs. developmental progress. But the top of the mountain is the top of the mountain, yes? or not?"

I'd say, "Not." I have enjoyed-- in the first case, decades in the past-- both psychoactive substances and practice devoted to understanding my nature. I had a couple of profound, and remembered, insights with psychedelics. If I were to neatly delete the context and promote them as realization, there would be an important component missing.

THE insight (resulting from practice) came with certain certainties: that I had arrived at the beginning; that I was responsible for what I knew; that the experiential details were entirely irrelevant; that "enlightenment experience" was so inadequate a description as to be misleading; that it wasn't something "I" did, or could do again.

Psychedelics are lots of fun, but they can seduce you into thinking that the project is for "you" to "go" somewhere novel. The trippy territory of detachment, for instance. Or warm-and-fuzzyland. And then there is next day, or week-- and what remains to be done, in the same old place you took off from.

Hence Ram Dass' lovely story about Maharajii taking his entire acid stash, swallowing them all, and being entirely unaffected.

I don't have anything to add, but I hope you guys keep going with this, as it's interesting to me.