Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 11:03:03 GMT -5
Belief in a self seems to get special attention, but any belief which doesn't align with reality interferes with the flow of life. The belief or attitude that others must "drop their belief in a self" interferes with the flow of life. The belief that the free market will always self-correct and not ruin the ecosystem is erroneous. The belief that your favorite politician won't be corrupted is erroneous. There are a certain set of beliefs which facilitate life, where I last left my keys, who I have appointments with, where X is located relative to Y, etc. but most other beliefs interfere, are unnecessary or erroneous. A belief in a separate self is just one kind of erroneous belief, but giving it special treatment over other erroneous beliefs is to miss the mark. The reason the belief in a separate self is given special attention is that all suffering is the result of that belief and the various beliefs, attitudes and actions that arise from that. It deserves special attention. if there's no truth only truthin', can't we also say that while there's no self, there is selfin'? Sorta like no mind, but mindin'... It's just that in the activity of selfin' there are thoughts that refer to an imagined self. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2012 20:02:03 GMT -5
The reason the belief in a separate self is given special attention is that all suffering is the result of that belief and the various beliefs, attitudes and actions that arise from that. It deserves special attention. if there's no truth only truthin', can't we also say that while there's no self, there is selfin'? Sorta like no mind, but mindin'... It's just that in the activity of selfin' there are thoughts that refer to an imagined self. Right, and as I say, if those thoughts are believed, there's suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2012 13:30:56 GMT -5
if there's no truth only truthin', can't we also say that while there's no self, there is selfin'? Sorta like no mind, but mindin'... It's just that in the activity of selfin' there are thoughts that refer to an imagined self. Right, and as I say, if those thoughts are believed, there's suffering. Yea maybe. You sound like a ruthless truther.  It seems to me that one can LOOK and consider direct questions about whether there is a self in direct experience and clearly see that nope there ain't one. But there is a habit of selfing that continues. If at anytime some 'direct looking' is done to see if there is a self that underpins that 'selfing' there can be an obvious answer of Nope. But the selfing continues. And behaviours happen that are based on the belief of a self. yada yada. So just looking and seeing that there is no basis for a belief in self is not actually sufficient. At least in MY case. Your mileage may vary. It does seem like this sort of coring does do the job for a lot of them apples. So the thoughts that constitute selfing, all revolving around an assumed self, continue even if the question 'Is there a self?' is sincerely answered in the negative. THE HOLLOW MAN. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2012 14:59:54 GMT -5
If at anytime some 'direct looking' is done to see if there is a self that underpins that 'selfing' there can be an obvious answer of Nope. But the selfing continues. And behaviours happen that are based on the belief of a self. yada yada. I've found this too, max. The way it seems to me is that there are a multitude of expressions for this selfing business. In inquiry, I might see - oh yeah, I'm imagining a 'self' there and then that sort of dissipates. But then others pop up - like 'my body' or 'my family' or somesuch. When they pop up, I look at them. Kinda like a whack-a-mole game. Is there some kind of rudimentary inquiry that blows up the whole thing? If so, I don't know. But maybe this stepping through all the manifestations of self is why Buddha spent so long at the bodhi tree. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Sept 17, 2012 17:17:15 GMT -5
If at anytime some 'direct looking' is done to see if there is a self that underpins that 'selfing' there can be an obvious answer of Nope. But the selfing continues. And behaviours happen that are based on the belief of a self. yada yada. I've found this too, max. The way it seems to me is that there are a multitude of expressions for this selfing business. In inquiry, I might see - oh yeah, I'm imagining a 'self' there and then that sort of dissipates. But then others pop up - like 'my body' or 'my family' or somesuch. When they pop up, I look at them. Kinda like a whack-a-mole game. Is there some kind of rudimentary inquiry that blows up the whole thing? If so, I don't know. But maybe this stepping through all the manifestations of self is why Buddha spent so long at the bodhi tree. It's not that you get rid of the manifestations of self, it's that you become non-attached to them. "my grandma" is simply a practical label for a socially required familial relationship. Becoming anti-self is no more "there" than being pro-self. There is nowhere to get. The crusade to eradicate self is like trying to wipe out the flu, a futile endeavor. If the goal is to become free of the thoughts of self, trying to force it is the exact opposite. Your action is saying "-I- can't have any thoughts of self" and your very effort re-affirms a self. The only way to become free of self is to stop caring one way or another. Things simply become practical and impersonal. "My mother" is still called "my mother". That is simply her label. The energy of the role lessens. The relationship on our end is more human-human, but the body called "mom" keeps trying to make the relationship "mom-child". |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Sept 17, 2012 17:45:23 GMT -5
How they get to being practical and impersonal is that you simply realize that thoughts of self are a work of fiction. Much of that fiction is damaging in one way or another. "me" vs. "them". Negative emotions associated to the story of self.
But from what I can see, the body-mind needs to be able to have a self-concept and thoughts of self in order to learn new abilities and navigate the world. It's simply seen that this "self" in the machine is more like a mathematical symbol in an equation that spans beyond the individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 17, 2012 20:43:32 GMT -5
It's not that you get rid of the manifestations of self, it's that you become non-attached to them. "my grandma" is simply a practical label for a socially required familial relationship. Becoming anti-self is no more "there" than being pro-self. There is nowhere to get. The crusade to eradicate self is like trying to wipe out the flu, a futile endeavor. Wasn't talking about getting rid of anything or being anti anything. I was talking about seeing what the concept of self is grounded in. Realizing the nature of it. I found that I could clearly see aspects of my thinking about 'self' that were merely conceptual, but that I had taken as 'real'. What I was saying to max was that I still hadn't seen the whole story. Sometime later, I realized that I was still relating my physical body to 'self'. Then there's the whole story of relationships - my daughter, my mother. The conceptual can pop up in there, too. I don't see it so much as 'lessening attachment'. Attachments seem to lessen all by themselves as the nature of things I took as real are seen to be patterns of thought. Just saying there's been no big bang here. Stuff falls away when it's good and ready. Don't know where I gave that impression. Must have been the whack-a-mole analogy. Maybe not the most appropriate. ;D "Free of self" sounds more anti-self than what I wrote. How can you become free of something that doesn't exist? You're saying, what?, ignore it? I get the feeling that you're writing to convince yourself of something more than to convince me of something. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Sept 17, 2012 22:53:08 GMT -5
Apologies Quinn, I misread your post. I'm under a lot of stress due to school being in session.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 18, 2012 6:08:21 GMT -5
Apologies Quinn, I misread your post. I'm under a lot of stress due to school being in session. Who are you and what did you do with Top? ;D No need to apologize, my friend. School started for me, too, but as an undergraduate student. You're teaching, right? As an internship? My son's working on his masters and interning and he mostly walks around with a dazed expression. They heap a lot on you. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Sept 18, 2012 8:06:52 GMT -5
I'm still in graduate school, working on my dissertation, taking one class and teaching another. Cortisol levels way up!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2012 12:16:28 GMT -5
If at anytime some 'direct looking' is done to see if there is a self that underpins that 'selfing' there can be an obvious answer of Nope. But the selfing continues. And behaviours happen that are based on the belief of a self. yada yada. I've found this too, max. The way it seems to me is that there are a multitude of expressions for this selfing business. In inquiry, I might see - oh yeah, I'm imagining a 'self' there and then that sort of dissipates. But then others pop up - like 'my body' or 'my family' or somesuch. When they pop up, I look at them. Kinda like a whack-a-mole game. Is there some kind of rudimentary inquiry that blows up the whole thing? If so, I don't know. But maybe this stepping through all the manifestations of self is why Buddha spent so long at the bodhi tree. Yea maybe I just need to do more of that. More whack-a-mole -- in the 'seeing through illusion' sense, not the annihilation zappo sense. When catch myself doing or thinking something reeking of an assumption of self and then I 'look' to see whassupwidat it's laughingly obvious that this is just smoke and mirrors. Sort of embarrassing. I'm not so sure what the cause of those behaviors/thoughts are but I'm not certain it's because of belief. It more seems like a lot of conditioning -- programming. Stimulus, response. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2012 12:17:20 GMT -5
Cortisol levels way up! Green tea, sir. Good for countering cortisol. Also sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 18, 2012 12:26:54 GMT -5
I'm not so sure what the cause of those behaviors/thoughts are but I'm not certain it's because of belief. It more seems like a lot of conditioning -- programming. Stimulus, response. Yeah, like there's a momentum going that needs to run itself out. That too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2012 12:12:36 GMT -5
I'm not so sure what the cause of those behaviors/thoughts are but I'm not certain it's because of belief. It more seems like a lot of conditioning -- programming. Stimulus, response. Yeah, like there's a momentum going that needs to run itself out. That too. The idea that there is momentum carrying you forward or habits that need to fade is not really true. If you had been carrying around a 50 pound backpack your whole life, and then realized it had no purpose and could be put down any time, how long would it take for that habit momentum to end? It would be the greatest discovery of your life and the thought that you should strap on the backpack would seem absurd. But realizing that what you always thought you were is just a set of ideas is not a particularly momentous discovery, and for many, not particularly welcome. It may not feel like a 50 pound weight being dropped. It may feel more like fear and confusion and maybe a little amazement mixed in. And yet if this isn't YOU, how can the struggle based on that 'you' continue? This is where the sense of momentum comes from, as a way to try to answer that question. If there were someplace else to position your identity, like a consciousness or awareness thingy that would watch the body die and then chill with the homies or hop into another mansuit, that would be a different matter. Life wouldn't be taken so seriously and could be enjoyed because the continuity of 'you' would be maintained. This is the basis of religious beliefs but it's not the basis of nonduality. In nonduality you're not invited to believe in a bigger, better experience to come for the personal you, you're invited to die before you die. The conundrum is really that experiencing, here and now, is all there is, and yet there is no experiencer to lay claim to it. If we set aside the belief in a personal self for a moment, there is still a set of structures in place for which something still holds a claim check, and these personal structures become more important than the apparent fact that there is no-one to claim them, and so that fact has no real transformative power. Are you a daughter, a mother, a wife, a doctor, intelligent, wise, happy, unhappy, free, imprisoned, successful, a failure, compassionate, uncaring, rich, poor, beautiful, ugly? These are the very structures that, by all rights, should collapse completely upon the recognition that there is no 'you'. They don't continue out of habit or momentum, but because the claim checks are more important than the mysterious unlocatable someone who holds them. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2012 13:06:48 GMT -5
Yeah, like there's a momentum going that needs to run itself out. That too. The idea that there is momentum carrying you forward or habits that need to fade is not really true. If you had been carrying around a 50 pound backpack your whole life, and then realized it had no purpose and could be put down any time, how long would it take for that habit momentum to end? It would be the greatest discovery of your life and the thought that you should strap on the backpack would seem absurd. It's more like - how many times would you reach back to grab something from the backpack after it's gone? If you'd been wearing for decades, maybe quite a bit at first. Might even still fell the impression of it on your back. But on to your main point.... The part in bold is where I get stopped in these conversations. Any attempts at defining the YOU have been shown to be pointless, yes. But undefinable does not equate to non-existent. It only equates to undefinable. The rest of what you wrote refers to the non-existent experiencer. It appears to me that I exist. Can't tell you what the 'I' is that exists, just that it is. |
|
