No Self

[Mal]

@cetus56

The words I use to try to articulate the realization is:

"This"

Possibly not even "this", maybe  "One Taste" is better?

It's big from the perspective of ego when I remember the realization. 

However you have made me aware that size is just another concept. 

How about "Eternal"?

Even "Eternal" is tainted with the idea of a never ending stream of time.  It's not even that!

I personally don't like "no-self" as it's not a very useful pointing out instruction in my experience. No self is only obvious from the perspective of the transcendent. It's pretty useless to say to a self that they don't exist. There is always a self, it's just a matter of which self we identify as.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Mal

[cetus]

Why did you pick me today?@Mal  Oh man! Where you trying to take all this?

[Mal]

@cetus56 Pardon?

[abrakamowse]

Maybe this can cast some light on this topic:

"The Buddha’s teaching of no-self is about letting go. Let go of our stories, or in short, our egos. Our egos think those stories bring us security, but in reality they act more like ill-fitting glasses that distort our vision. But at the same time, the teaching isn’t telling us to be passive and let the winds blow us around. It’s about being so completely immersed in and open to the present moment that we know clearly and fully what the situation is – including our own strengths and weaknesses. With that clarity of vision, we can choose to flow more in harmony with the way things really are by confidently relying on our known strengths, rather than fighting to hold up our version of a fool’s paradise."

 

The whole article is here:

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/if-there-is-no-self

[cetus]

22 hours ago, Mal said:

Even "Eternal" is tainted with the idea of a never ending stream of time.  It's not even that!

@Mal Agreed, maybe timeless would have been a better choice of words. no beginning , no end. Sorry things headed in a negative direction yesterday. My own ego got the best of me when you referred to my view of no-self as "useless". I also felt a little criticized. It's all good . We all have different views. Maybe we are all correct and incorrect at the same time. (so to speak). Who really knows?  Sometimes you just have a day where you start questioning everything suddenly. Maybe we are all just a projection of thought? or maybe we are something much bigger as a "self" that we cannot see from this point of view  (that would be nice).  What is right and what is wrong? The truth is, nobody can really say with 100% assurance.* I'm speaking in plain English (just as a note.)   Anyway it's all good here. Have a great day

 

[Mal]

@cetus56

My friend, 

I'm sorry, but this has gone slightly over my head. I have no clue what this is about, and I wouldn't like to address it either. 

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that you're not the only person who uses the terminology of "no-self" 

Till next time...

Mal

 

[Teags]

On 20 June 2016 at 10:14 PM, charlie2dogs said:

actually the idea of no self should be dropped, its an idea, a thought, a philosophy,  it serves no good purpose.  its about experiencing ones core being,  what is your core being, it is the source of life, the creator of all things, the ground of all being, all knowing, all powerful,  it should never be looked at as nothingness or no self, because it is all there is, everything else arises out of that.

@charlie2dogs Leo says in his videos that their is only one way to enlightenment that he knows of and that is to destroy the ego. Are you suggesting there is another way? Could you recommend any meditation techniques? 

 

 

[Teags]

On 20 June 2016 at 9:37 PM, Ayla said:

If there is no self, how is it still that there is something YOU (have to/can/are supposed to) do next? 

How is it that you perceive yourself with no self? Is there any decision there to be made by a central unit (you)? 

If you go open a drawer to chose a pair of socks, who chooses? YOU? No-you? 

 

@Ayla they are good questions I'm not too sure of the answers  I'll have to think about that.