No self ok now what

[Ben Dhyan]

Personally, I never saw the point of talking about a "thinking mind", at least as something to be avoided. It ends up looking like an endorsement for irrationality.

Context Luas...,no one has talked about avoiding anything...just that a thinking mind by definition is one that interprets reality in concepts of time and space. Otoh, a transcendent mind by definition is beyond time space interpreted reality...it's the real thing and doesn't need any interpreting!

The state of transcendence obviously can't be conveyed to a thinking mind, but so as long as you're content with your thought representations of reality Luas, no problems, all the best. But for those who devote themselves to the ultimate goal of transcendence, you are an inspiration and my very special best to you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cant visualize Buddha as staring in the void with a ball dangling in front of him. He was much more practical than that. Leave that kind of 'turiya' to Hindus. Buddha said do not worry about 'imponderables', get on with life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I cant visualize Buddha as staring in the void with a ball dangling in front of him. He was much more practical than that. Leave that kind of 'turiya' to Hindus. Buddha said do not worry about 'imponderables', get on with life.

Yes Aupmanyav, I can't imagine it either....nirvana is actually more real than the maya of the mortal mind ponderings. If it were not so, there would be no refuge ever from the eternal suffering of karma and reincarnation...aka the wheel of suffering.

 

[Wu Wei]

I never mentioned mindlessness...I referred to a mind free from thought.

It is the self that thinks...thinking about non-self, about a still mind, etc., is still the action of self...it is the same as if the mind was thinking about sex or pleasure...so long as the mind is thinking, it is the the action of self.

So long as the self thinks the state of mind that exists when the mind is free from thought is not a good thing, even though it has never experienced it, such a mind is mired in its own ignorance. Only when your mind has been truly still will the truth be revealed. In the mean time, think what you will, it has nothing to do with reality!

Thank You I see that is not mindlessness but I must admit the rest of that left me a bit confused. But that is my lack of understanding and nothing more

 

[Wu Wei]

Personally, I never saw the point of talking about a "thinking mind", at least as something to be avoided. It ends up looking like an endorsement for irrationality.

That is right about where I am on this at the moment

 

[LuisDantas]

Context Luas...,no one has talked about avoiding anything...just that a thinking mind by definition is one that interprets reality in concepts of time and space.

Is it? This looks like a non-evident, unnatural restriction of the concept of "thinking" to me.

Otoh, a transcendent mind by definition is beyond time space interpreted reality...it's the real thing and doesn't need any interpreting!

Oh, so you are proposing that a transcendent mind and a thinking mind are mutually exclusive. I don't know that I would favor such a terminology, but ok.

The state of transcendence obviously can't be conveyed to a thinking mind,

Maybe it is obvious to someone, but it is most certainly not obvious to me.

but so as long as you're content with your thought representations of reality Luas, no problems, all the best. But for those who devote themselves to the ultimate goal of transcendence, you are an inspiration and my very special best to you.

Do you think it is useful or desirable to present thinking as incompatible with transcendental perception? If so, why?

 

[idav]

Do you think it is useful or desirable to present thinking as incompatible with transcendental perception? If so, why?

Being occupied by now doesnt require one to think about it. If your thinking about it, then it is in the past and has already passed perception.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is it? This looks like a non-evident, unnatural restriction of the concept of "thinking" to me.

Oh, so you are proposing that a transcendent mind and a thinking mind are mutually exclusive. I don't know that I would favor such a terminology, but ok.

Maybe it is obvious to someone, but it is most certainly not obvious to me.

Do you think it is useful or desirable to present thinking as incompatible with transcendental perception? If so, why?

1. Thinking involves time...transcendence* is the now.

2. A mind in thought can't simultaneously be a mind in a state of transcendence*...in the same way a mind asleep can't simultaneously be awake.

3. Transcendence* by definition means beyond time space perception, beyond duality, conveyancing otoh, involves he transmission of information which implies space time duality.

4. There is no choice involved..thinking involves time space duality, transcendence* is beyond time space duality.

* Transcendence; A state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. nirvana is actually more real than the maya of the mortal mind ponderings. If it were not so, there would be no refuge ever from the eternal suffering of karma and reincarnation .. aka the wheel of suffering.

IMHO, nirvana is action, action according to the noble eight-fold path. The four noble truths are the understanding. Nothing achieved without action according to the eight-fold path.

Being occupied by now doesn't require one to think about it. If your thinking about it, then it is in the past and has already passed perception.

There is no now. Now is Planck's time. Before you know it is past. It is either past or future.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thats interesting and I think fits what ben_d was saying above also. Its like a catch 22, you cant experience no self without reflecting on it using the self. It becomes and endless cycle of cessation and awakening.

There is a cognitive "separation" of self that defines those terms of self and no self that becomes ever so nagging when it's pursued with the perspective of self-being.
There is still the wordless and ethereal that remains inclusive that requires a non-cognitive approach to adequately
answer those questions. Funny thing is all of us already know and experiences the nonduality of se/no self but cannot relate into explanations because of the way we must communicate.

 

[crossfire]

There is a cognitive "separation" of self that defines those terms of self and no self that becomes ever so nagging when it's pursued with the perspective of self-being.
There is still the wordless and ethereal that remains inclusive that requires a non-cognitive approach to adequately
answer those questions. Funny thing is all of us already know and experiences the nonduality of se/no self but cannot relate into explanations because of the way we must communicate.

Thusness...tathata.

 

[YmirGF]

*Notes that this is in the Buddhist DIR... so, respectfully...*

Personally, I've moved away from the entire idea of no self, not self, non-self. Non-Dual being does not lend itself to clear verbal expression. So, where I now sit is that the non-dual sense of self is utterly alien to the former sense of self. In those terms, it isn't anything like our ordinary perception of identity. It is not a case of no longer feeling one has an identity however. It's so radically different that comparisons soon get mired in linguistic quicksand. "You" still exist, but in ways that are quite beyond even the most exotic imaginations.


As to what next? Well, there's always the laundry or in my case, raking more leaves...

 

[Twilight Hue]

*Notes that this is in the Buddhist DIR... so, respectfully...*

Personally, I've moved away from the entire idea of no self, not self, non-self. Non-Dual being does not lend itself to clear verbal expression. So, where I now sit is that the non-dual sense of self is utterly alien to the former sense of self. In those terms, it isn't anything like our ordinary perception of identity. It is not a case of no longer feeling one has an identity however. It's so radically different that comparisons soon get mired in linguistic quicksand. "You" still exist, but in ways that are quite beyond even the most exotic imaginations.


As to what next? Well, there's always the laundry or in my case, raking more leaves...

It's contrast I think whereas identity arises out of the woodwork enough so as it's readily noticed. I take noting what self arises from is oftentimes rarely included with the same sense of fervor that self brings out, due to it's prominence if, for no other reason, than because we are alive and as a consequence, focused strongly on that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Interesting discussion. Liberation from self-view might be the point. Or liberation from habitual perceptions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With a second look at the OP. 'No self, what now?' The 'Samsara'.
Like YmirGF said - raking the leaves..

 

[Banjankri]

...No self ok now what

When it comes to the question of "now what", only Self knows the answer. You've been living your whole life relying on the answers provided by your Self. This question about what to do now, arises in your head few times a day. Who gives you the answer?