No self ok now what

[LuisDantas]

Wow, that was a relief. I'm sortta attached to, you know, existing. I would hate to feel guilty for that.

 

[Wu Wei]

Yogacara perspective makes this easier to understand. There are eight modes of consciousness:
consciousness #1-5: sensory input
Conscious #6: mind, logical thinking
Consciousness #7: "I making" conceptual consciousness--inherently prone to fallacy
Conscious #8: "storehouse" consciousness.

In yogacara, anatta is the process by which the fallacious conceptual "I making" made by the 7th consciousness is logically refuted by the 6th consciousness: i.e., "this (concept) is not my self, that (concept) is not my self." Anything you can sense with your senses is not your self, as it ignores your mental capacities. Your logical and conceptual mind is not your self, as you don't disappear if you still the mental chatter. Your storehouse consciousness is not your self--nor are the contents of the storehouse.

There is really no satisfactory way to conceptualize "self" that will stand up to logical scrutiny--being everchanging and dynamic, any attempt to describe it will be incorrect within an eyeblink. It's conceptually untraceable. Accepting this frees you from clinging to erroneous conceptual concepts.

Here's a link to the Yogacara verses if you are interested in further reading:
Contents Verses Delineating the Eight Consciousnesses

Thank You, I shall read it

Question

There is really no satisfactory way to conceptualize "self" that will stand up to logical scrutiny--being everchanging and dynamic, any attempt to describe it will be incorrect within an eyeblink. It's conceptually untraceable. Accepting this frees you from clinging to erroneous conceptual concepts.

But what about "Cogito ergo sum - René Descartes"

 

[Alceste]

I see myself as a narcissistic entropy tube.

 

[Wu Wei]

When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no self to arise to divide the mind into two ....the thinker about reality and the conceptual interpretation of that reality.

If you understood this, you would immediately cease posting anything more on this thread, as it is the 'I' that arises to ask questions and generally indulge in monkey chatter that prevents the understanding sought.

The sands of time are falling through the hour glass of life...don't waste life in endless talk about the walk...begin the walk.

Not disputing this, because I am not sure I understand it, but it would seem to me that you cannot stop, or be free from, thought, nor should you. That to my limited understanding is mindlessness and I don't think that is a good thing

 

[Wu Wei]

I see myself as a narcissistic entropy tube.

Interesting way to look at oneself.... depending on which definition of entropy you are using...you are a long, hollow cylinder in a gradual decline into disorder with an excessive interest in yourself and your appearance. Or you are a long, hollow cylinder that has a certain degree of randomness in your systems with an excessive interest in yourself and your appearance.

 

[LuisDantas]

Both are technically true. For myself, anyway. I won't claim knowledge of Alceste's existential nature, although I have a hunch.

 

[Alceste]

Interesting way to look at oneself.... depending on which definition of entropy you are using...you are a long, hollow cylinder in a gradual decline into disorder with an excessive interest in yourself and your appearance. Or you are a long, hollow cylinder that has a certain degree of randomness in your systems with an excessive interest in yourself and your appearance.

The first one. Like all animalia, I put order in one end, disorder comes out the other, and all the while I imagine I am more significant and attractive than an earthworm.

 

[idav]

I suppose it is possible. But I find it a bit too speculative for me to consider right now.

It isnt all that speculative but the question is what is the limit to these possibilities. QM sorta opens up a pandoras box in that regard, QM experiments make everything seem possible, like teleporting, time travel to the future, string theory all seem plausible given the nature of reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what about "Cogito ergo sum - René Descartes"

With all respect to the gentleman, he should have read some Hindu or Buddhist philosophy. He made a very basic mistake. He does not define the level of his observation - like did he see it with a 100x microscope or a 10,000x microscope. Yes, at the lower level of reality (Vyavaharika), we exist. At a higher level of observation (Parmarthika), we don't.

 

[Secret Chief]

I see myself as a narcissistic entropy tube.

God I love it when you talk dirty.

 

[Wu Wei]

With all respect to the gentleman, he should have read some Hindu or Buddhist philosophy. He made a very basic mistake. He does not define the level of his observation - like did he see it with a 100x microscope or a 10,000x microscope. Yes, at the lower level of reality (Vyavaharika), we exist. At a higher level of observation (Parmarthika), we don't.

He saw it with his eyes... he died in 1650.

What you are talking about was not an option for him at the time. All he had was his own vision...and thought

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not disputing this, because I am not sure I understand it, but it would seem to me that you cannot stop, or be free from, thought, nor should you. That to my limited understanding is mindlessness and I don't think that is a good thing

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!

 

[Secret Chief]

Try this for size...
No-self or Not-self?

 

[idav]

Try this for size...
No-self or Not-self?

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

Try this for size...
No-self or Not-self?

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.

I like accesstoinsight. Lots of good stuff there. I agree that to think about the self creates a self. It's not skillful action.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

That's it! The 'you' as it relates to the self of thought can't ever experience the state of mind free of self, but rather it is the pure mind unobscured by that thinking self that experiences the expanded awareness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And analysis, meditation, thinking deeply can make the mind pure. How, otherwise, do you think Buddha got it? Take thoughts to a finer and still finer sieve.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And analysis, meditation, thinking deeply can make the mind pure. How, otherwise, do you think Buddha got it? Take thoughts to a finer and still finer sieve.

No one has said the thinking mind doesn't have its purpose in this material world, but it has no place in transcendence because it is a state of mind beyond the illusion of time and space perception.

Say you have a goal of getting to the other side of a deep, raging, and wide river, and you build a boat to take you over the other side. When the goal has been realized and you are on the other side...what further need of you for the boat?

This side of the river is material existence, the river is consciousness, the boat journey to the other side is the disciplining of the conceptualizing mind, and the other side is trancendence/nirvana.

...and no one said it was easy, the boat may be overwhelmed many times, and even sink, but hey...so long we keep up our will and never lose sight of the goal, the goal will be realized.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, Luis, I meant exactly that. I too, am no devotee of 'no-thinking'. And, yes, Ben, once the fjord has been crossed, thinking is not necessary. It is necessary to the extent so as not to fall in the raging river again, which is quite common.