Anattā (no self)

[sentient]

Getting back to Anatta ……

I mean is “Anatta” even a moral concept - or is Anatta neither moral or immoral - as in amoral?

It has been said that 'dualistic morality’ only leads to condemnation and condemnation leads to hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy being dualistic morality’s ‘shadow’.

*

A lot of that “flesh is sin” Christian stuff is at times projected onto Buddhism.
One needs to take morality seriously, but not totally without any humour - surely.
Oh, I do love this (very short video):
“one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSWVi3X1ho4

Plus I think our basic bodies are egoless.
Hearing is just a function – hearing hears both good and bad.
Seeing sees both good and bad.
Touch feels both rough and smooth, hot and cold etc.
Etc.

‘Not knowing’ kinda acts like a sense as well. What am I being shown here, in this (rl) situation?

Besides - we cannot tell our bodies whom it should or shouldn’t feel attracted to, feel body chemistry with.
If you meet a total stranger and suddenly you both feel a strong physical attraction i.e. you totally click - there is no morality involved – it is just what suddenly involuntarily arose.
If or how you choose to act on it or respond to it – well, that is a conditional situation.
"The Illusion of Control" (very short video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpUev1FvS0

Some say it is morally wrong to feel attraction towards the same sex. I wouldn’t know how that happens so I cannot judge it. None of my business.
Some say interracial relationships are wrong.
Etc.

*

And no - we cannot transform the world – whip it into the shape of our liking, we can only transform ourselves through the real life situation plays, when we are challenged ….. 'put on the spot' .....
To think that our mere opinions count (about what somebody may or may not have done in Timbuktu) - does not do the ‘work’.

Plus an idea of one’s self as the ‘righteous meee’ versus the ‘immoral other’ only serves to strengthen the dual boundary – the realization of anatta or egolessness removes - when the idea of self starts to fall away.

To experience reality more directly/openly – when the boundary between the self and the ‘outside world’ - or perhaps one could say that when the filter of preconceived beliefs and judgments and assumptions we often superimpose onto reality start to fall away.

And it perhaps starts by feeling that there is no boundary between inner and outer space.
But the boundarylessness between self and other is a psychological fear boundary, it terrifies most of us, because it is irrational to the mind.

*

[running]

Originally Posted by sentient

Getting back to Anatta ……

I mean is “Anatta” even a moral concept - or is Anatta neither moral or immoral - as in amoral?

It has been said that 'dualistic morality’ only leads to condemnation and condemnation leads to hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy being dualistic morality’s ‘shadow’.

*

A lot of that “flesh is sin” Christian stuff is at times projected onto Buddhism.
One needs to take morality seriously, but not totally without any humour - surely.
Oh, I do love this (very short video):
“one often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSWVi3X1ho4

Plus I think our basic bodies are egoless.
Hearing is just a function – hearing hears both good and bad.
Seeing sees both good and bad.
Touch feels both rough and smooth, hot and cold etc.
Etc.

‘Not knowing’ kinda acts like a sense as well. What am I being shown here, in this (rl) situation?

Besides - we cannot tell our bodies whom it should or shouldn’t feel attracted to, feel body chemistry with.
If you meet a total stranger and suddenly you both feel a strong physical attraction i.e. you totally click - there is no morality involved – it is just what suddenly involuntarily arose.
If or how you choose to act on it or respond to it – well, that is a conditional situation.
"The Illusion of Control" (very short video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpUev1FvS0

Some say it is morally wrong to feel attraction towards the same sex. I wouldn’t know how that happens so I cannot judge it. None of my business.
Some say interracial relationships are wrong.
Etc.

*

And no - we cannot transform the world – whip it into the shape of our liking, we can only transform ourselves through the real life situation plays, when we are challenged ….. 'put on the spot' .....
To think that our mere opinions count (about what somebody may or may not have done in Timbuktu) - does not do the ‘work’.

Plus an idea of one’s self as the ‘righteous meee’ versus the ‘immoral other’ only serves to strengthen the dual boundary – the realization of anatta or egolessness removes - when the idea of self starts to fall away.

To experience reality more directly/openly – when the boundary between the self and the ‘outside world’ - or perhaps one could say that when the filter of preconceived beliefs and judgments and assumptions we often superimpose onto reality start to fall away.

And it perhaps starts by feeling that there is no boundary between inner and outer space.
But the boundarylessness between self and other is a psychological fear boundary, it terrifies most of us, because it is irrational to the mind.

*

thank you very much for sharing!

i hope you dont mind but gonna put into some words my personal experience of the dual meeting the nondual.

the interesting thing about the nondual is because it is non dual is like a skeleton key in that it fits everything.

the mind blocks the nondual. but it only blocks it because it is afraid. sorta like jumping in the water for the first time and perhaps there is some sinking and coming up for air. struggling involved. then your swimming.

the mind struggles and puts up a fight. it begins to lose and that can be scary. lifetimes of emotions surface as does the things hidden in the mind we have forgotten or wished to forget. the whole thing is like a tug a war, battle of sorts. until the realization takes hold that one is worthy of what the nondual is giving. the judgement was from the mind and not from it.

then the nondual and the dual are no longer in conflict. the dual made a friend of the nondual. joy and silence without beginning or end superceding the dual. but living as one with the dual. the dual aspect is the mind and the emotions. the nondual being the silence and bliss.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by running

maybe i would understand better if you mentioned what your talking about. im sorta defensive about all this cause i dont like the idea of an organization telling me or anyone else what i can and cant do. it feels like a slippery slope to another catholic church, christian, morman, Jehovah witness and so on. on have personaly gone up against the club as they call it called Jehovah witness. they literally were trying to rip the kids from a girl i knew from them. because she no longer wished to be involved with such.

In that Jehova case, and it's pretty common is spiritual organisations, the teachers started to interfere in people's lives, interfering in family and other relationships, which is also crossing boundaries they shouldn't. The ethical principle there is self-determination so people run their own lives without any interference from their church leaders, teachers and so on.


However, a spiritual organisation needs strict rules and a code of behaviour, not to make people obedient, but to facilitate the conditions which are optimal for spiritual development. The school I'm associated with has strict rules because we need to create the conditions which are optimal for meditation, so there's a code of silence and no phones or reading and writing material or any other distractions, and there are dress regulations, sex segregation and total celibacy and a tightly run daily schedule - but only because this makes the place right for meditation practice. The teachers will only talk to you about your meditation practice - nothing else - and won't talk about relationship advice, personal problems, or anything else. If you start telling a teacher about something else like whatever issues are in your life, they will ask you if you have any questions about your meditation, and they simply aren't going to talk about anything else. They don't say you are one with everything or that enlightenment is this and that, or emptiness, or any of that. They only talk to students about their meditation practice.

nobody has a more strict code about sex than the catholic church and we all know what happend as a result of that.

In my school at least, teachers can get married have sex and so on, but there is no way they would seek sexual relations with meditation students. In our school married couples boyfriend/girlfriend can arrive together, but the males and females are segregated for the whole retreat and as long as they stay on at the ashram. In the kitchen we have both sexes working there, but we try to keep females working with females and males working with males as much as possible. All physical contact is forbidden on ashram grounds, so there are no hugs, handshakes, or any other physical interactions, and of course, completely celibacy is practiced at all times on ashram grounds. Once you leave the ashram, then you are free to resume normal relationships etc, because the rules are only there so that people who come to learn the meditation can get the most out of their stay without any distractions.

the other part is if its about a student being involved with a teacher, i can sorta get that. but they are both adults and have the right to make their own decisions. so thats quite a power play ovef those two people.

This is where a teacher has to understand that they have a lot of influence over their students and can not 'want to get' anything from them. This is the proper principle of 'dana', which is to give without expecting anything in return. The teacher is there to serve people by teaching the dhamma, nothing else, and because a teacher talks about your meditation and nothing else, there is no way any courtship can happen.

i believe your being genuine about how these are good ideas to you. the whole thing from my perspective, from my mind, it sounds scary. rather than fixing potentially causing a lot of unintended damage exceeding what it was proposed to fix.

This thing about the foundation of sila is not really simple, but the school is there for a purpose, one purpose, and a teacher is there to guide the meditation process. Any other intent creeping is only a distraction from the purpose. People might come there for a sort of spiritual holiday of some kind, but they soon find out that we are there to teach the meditation, and we'll strip everything away so that is the only thing you have to do. No talking, no entertainment, no whistling, singing, music TV, courting, masterbation... there is nothing that will satisfy any cravings, and if you can't be still on your cushion for hours a day, day after day, then you have to leave.


This sounds terrible I know, but if you go there you will be taught the 'right' practice of meditation and there is nothing to disturb you. The teachers aren't going to try any root you or your wife or daughter, they are not going to interfere in your relationships or family, they are not going to ask you to do anything for them at all, and they are going to give you the soundest advice regarding your meditation.


That is how to run a proper ashram. No mucking about with silliness, but to give without wanting anything in return. Students can learn the meditation and practice as much as you can, and the teachers and the whole sangha only want your optimal benefit and happiness. We serve with utmost generosity, and don't even want your gratitude in return.

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

In that Jehova case, and it's pretty common is spiritual organisations, the teachers started to interfere in people's lives, interfering in family and other relationships, which is also crossing boundaries they shouldn't. The ethical principle there is self-determination so people run their own lives without any interference from their church leaders, teachers and so on.


However, a spiritual organisation needs strict rules and a code of behaviour, not to make people obedient, but to facilitate the conditions which are optimal for spiritual development. The school I'm associated with has strict rules because we need to create the conditions which are optimal for meditation, so there's a code of silence and no phones or reading and writing material or any other distractions, and there are dress regulations, sex segregation and total celibacy and a tightly run daily schedule - but only because this makes the place right for meditation practice. The teachers will only talk to you about your meditation practice - nothing else - and won't talk about relationship advice, personal problems, or anything else. If you start telling a teacher about something else like whatever issues are in your life, they will ask you if you have any questions about your meditation, and they simply aren't going to talk about anything else. They don't say you are one with everything or that enlightenment is this and that, or emptiness, or any of that. They only talk to students about their meditation practice.






In my school at least, teachers can get married have sex and so on, but there is no way they would seek sexual relations with meditation students. In our school married couples boyfriend/girlfriend can arrive together, but the males and females are segregated for the whole retreat and as long as they stay on at the ashram. In the kitchen we have both sexes working there, but we try to keep females working with females and males working with males as much as possible. All physical contact is forbidden on ashram grounds, so there are no hugs, handshakes, or any other physical interactions, and of course, completely celibacy is practiced at all times on ashram grounds. Once you leave the ashram, then you are free to resume normal relationships etc, because the rules are only there so that people who come to learn the meditation can get the most out of their stay without any distractions.





This is where a teacher has to understand that they have a lot of influence over their students and can not 'want to get' anything from them. This is the proper principle of 'dana', which is to give without expecting anything in return. The teacher is there to serve people by teaching the dhamma, nothing else, and because a teacher talks about your meditation and nothing else, there is no way any courtship can happen.






This thing about the foundation of sila is not really simple, but the school is there for a purpose, one purpose, and a teacher is there to guide the meditation process. Any other intent creeping is only a distraction from the purpose. People might come there for a sort of spiritual holiday of some kind, but they soon find out that we are there to teach the meditation, and we'll strip everything away so that is the only thing you have to do. No talking, no entertainment, no whistling, singing, music TV, courting, masterbation... there is nothing that will satisfy any cravings, and if you can't be still on your cushion for hours a day, day after day, then you have to leave.


This sounds terrible I know, but if you go there you will be taught the 'right' practice of meditation and there is nothing to disturb you. The teac hers aren;t going to try any root you or your wife ot daughter, they are not going to interfere in your relationships or family, that are not going to ask you to do anything for them at all, and they are going to give you the soundest advice regarding your meditation.


That is how to run a proper ashram. No mucking about with silliness, give without wanting anything in return, and learn the meditation and practice as much as you can, and the teachers and the sangha there want only your optimal benefit.

im not going to judge or debate about it anymore. its fun to contemplate things. but really the only thing that matters is if it suits you. for me i could do that but wouldn't want to live there. 30 days or so would be about my limit. all that stuff is good to turn off now and then to help dive deeper. imo its good to integrate it all into life to. the nondual has no issue with the dual. but meditation is an excellent tool. which is an exercise of turning off the dual right? lol. such as some time in an ashram.

i spent some time twice in ashrams. a few weeks and the other a couple month's about. i get it. which is why im a truck driver. that is my ashram. then im home with my girlfriend for a day or two and then back to the ashram in a sense.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by running

im not going to judge or debate about it anymore. its fun to contemplate things. but really the only thing that matters is if it suits you. for me i could do that but wouldn't want to live there. 30 days or so would be about my limit. all that stuff is good to turn off now and then to help dive deeper. imo its good to integrate it all into life to. the nondual has no issue with the dual. but meditation is an excellent tool. which is an exercise of turning off the dual right? lol. such as some time in an ashram.

i spent some time twice in ashrams. a few weeks and the other a couple month's about. i get it. which is why im a truck driver. that is my ashram. then im home with my girlfriend for a day or two and then back to the ashram in a sense.

I like your ashram! It's a perfect mobile meditation room.



Life at our ashram is pretty tough and people don't usually stay for 30 days because everything there is geared to the purification and there's only so much a koala can bear. I've resided for 3 months a couple of times, but I was really well seasoned and had become conditioned for that life. It was very rewarding for me because I could retreat for long periods, and I want to be of service and bring benefit to everyone. I am highly motivated to do that, but better for me to benefit others here in the 'outside world'.



I find the intent of giving, really having that kind intention toward everyone's happiness and well-being, is a higher energy level than the intent of working for reward, and it also makes me much happier to see people benefit from my efforts. That's why I like to keep everything on the level of generosity and appreciation - as the 'right' way for us to live.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by janielee

You know, we could go on about this topic. I don't think I disagree with what anyone is saying (except maybe 7L who is a bit too severe for my taste)

But you know, like in all of life, there's going to be context - no absolutes and no matter what we do, how we try, there's no absolute perfection - I think even Gem understands that, and I know what he is saying and where he's coming from - I used to think exactly like that and still do to a degree, except I wouldn't be so absolute on the judgements from afar...

I remember reading after Gem mentioned it, about the sexual abuse cases - I think it involved children too in some parts. I can't express how ..

I do agree that spiritual communities are also to a degree vulnerable (like ALL of society) so yes we would hope that the head of any spiritual center or group is genuinely realized - where they are, there is kindness, if there is not, well...

But again slippery slopes slippery slopes. Just do your best to be kind. And I always felt, @Gem, that if we care about this world, the best thing we can do is be self-realized ourselves, that type of transcendence, and understanding is rare and a real service to all our lives in whatever capacity we live.

Namaste,

JL

Hello Janielee,

I'm not at all offended by what you say, simply because on occasion I have had to be quite direct regarding issues of sexual violence, or other core misalignments, in order to cut through the fluff, the vague euphemisms, and the inaccuracies surrounding most core misalignments in our human societies and in humanity's history.

However, I will just say that generally I don't appreciate being broadly labelled (i.e., so-and-so is this or that...he is too this, or she is not enough that, etc), and I take great care not to do that to others, either, unless we are discussing a public figure or an authority figure of some kind and those issues are relevant to their public and/or power persona. I as an individual am not the sum of my occasional post on a poorly presented and severely understood topic like the ubiquity of rape and coercion for women at any point in history. Humanity's history and its present contain many yes "severe", hard truths...and many have great difficulty accepting them. But from a core position of truth and acceptance, limitless expansion and immeasurable joy may be realised.

Nor am I the sum of my occasional discussion of the amoral utilitarianism that comprises mainstream Western culture, a similar hard truth for a great many of us, especially given our blindness in these areas. I BTW invented none of this, nor came up with any wholly original material there. These are well-known and well-understood perspectives and issues, which I have referenced or discussed as they relate rather centrally to the state of humanity at present. Nor is anyone simply the sum of who they are in any one moment or context.

But I have seen far too often that far too many, even here on SF, may name-call others or may even spend time tearing down others as people. Labelling them as individuals. Denigrating their character or their intellect, even. When in fact I'd wager 99% of us are total strangers to one another. This behaviour is thus both highly misrepresentative of any of us as individual human beings...and it's also often quite cutting and rather unkind in its presentation and we might assume in its intention, as well.

IMHO...the less we see of the labelling and name-calling of people or their thoughts or beliefs, etc., the better . The less we denigrate their character or intellect (and I'm not saying you yourself have done any of that to me)...the better.

Because -- keeping the topic at hand as always -- that's not only in the spirit of no-self, but it's also much closer to centre. To who we are at centre

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by sentient

I thought we were discussing Anatta i.e. “No Self” on this thread.


*

Hello Sentient...yes, exactly. So did I
Similar to the term emptiness, which is really the fullness of all that is, the translations are almost koans of sorts.
Similar to the term detachment, which ideally means not detached but rather fully attached to all things...ideally equally and deeply attached to all that is, reflected in the bodhisattva's vow to serve all sentient beings, etc.

Similarly no-self is realised self in which the highest good of (all) others is actively sought and supported equally to that of the self from manifest lovingkindess in equanimity at centre. That manifest lovingkindness and equanimity being seeking and supporting the highest good of others equally to the highest good of the self -- whilst (equally), seeking the highest good of the self equally to the highest good of all others and of all that is.

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Janielee,

I'm not at all offended by what you say, simply because on occasion I have had to be quite direct regarding issues of sexual violence, or other core misalignments, in order to cut through the fluff, the vague euphemisms, and the inaccuracies surrounding most core misalignments in our human societies and in humanity's history.

However, I will just say that generally I don't appreciate being broadly labelled (i.e., so-and-so is this or that...he is too this, or she is not enough that, etc), and I take great care not to do that to others, either, unless we are discussing a public figure or an authority figure of some kind and those issues are relevant to their public and/or power persona. I as an individual am not the sum of my occasional post on a poorly presented and severely understood topic like the ubiquity of rape and coercion for women at any point in history. Humanity's history and its present contain many yes "severe", hard truths...and many have great difficulty accepting them. But from a core position of truth and acceptance, limitless expansion and immeasurable joy may be realised.

Nor am I the sum of my occasional discussion of the amoral utilitarianism that comprises mainstream Western culture, a similar hard truth for a great many of us, especially given our blindness in these areas. I BTW invented none of this, nor came up with any wholly original material there. These are well-known and well-understood perspectives and issues, which I have referenced or discussed as they relate rather centrally to the state of humanity at present. Nor is anyone simply the sum of who they are in any one moment or context.

But I have seen far too often that far too many, even here on SF, may name-call others or may even spend time tearing down others as people. Labelling them as individuals. Denigrating their character or their intellect, even. When in fact I'd wager 99% of us are total strangers to one another. This behaviour is thus both highly misrepresentative of any of us as individual human beings...and it's also often quite cutting and rather unkind in its presentation and we might assume in its intention, as well.

IMHO...the less we see of the labelling and name-calling of people or their thoughts or beliefs, etc., the better . The less we denigrate their character or intellect (and I'm not saying you yourself have done any of that to me)...the better.

Because -- keeping the topic at hand as always -- that's not only in the spirit of no-self, but it's also much closer to centre. To who we are at centre

Peace & blessings,
7L

Hi 7luminaries,

Fair play; I went back and read your posts. The points are fair.

Thanks for your contributions and points; but I really don't know why this thread is called "Anatta" - it seriously needs to be called Buddhists' Coffee Shop.

Blessings,

JL

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

thank you very much for sharing!

i hope you dont mind but gonna put into some words my personal experience of the dual meeting the nondual.

the interesting thing about the nondual is because it is non dual is like a skeleton key in that it fits everything.

the mind blocks the nondual. but it only blocks it because it is afraid. sorta like jumping in the water for the first time and perhaps there is some sinking and coming up for air. struggling involved. then your swimming.

the mind struggles and puts up a fight. it begins to lose and that can be scary. lifetimes of emotions surface as does the things hidden in the mind we have forgotten or wished to forget. the whole thing is like a tug a war, battle of sorts. until the realization takes hold that one is worthy of what the nondual is giving. the judgement was from the mind and not from it.

then the nondual and the dual are no longer in conflict. the dual made a friend of the nondual. joy and silence without beginning or end superceding the dual. but living as one with the dual. the dual aspect is the mind and the emotions. the nondual being the silence and bliss.

Our experiences are different, but I feel we are barking at similar trees here.

Your experience is with ‘shaktipat’ no?

Not that I would know what that is, I only have a vague hint of an idea of a psychic energy/dimensional shift.
Does it feel like this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uij7uWrdKgQ

Not that it is a feeling as such or deep relaxation or meditation really …… but it is as if reality has shifted ……???
And if a reality shift could be put into a sound – well, does that sound come close????

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Sentient...yes, exactly. So did I
Similar to the term emptiness, which is really the fullness of all that is, the translations are almost koans of sorts.
Similar to the term detachment, which ideally means not detached but rather fully attached to all things...ideally equally and deeply attached to all that is, reflected in the bodhisattva's vow to serve all sentient beings, etc.

Similarly no-self is realised self in which the highest good of (all) others is actively sought and supported equally to that of the self from manifest lovingkindess in equanimity at centre. That manifest lovingkindness and equanimity being seeking and supporting the highest good of others equally to the highest good of the self -- whilst (equally), seeking the highest good of the self equally to the highest good of all others and of all that is.

Peace & blessings
7L

The basic point I have been harping on recently is people want to talk about the high spiritual, and I agree that is tantalising because we say wise stuff and quote teachers and be kinda awestruck, and I know I'm speaking of quite basic human things like what it is to be a decent bloke in general, and the issues that arise with the organisation of spirituality.


I'm always coming back to the feeling that is actually in the body and the adverse and desirous reactions we might have to that, and how our common hatreds and greed are really toward our own physical sensations, but we project outwardly to the circumstances of our lives because we don;t really want to take full responsibility for our banal compulsions and most of us are not self aware enough to be able.


The relevance to the subject of Anatta is cravings are invariably associated with the self, and in the meditation process we start to notice that all of our reactivity is self-centred. Indeed the propagation of ego from the past to the future is driven and sustained by reactive psycologhical energy and the cessation of reactivity IS meditation, and it is the end of the self-reference, that very thought, me, my, mine, and I.


The depraved teachers who generate cravings and therefore harm may have attained the enlightenment, but that never made anyone a decent bloke, and there is another kind of balance to achieve through coming to peace with all of our own sensations - and what is sexual desire? There is a sensation that arises as normal human experience, and then the reaction starts, craving, obsession, what we call 'sexual frustration', and that reaction leads to compulsion, and the one compelled has lost the connection with their own feelings and starts to believe the object of desire is 'out there', when in fact, they are merely adverse to one feeling and desire another, but are not acutely aware of their own bodies, so they just don't know what drives them - 'they know not what they do'.

So on the surface of things it seems as if I speak of the mundane, and the spiritual people speak of high spiritual things, but actually I'm talking about something multi-dimensional within the overall balance of body/mind and spirit. If we can work toward an equalibrium of that triad, that we call equanimity; which is a very delicate, finely balanced poise, we can overcome everything that has passed, simply know it is true, and let be simply known - just as in meditation we know we are breathing in and we know we are breathing out. And as the breath comes in, there is no greed. You breathe in enough, and then let it go out. There is no clinging to it, and once it has gone out enough, it starts coming in again - and all the feelings come and go just the same, and we realise, these are not worth disturbing ourselves over with adverse and craven reactivity. Our interest then turns to the ever-presence, and the 'ego' can't go on because it ceases to be re-generated, and there is no 'rebirth', as we say, from one moment to the next. In this way the foundation of morality extends from what we intend, think, say and do in the day to day mundane to the highest principles of spiritual life, because the truth. Just what is true.