Anattā (no self)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Gem,
They say the Devil is in the details (LOL)...but the meaning is real, in that whenever we do not concretely ground our ideals or beliefs our manifest words and deeds -- then an integrity gap always arises. How convenient to spout off about realisations as a guru (or any of us) but then be unwilling to own those lofty beliefs in your own words and deeds? (As well as your intent and you thought, ideally). Or at least to struggle mightily to do so (like the rest of us average folk) and as a spiritual leader to be the first to own where you have failed or need restraint or boundaries put into place -- to take ownership of your predatory or poorly managed impulses and put it out there under the light, for healing and group support and for containment, frankly. And to openly encourage this kind of accountability and ownership with the example you present. This supports others to do the same on their journey, instead of "BAU (biz as usual)" whereby folks resort to manipulation, deceit, and other strategies to maximise predation and minimise visibility or accountability.

In order for the spiritual community and leadership to have integrity and to provide sanctuary, these issues must be addressed and it is imperative that they be addressed by the leadership. As much of the lay community has no concrete example of how to live with integrity and temperance, nor how to consider the highest good of all equal to their own.

Yes. This. This is why many fight the move to groundedness, to conscious living from centre. This is the primary obstacle to being here now.

Being here now requires attention to the moment and there is a natural expansion from centre to all that is, in interbeing. The concrete doing and being in the moment is founded on a concrete centreing of morality and ethics in lovingkindness and equanimity.

Yes agreed. I was just discussing the cravings above with JL. Specifically how these cravings propel us away from grounding in the moment, reflecting, and taking conscious choices that align with centre.

Even more annoying...they set the example that these things are ok...specifically, that it's ok to perpetuate the Western cultural standard of amoral utilitarianism (the ends justify the means...i.e., using others is justified because it satisfies your cravings and your ego). And yet this is not at all right-aligned. This is not at all what Buddhism says. So the misdirection is insidious and profound...and it makes his excuse of "I know not what I do" all the more destructive and toxic. The precepts of morality are so basic and so direct at the ashram, where it is very concretely understood that you have to live with one another and thus it gets very real, very direct, and very proscriptive.

However, without a deeper valuing of others simply as they are...then the amoral utilitarianism has once more become the default choice for much of humanity, particularly as it is openly put forth by our influential Western society. This default amoral utilitarianism dehumanises others and openly encourages the strong and predatory (the "winners") to take what they want without having to worry about ownership or accountability to the weaker and more vulnerable (the losers, the peons, the masses) -- for certain, the losers include women, children, elders, the ill, the marginalised, etc. Predatory, limbic capitalism is again on the rise (after a century of needed accountability and integration into democratic societies has been cast as too bothersome), as is trafficking and many other outcomes of openly and whole-heartedly adopting this morality and its transactional, power-based ethics. With few or no restraints on its worst tendencies, excesses, and outcomes.

Nicely said...the morality and ethics of no-self is found in the truth of this moment. Of being here now.

Peace & blessings
7L

It's almost as if as if there are two different subjects, but it's because the enlightenment is 'as you are now' and the complexities of human relations are inter-defining self-images. For example, I play a role as a 'trainer' which is social position compared with my 'athletes'. Just the same, a 'teacher' is contextualised with 'students'. The relative positions are interdefining, and the boundary conditions are the defining context.



Ethics enters as soon as we organise interdefining relations. A husband/wife relation comes with boundary conditions that accept some behaviours and rule out others. It is precisely those conditions that define the relationship. Parent/child, brother/sister, friend/friend... trainer/athlete, teacher/student... no mater what relationship, it is defined by boundaries.



We create definitions through comparable self-images for a specific purpose, be it to reach an athletic goal, enhance spiritual development, have social support, or whatever. We make these arrangements to fulfill and intended purpose, and because it involves intent, it involves morality. Should we become distracted by superfluous, contradictory desires, the intended purpose loses its way as the boundaries which define the relation start to become unclear, and the relation itself dissolves into obscurity, becomes futile if not detrimental - and ends.


Hence we end up with detrimental teacher/student realtions, and ashram organisational structures without proper protection policy, but firstly the guru have to be a good bloke because he has to set the standards, and secondly, it takes very refined administrative skills to create the organisational structure and its constitution, the built environment, policy/procedure and codes of conduct etc. that will best focus the mission and not compromise it in any way.



In short, know just what you do. Then it's the meditation of self-awareness without distraction, we call it 'mindfulness', other lots call it something else, but the truth is, the attention is right here right now, and 'this' is what is happening. If we know what's going on with ourselves, clear on our motives, and conscious of what we do, we're less prone to go off the deep end and do hurtful things.

[Joe Mc]

Anatta ! Isn't it a wonderful way of speaking about the world in its arising and falling away ? Such a great word. Homage to the word Anatta !!! A-N- A- T -T -A ! Wonderful !!! :)

[Ariaecheflame]

What is the opposite practice of Annata?

As a PTSD survivor and someone who has had much history of not having my own identity beyond OTHERS and the idea of universal service, I have actually had to practice the art of attaching rather then detaching from self identity. I have past lives in S.E Asia and I have come to experience my current lifetime in Australia as a way to explore personal identity.

In fact, the whole prospect and influence of Buddhism and the idea of no self has been really damaging to me in the past, to the point where I have had to actively reject it in order to honor full immersion into self sensory identity.

I am a generation 'Y' born in a multicultural city of Australia with influences from S.E. Asian culture with S.E Asian heritage and influence and I have had to actively separate myself from it in order to foster positive self identity.

I admire what the philosophy can do for people who are heavily attached to ego... but for those of us who have come from a background of limited self identity... it seems that it can be rather harmful...

Just a perspective of mine which I am happy to be taken or left behind as needed (or not of course).

[sky]

Originally Posted by Ariaecheflame

What is the opposite practice of Annata?

As a PTSD survivor and someone who has had much history of not having my own identity beyond OTHERS, I have actually had to practice the art of attaching rather then detaching from self identity.

In fact, the whole prospect and influence of Buddhism and the idea of no self has been really damaging to me in the past, to the point where I have had to actively reject it in order to honor full immersion into self sensory identity.

I am a generation 'Y' born in a multicultural city of Australia with influences from S.E. Asian culture with S.E Asian heritage and influence and I have had to actively separate myself from it in order to foster positive self identity.

Buddha never taught ' No Self ' Anatta is ' Not Self ' maybe that's why it damaged you. Getting the correct teaching is important and may help you.

[Ariaecheflame]

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddha never taught ' No Self ' Anatta is ' Not Self ' maybe that's why it damaged you. Getting the correct teaching is important and may help you.

Admittedly, I do find Buddhism alluring but also confusing as it seems very cerebral to me and I am very sensory.
No self Vs. Not self is a difficult thing for me to consciously grasp in sensory terms.

My particular generation seemed quite attracted to the teachings but I have had difficulties in grasping the relevance of the teachings in my own life beyond the practice of non attachment (to outcomes) and the idea of impermanence which meshes well with my Christian upbringing and philosophy of the nature of impermanence.
There is a bit of a weird dynamic at play where I live in a country with a strong sense of individual "IDENTITY" and yet I was born with a sense of lack of identity and being 'lost'... I find the two dynamics very intriguing from my souls observational perspective.

I find the geographic proximity and karmic connections of the two continents very intriguing as well.

[running]

Originally Posted by Ariaecheflame

What is the opposite practice of Annata?

As a PTSD survivor and someone who has had much history of not having my own identity beyond OTHERS and the idea of universal service, I have actually had to practice the art of attaching rather then detaching from self identity. I have past lives in S.E Asia and I have come to experience my current lifetime in Australia as a way to explore personal identity.

In fact, the whole prospect and influence of Buddhism and the idea of no self has been really damaging to me in the past, to the point where I have had to actively reject it in order to honor full immersion into self sensory identity.

I am a generation 'Y' born in a multicultural city of Australia with influences from S.E. Asian culture with S.E Asian heritage and influence and I have had to actively separate myself from it in order to foster positive self identity.

I admire what the philosophy can do for people who are heavily attached to ego... but for those of us who have come from a background of limited self identity... it seems that it can be rather harmful...

Just a perspective of mine which I am happy to be taken or left behind as needed (or not of course).

the idea of individuality as in individual liberty is a western one. anatta from what i gather is nothing much to do with having value of individual freedom or not. but i understand where your coming from.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddha never taught ' No Self ' Anatta is ' Not Self ' maybe that's why it damaged you. Getting the correct teaching is important and may help you.

I think religious/cultural identity is something I have had to wrestle with. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion/culture. An Irish catholic so one of the strongest religious/cultural identities around. I've also suffer/suffered PTSD. What way I feel now about all of this is that religion, including Buddhism, are representations and philosophical/intellectual mappings perhaps or utterances of something that already is there namely God /Anatta etc. The early investigations in such religions as Hinduism, and obviously there are traditions alot older than Hinduism, looked into the nature of the human being, his mind, his environment, his relationship to deity, his transcendental leanings towards an absolute principle. They took those impulses and so religions were born. A poet's job back then was to help with this process.

Such naming as Anatta which is beautiful and helpful to some is just that a naming in and of itself. How some deep underlying principle such as God or Anatta relates to psychological suffering incurred in its name through the vehicle of religious identity and cultural is an interesting one. Psychological suffering incurred in the name of religion is probably really difficult to overcome. Fortunately my ptsd doesn't relate to the religious culture i was raised in. I suppose the angle of my post in relation to your own post is that religion can be dismantled easily or not so easily in the human mind ..and i am certainly convinced at this stage of my life that our interest in oneness unity god love anatta is there as a given in the human psyche. thanks for letting me share. :)


PS PS PS !!!!! lolol Sky 123 that reply was meant for Ariae ...many apologies and obeisances lolol.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Ariaecheflame

What is the opposite practice of Annata?

As a PTSD survivor and someone who has had much history of not having my own identity beyond OTHERS and the idea of universal service, I have actually had to practice the art of attaching rather then detaching from self identity. I have past lives in S.E Asia and I have come to experience my current lifetime in Australia as a way to explore personal identity.

In fact, the whole prospect and influence of Buddhism and the idea of no self has been really damaging to me in the past, to the point where I have had to actively reject it in order to honor full immersion into self sensory identity.

I am a generation 'Y' born in a multicultural city of Australia with influences from S.E. Asian culture with S.E Asian heritage and influence and I have had to actively separate myself from it in order to foster positive self identity.

I admire what the philosophy can do for people who are heavily attached to ego... but for those of us who have come from a background of limited self identity... it seems that it can be rather harmful...

Just a perspective of mine which I am happy to be taken or left behind as needed (or not of course).

I think religious/cultural identity is something I have had to wrestle with. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion/culture. An Irish catholic so one of the strongest religious/cultural identities around. I've also suffer/suffered PTSD. What way I feel now about all of this is that religion, including Buddhism, are representations and philosophical/intellectual mappings perhaps or utterances of something that already is there namely God /Anatta etc. The early investigations in such religions as Hinduism, and obviously there are traditions alot older than Hinduism, looked into the nature of the human being, his mind, his environment, his relationship to deity, his transcendental leanings towards an absolute principle. They took those impulses and so religions were born. A poet's job back then was to help with this process.

Such naming as Anatta which is beautiful and helpful to some is just that a naming in and of itself. How some deep underlying principle such as God or Anatta relates to psychological suffering incurred in its name through the vehicle of religious identity and cultural is an interesting one. Psychological suffering incurred in the name of religion is probably really difficult to overcome. Fortunately my ptsd doesn't relate to the religious culture i was raised in. I suppose the angle of my post in relation to your own post is that religion can be dismantled easily or not so easily in the human mind ..and i am certainly convinced at this stage of my life that our interest in oneness unity god love anatta is there as a given in the human psyche. thanks for letting me share. :)

[sky]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

I think religious/cultural identity is something I have had to wrestle with. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic religion/culture. An Irish catholic so one of the strongest religious/cultural identities around. I've also suffer/suffered PTSD. What way I feel now about all of this is that religion, including Buddhism, are representations and philosophical/intellectual mappings perhaps or utterances of something that already is there namely God /Anatta etc. The early investigations in such religions as Hinduism, and obviously there are traditions alot older than Hinduism, looked into the nature of the human being, his mind, his environment, his relationship to deity, his transcendental leanings towards an absolute principle. They took those impulses and so religions were born. A poet's job back then was to help with this process.

Such naming as Anatta which is beautiful and helpful to some is just that a naming in and of itself. How some deep underlying principle such as God or Anatta relates to psychological suffering incurred in its name through the vehicle of religious identity and cultural is an interesting one. Psychological suffering incurred in the name of religion is probably really difficult to overcome. Fortunately my ptsd doesn't relate to the religious culture i was raised in. I suppose the angle of my post in relation to your own post is that religion can be dismantled easily or not so easily in the human mind ..and i am certainly convinced at this stage of my life that our interest in oneness unity god love anatta is there as a given in the human psyche. thanks for letting me share. :)


PS PS PS !!!!! lolol Sky 123 that reply was meant for Ariae ...many apologies and obeisances lolol.

No problem Joe Mc

Three Hail Mary's and one Pater Noster for your penance

Originally Posted by Ariaecheflame

Admittedly, I do find Buddhism alluring but also confusing as it seems very cerebral to me and I am very sensory.
No self Vs. Not self is a difficult thing for me to consciously grasp in sensory terms.

My particular generation seemed quite attracted to the teachings but I have had difficulties in grasping the relevance of the teachings in my own life beyond the practice of non attachment (to outcomes) and the idea of impermanence which meshes well with my Christian upbringing and philosophy of the nature of impermanence.
There is a bit of a weird dynamic at play where I live in a country with a strong sense of individual "IDENTITY" and yet I was born with a sense of lack of identity and being 'lost'... I find the two dynamics very intriguing from my souls observational perspective.

I find the geographic proximity and karmic connections of the two continents very intriguing as well.

Hi Ariaecheflame

This is a forum (and a semi-Buddhist one as there aren't too many practicing Buddhists) so on forums, there is a lot of talk, and explanation and conceptualization.

Anatta is one such area. For a Buddhist, it's important but only in two ways:

1. To not have it misrepresented, misunderstood etc.

2. To have the realization and experience - not as a concept but as a realization and experienced in one's own physical space

Mmm...if you go to a Buddhist center, say a Tibetan or Zen one for now, you will not hear these words uttered.

Zen in particular is a practice of walking the walk, talk will very quickly get one expelled, (joking) but one won't get far with the talk - no matter how noble, deep or accurate it is

Buddhists, real practicing Buddhists are interested in the very genuine realization and insights of the Buddha and those that came after. That's what's transformative and real and impactful and helpful.

Those words "non-attachment", "anatta" etc we use these on forums because forums are places of words - but in practice, in real life wording, these are not important.

You ask how does it relate to someone who didn't really have much of an identity. A friend once said that people need to have an ego to lose it. Basically, one should ideally have a semblance of basic psychological stability to do this practice.

It doesn't mean perfection or no problems - it just means some stability and a gentle guiding hand never hurt in that regard.

Peace and blessings to you on your path, dear One

JL