Anattā (no self)

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

The intent is a core part of our human life, and in Buddhist philosophy, it is the 'cause' in kammic law. Good-will results in beneficial outcomes, and ill-will in harmful outcomes. The intent held now manifests future outcomes, so our cause and effect is not material, but psychological, all experience being a projection of the mind.


When the meditation progresses to a subtle level that one can feel the vibe in all circumstances, we see how the hard solid world rises from underlying vibrations, and we take care of the ambience we radiate so that the conditions of happiness and well-being arise therefrom.


For those of us working at a grosser level of perception, we don't know what we are doing as we are not conscious of the subtle vibes that render our solid physical experience. And the mind is kept dull by all the reactivity going on at levels we might be unconscious of. People don't know themselves deeply, they are highly distracted from self awareness, and create harmful conditions through their greed and hatred.



In the Buddhist path there are all the 'right' things, including right intention, and the spiritual life begins in the establishing what is right. Morality and living a moral life is the key foundation, and this rests on good-will, and metta can arise as the truth of our hearts, when our one true wish is for the happiness of all living beings.


Our tenets to not speak and act cruelly, to steal, kill, maim, harm, slander, lie, gossip, behave with misconduct and so forth are great guidelines, because to meditate and come to know yourself depends on a moral foundation. We have seen in this thread the end results of spiritual power which is not founded in morality, and the many people who are harmed because of it. These teachers might have touched the void and opened to the beyond, but have not grown up as people.


As a fitness professional, I address the physical body to make it more capable and articulate. This involves laying a foundation of physical stability and mobility, upon which strength can be built, and from there, a person can go on to do things they never imagined they could do. The psychology transforms from 'I can't' to 'I can', and the body stands straighter with this confident poise.



I am able to achieve this because I create the boundaries that define my relationships with the people I assist, so we can cultivate deep trust together, and even deep affection, within well defined bounds that create the right protections so that people can be open, truthful about their lives, and just be. The boundaries create the safe place which give rise to the 'right' conditions that manifest in untold benefits. It all about 'drawing the line' where some interactions are acceptable and allowed, and other interactions are definitely out of bounds! Hence, I wouldn't go philandering with my clientele and more that I would steal their watch, or in any other way, disrupt the arena in which we cultivate trust.



The spiritual teachers who do not understand these things are dangerous people. Morality is not just a subjective opinion. Ethics are derived from the virtues which are universal, the love of all things, the truth... and we don't get to make that stuff up to suit ourselves because it stems not from an individual, but the real living connection that unites all things.

paragraph one is completely wrong at its face. from there this is exactly why people get used by spiritual teachers, groups, spiritual and religious. its pure fantasy to think somehow somebodys actions do not effect people in ill ways. nohody since the beginning of time has displayed such magical power. nor has there ever been a list of things not to do without a circumstance that proves that wrong.

to me this all sounds like similiar makings as seen in Jehovah witnesses, the catholic church. at least moji doesn't appear to be peddling things that could lead to a new cult. if im right im not suggesting horrible things happen from this new group. but it could lead to a lot of confusion and problems for people who buy into it.

[sky]

Originally Posted by running

paragraph one is completely wrong at its face. from there this is exactly why people get used by spiritual teachers, groups, spiritual and religious. its pure fantasy to think somehow somebodys actions do not effect people in ill ways. nohody since the beginning of time has displayed such magical power. nor has there ever been a list of things not to do without a circumstance that proves that wrong.

to me this all sounds like similiar makings as seen in Jehovah witnesses, the catholic church. at least moji doesn't appear to be peddling things that could lead to a new cult. if im right im not suggesting horrible things happen from this new group. but it could lead to a lot of confusion and problems for people who buy into it.

' its pure fantasy to think somehow somebodys actions do not effect people in ill ways.'


Totally agree with you, and that is exactly what Buddha taught.

[running]

Originally Posted by sky123

' its pure fantasy to think somehow somebodys actions do not effect people in ill ways.'


Totally agree with you, and that is exactly what Buddha taught.

i dont think i or anyone else can think of one instance of no dual ramifications. based upon opinions of the time. the future. and various perspectives.

[sentient]

I have visited a couple of Buddhist Centres - met a few Buddhist Lamas.

In one Centre I immediately became friends with the Lama there who was from Tibet.

He didn’t really give me verbal dharma teachings that much with his bad English and all, but we enjoyed each other’s company going for walks in the park, the harbour …. exploring places together ……. just being.

We didn’t exactly enter into the dreamlike nondual dimension (and its silent communion), but the Lama was kind, gentle, caring, delightful in his childlike openness and playfulness and egolessness – so we were transparent to each other to a high degree and with that there was unconditional love, acceptance of each other, warts and all.
With him I felt it was totally OK to fully be myself, to ‘expose’ myself.
I loved the energy – the atmosphere the Lama’s whole being emanated.


One day I put my hand on my heart and asked the Lama: “What is here?”
He answered: “Emptiness”
Then I put my hand on my head and asked: “What is here?”
He answered, much delighted: “Emptiness”
Then I extended my arms above my head sweeping them to my sides (meaning all of this)….
To which the Lama was beaming at me & said: “Emptiness!”
So off we went into another exploration day – like two joy balloons “high on emptiness”.

*

By contrast – going back to the Centre, the atmosphere there was so thick with this heavy-heavy seriousness that you could quite literally have carved it with a knife.
With all this serious seriousness – the members there could not allow emptiness & participate in the joy.

The Lama had lived all his life in the monastery, first in Tibet and then in India and the time I knew him he was new in the country (Australia) learning English from the scratch.
Not having a Tibetan translator or personal assistant to ease him into the Western culture he had a language and a huge cultural gap to overcome and his disciples in the Centre had every neurosis and “spiritual materialism” ego-validation power trip happening ….. and he was supposed to handle it all at once ….. What a mess.

The members of the Centre had these strange ‘high moral’ expectations due to all the preconceived ideas of what the Lama should be like.
He shouldn’t have had TV in his room, he shouldn’t occasionally eat meat …. he shouldn’t invite people into his room … long list of shouldn’ts ….. They wanted to make him into something – he was not – instead of just appreciating his presence, the gift that was him.

I loved the Lama but the Centre made me so ill at ease, ‘strait-jacketed’ and too overwhelmed - I have been kind of avoiding them or being wary of them (any kind of 'spiritual' Centres) ever since.

*

[running]

Originally Posted by sentient

I have visited a couple of Buddhist Centres - met a few Buddhist Lamas.

In one Centre I immediately became friends with the Lama there who was from Tibet.

He didn’t really give me verbal dharma teachings that much with his bad English and all, but we enjoyed each other’s company going for walks in the park, the harbour …. exploring places together ……. just being.

We didn’t exactly enter into the dreamlike nondual dimension (and its silent communion), but the Lama was kind, gentle, caring, delightful in his childlike openness and playfulness and egolessness – so we were transparent to each other to a high degree and with that there was unconditional love, acceptance of each other, warts and all.
With him I felt it was totally OK to fully be myself, to ‘expose’ myself.
I loved the energy – the atmosphere the Lama’s whole being emanated.


One day I put my hand on my heart and asked the Lama: “What is here?”
He answered: “Emptiness”
Then I put my hand on my head and asked: “What is here?”
He answered, much delighted: “Emptiness”
Then I extended my arms above my head sweeping them to my sides (meaning all of this)….
To which the Lama was beaming at me & said: “Emptiness!”
So off we went into another exploration day – like two joy balloons “high on emptiness”.

*

By contrast – going back to the Centre, the atmosphere there was so thick with this heavy-heavy seriousness that you could quite literally have carved it with a knife.
With all this serious seriousness – the members there could not allow emptiness & participate in the joy.

The Lama had lived all his life in the monastery, first in Tibet and then in India and the time I knew him he was new in the country (Australia) learning English from the scratch.
Not having a Tibetan translator or personal assistant to ease him into the Western culture he had a language and a huge cultural gap to overcome and his disciples in the Centre had every neurosis and “spiritual materialism” ego-validation power trip happening ….. and he was supposed to handle it all at once ….. What a mess.

The members of the Centre had these strange ‘high moral’ expectations due to all the preconceived ideas of what the Lama should be like.
He shouldn’t have had TV in his room, he shouldn’t occasionally eat meat …. he shouldn’t invite people into his room … long list of shouldn’ts ….. They wanted to make him into something – he was not – instead of just appreciating his presence, the gift that was him.

I loved the Lama but the Centre made me so ill at ease, ‘strait-jacketed’ and too overwhelmed - I have been kind of avoiding them or being wary of them (any kind of 'spiritual' Centres) ever since.

*

its my opinion somehow the translation of an experince such as the lama you mentioned whom is in a deep emptiness perceiving 'what is' in the light as everything has changed. they are somehow not human and living. when its not whats going on that was the big change. the big change is how it is experinced. emptiness, or silence and bliss becomes the dominant aspect of experince. from what was before the mind and emotional body. since people are limited generaly limited from the experience they draw it out from what they understand. what one is doing. what one is doing isn't the change. maybe in some way or ways. but what has changed is the living experince in what is.

when i was a kid i had philsophy that would come to me about similiar or perhaps the same as buddhism. i dont know where it came from. but it made sense. i suspect we have all lived lives of many cultures. if i was a buddhist i would say the philosophy that i learned back then was all about how one grows tired of things. and things come and go. so its important to find the thing that does not. and is beyond the things. there was nothing more. if i get this over time i will grows tired. other times i will want it and cant get it. that is the trap. search for beyond the things. dont trust the things. go beyond. know things come and go. and you grow tired of it reguardless.

the things. the things. the things. people make it about. when its about. not the things. not the things. not the things. that's how i see it.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

its my opinion somehow the translation of an experince such as the lama you mentioned whom is in a deep emptiness perceiving 'what is' in the light as everything has changed. they are somehow not human and living. when its not whats going on that was the big change. the big change is how it is experinced. emptiness, or silence and bliss becomes the dominant aspect of experince. from what was before the mind and emotional body. since people are limited generaly limited from the experience they draw it out from what they understand. what one is doing. what one is doing isn't the change. maybe in some way or ways. but what has changed is the living experince in what is.

when i was a kid i had philsophy that would come to me about similiar or perhaps the same as buddhism. i dont know where it came from. but it made sense. i suspect we have all lived lives of many cultures. if i was a buddhist i would say the philosophy that i learned back then was all about how one grows tired of things. and things come and go. so its important to find the thing that does not. and is beyond the things. there was nothing more. if i get this over time i will grows tired. other times i will want it and cant get it. that is the trap. search for beyond the things. dont trust the things. go beyond. know things come and go. and you grow tired of it reguardless.

No - this Lama wasn’t a fully realized ‘master’ as yet, though he had had full transmissions in Vajrayana. I have met more realized indigenous Elders, but he was a Sunflower in a heavily grey day of ordinary (ego-grasping) reality, so - a pleasant ‘face’ to look at and experience the vastness of free space to be ourselves - where joy would just arise spontaneously – with.

With ordinary egolessness comes the taste of nonduality and with that taste comes the deepening of ‘Anatta’ I guess, which makes one tired of imposing one’s limited mind’s ideas upon or onto reality.

These ideas, no matter how ‘noble’ and ‘righteous’ we imagine them to be …. or ourselves to be - become irrelevant (as Adyashanti perhaps might say?)..... when 'that which moves in mysterious ways' starts to affect our lives - and then we know – we know nothing.

“To bring the mind to Silence – don’t work with the mind. Silence for the mind comes from somewhere else”.

the things. the things. the things. people make it about. when its about. not the things. not the things. not the things. that's how i see it.

The mind is always focused on ‘things’ and doesn’t seem to be able to let go and open up to that which is beyond. So yeah - totally.

*

About relevance – sorry, another youtube – nobody needs to see it, but I will just leave the link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFX9_HboI4c

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by running

paragraph one is completely wrong at its face. from there this is exactly why people get used by spiritual teachers, groups, spiritual and religious. its pure fantasy to think somehow somebodys actions do not effect people in ill ways. nohody since the beginning of time has displayed such magical power. nor has there ever been a list of things not to do without a circumstance that proves that wrong.

Everything we might say and do effects other people in positive or negative ways, so being aware of what you think, say and do (which is self-awareness), is the best thing you can do for yourself and everyone else.

to me this all sounds like similiar makings as seen in Jehovah witnesses, the catholic church. at least moji doesn't appear to be peddling things that could lead to a new cult. if im right im not suggesting horrible things happen from this new group. but it could lead to a lot of confusion and problems for people who buy into it.

He seems like a cult leader to me, and his ashram is pretty cult-like IRL as well, but I'm just saying I don't think he's a safe character so I keep clear of him, and generally speaking, there are plenty of spiritual teachers who aren't established in sila and end up causing significant harm.



But I'm just a person who thinks morality is important. Some people don't seem to care about it, but my experience is, living a moral life is like the bedrock of meditation.

[sentient]

*

Is "Anatta" a moral concept?

*

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

Everything we might say and do effects other people in positive or negative ways, so being aware of what you think, say and do (which is self-awareness), is the best thing you can do for yourself and everyone else.






He seems like a cult leader to me, and his ashram is pretty cult-like IRL as well, but I'm just saying I don't think he's a safe character so I keep clear of him, and generally speaking, there are plenty of spiritual teachers who aren't established in sila and end up causing significant harm.



But I'm just a person who thinks morality is important. Some people don't seem to care about it, but my experience is, living a moral life is like the bedrock of meditation.

im in your camp in a way. i will explain.

i get suspicious when somebody claims spiritual development makes somebody more intelligent when it comes to what will be if i do a versus b. so i rarely mix the two. people in thinking become moral superior often when given a title or simply claim to be jnto spiritually when there actually pretty stupid. stupid because instead of not knowing what they dont know they think they do. i have met few if any people teachers or not that have as much let alone have more moral intelligence than people whom are not into it. some ideas i have heard floating around amongst spiritual groups would be more horrific than history has seen before if ever implemented.

and then of course this whole topic is based upon presumptions and good for who? me? you? my friends? yours? today? tomorrow?

it could be considered enabling someone to be lazy by helping them. it could be considered ruthless to not help someone whom is just simply lazy. i have overhelped more than not. creating more problems by being helpful. perhaps the other way to. nobody can calculate such. Jesus himself couldn't of stopped the killing in his name after he was killed.

those are some reasons why i do what i can to not mix one with the other. if for no other reason i sure as heck dont want to think i have more moral intelligence than somebody not into spirituality. i wont go there if its just simply to keep me from falling into such a camp.

[7luminaries]

In the Buddhist path there are all the 'right' things, including right intention, and the spiritual life begins in the establishing what is right. Morality and living a moral life is the key foundation, and this rests on good-will, and metta can arise as the truth of our hearts, when our one true wish is for the happiness of all living beings.

Our tenets to not speak and act cruelly, to steal, kill, maim, harm, slander, lie, gossip, behave with misconduct and so forth are great guidelines, because to meditate and come to know yourself depends on a moral foundation. We have seen in this thread the end results of spiritual power which is not founded in morality, and the many people who are harmed because of it. These teachers might have touched the void and opened to the beyond, but have not grown up as people.

I am able to achieve this because I create the boundaries that define my relationships with the people I assist, so we can cultivate deep trust together, and even deep affection, within well defined bounds that create the right protections so that people can be open, truthful about their lives, and just be. The boundaries create the safe place which give rise to the 'right' conditions that manifest in untold benefits. It all about 'drawing the line' where some interactions are acceptable and allowed, and other interactions are definitely out of bounds! Hence, I wouldn't go philandering with my clientele and more that I would steal their watch, or in any other way, disrupt the arena in which we cultivate trust.

The spiritual teachers who do not understand these things are dangerous people.

Morality is not just a subjective opinion.

Ethics are derived from the virtues which are universal, the love of all things, the truth... and we don't get to make that stuff up to suit ourselves because it stems not from an individual, but the real living connection that unites all things.

Gem - that is very well said. Very well said, indeed.

I think that it is only through discussion of the egregious harms that we can bring awareness to many. For example, many in the West, including judges and many perps, despite laws and prescedents, do not yet believe date rape is really rape...nor that marital rape is really rape. Nor that rape is majority committed by someone the victim knows, and only a small minority are "stranger rapes". Nor that lack of ongoing consent equates to rape. Frankly, many don't particularly seem to care or be too fussed.

This has revealed to us in the West that (even in representative democracies), both civil & criminal law are very poorly equipped to deal with the fundamental amorality in modern society -- i.e, the lack of morality and ethics in our society. Including and perhaps most particularly in our most foundational and intimate relationships with one another...such as relationships of family, friend, partner, employee/er, or mentor/ee. As such, we are repeatedly, continually, and egregiously abused and exploited in our most vulnerable relationships (work, partner, family) so long as we do not or cannot articulate, share, and advocate for a clear and fairly proscriptive moral and ethical code -- based on those universal truths you reference.

In reality, only when we actively seek the highest good of the other as other, in authentic love (i.e. lovingkindness and equanimity) for their humanity and their personhood -- and for no other reason but their highest good -- can any relationship or any act be acceptable 1) in my opinion...and 2) in any place of refuge, whether that be a society as a whole which deems itself moral and good (right-aligned), or any particular aspect of society that likewise deems itself moral and good.

So...discussions about how absolutely critical these moral and ethical tenets are to a society which values ALL its members, are key. Likewise, discussions about exactly what those moral and ethical tenets (which you've noted briefly) probably warrant a fair bit more discussion than we've had of late or perhaps ever (?). Meaning, many don't really understand what sexual misconduct is, aside from the guru hitting on the vulnerable devotees and using loads of deceptive talk and grooming behaviours on them (empty promises to manipulate heart & mind, verbal or physical abuse, manipulating their physical or financial vulnerabilities and so forth, &/or use of deceit, drink or drugs to obtain "consent") . Meaning, pointedly, many are blind to these same behaviours when they utilise some or all of them on others in their own lives, to obtain sex -- often routinely so, both in short-term and long-term contexts.

For these reasons, a fairly clear and reasonably proscriptive code for boundaries to prevent sexual misconduct (among others, for certain) is appropriate and frankly necessary for nearly all social contexts to be safe and honouring of all a society's members IMO -- until a deep and abiding authentic love for one other is manifest publicly (i.e., not hidden or in silence) in some meaningful fashion between persons. Certainly, for the ashram, it is more than appropriate and is in fact critically necessary, in order for persons to be free of worry about their personal safety amongst strangers -- and I agree it is unconscionable when this clearly articulated proscription is violated.

Peace & blessings
7L