Anattā (no self)

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

Yes it was intentionally doctored,

You should write for one of those TV detective shows!

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

I wasn't expecting you to post this conversation...

OK if you insist.

But my meaning there, which you took out of context, was there is a difference between communicating what you are experiencing, what you are, and what you believe or think. So taking in my entire sentence there, which you chopped up to try to do a "gotcha" thing, finished with " he described what he was, what he was experiencing,"

Again, I was making the distinction between communicating an idea and communicating an experience. Between the conceptual and the actual. Between reality and the imagined. Both can be called "teaching" but what the speaker is and what they are conveying are vastly different.

Did you even read this post? Because if you are not reading my posts in the "conversation" no conversation is actually happening.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

I have proven my point that he never denied him being a Teacher.

Actually don't make assumptions like that so quick there! Read more carefully! He states teaching occurs, but does not claim anyone is a teacher.

After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, was there some trace of ego left in him so that he could carry on his teachings?

Answer:

The teaching just happened. He did not have the desire to teach or not to teach. He spent seven weeks sitting under the shade of a tree and walking along the bank of a river. Then someone just happened along and he began to speak. One has no choice; you are there, an open person. Then the situation presents itself and teaching happens. That is what is called "Buddha activity - Chogyam Thrungpa

One interesting part is the question which was, " After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, was there some trace of ego left in him so that he could carry on his teachings?"

Well no, ego is not left after enlightenment.

The answer states he did not have a desire to teach or not teach. Yes in enlightenment, there is no desire, no person. How does one teach if one has no desire to? What can compel one to teach if the desire to do it is not there? Not only that, the "one" the person. the ego, does not remain either! What is "one" actually doing then, that is interpreted or manifests as teaching? Well that is said in the quote.

It says, "The teaching just happened." It does not say Buddha made the teaching happen. It does not say Buddha taught. It says, "someone just happened along and he began to speak." It dos not say Buddha intended to speak, intended to teach when he arrived at a person standing there. In fact it says clearly, Buddha had no desire to teach. The "teaching" just happens! One does not have to invent a teacher, a role, that Buddha carried with him. Buddha did not carry a role around, a label, a concept, a desire, a concept, a belief,.... he described what he knew to be real, a non-conceptual experience of the world and himself. How would "intention to teach" manifest without ego or a thought influenced experience? What is the compelling force there? Well there is none. One just is and "teaching" happens. One responds to a question in the present moment. One does not pre-plan or reference a "known" answer. The answer comes forth in the now brand new.

Buddha is described by us as a teacher, but he was not one himself. It was what he did, what was created in his presence, it was not what he was. So Buddha was not a teacher but he taught! Teaching occurred or came into being or was created where he was present, in the same way fire occurs where high heat, fuel, and oxygen are present.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Yea I was talking about my time as a Benedictine monk so of course we had no phones, had nothing really, a toothbrush and a robe. I also had to get up early, at 4:30 AM each day. Funny experience is we would get new people coming sometimes, to try the life, and one time this new guy pulls me aside and asks if I want to get high. Turns out he hid some pot on the grounds somewhere. I told him no thanks. Well a little while after that we gather in a hallway to walk together to the chapel for Sext and he is very stoned. We were in two lines side by side and he was next to me at the front. And he kept making noises as he was trying to suppress laughing. His face was bright red. This was a time of silence. Suddenly he just leaves the line and goes to his room. Disappears for hours.

I later asked him if he got in trouble and he said no, he just told them he felt sick. I don't think he ever got busted for having and using pot. He lasted about a year. It's kinda funny as the older monks would gather and discuss if someone would be allowed to stay and take the next vows or not when a monk reached that point in time and they discussed him all day... like 10 hours lol. That must have been quite a debate. In the end, they approved him to take the next step, his two year vows, but he left anyway.

That's interesting. Yea, people are always getting around the rules, and that's part of the fun.



In Buddhist ashrams we aren't allowed to eat after midday, so at lunch time I used to secret away a bit of cake to have in the evenings - that was my naughty secret hahaha. I also used to bring my own coffee when in dana service. People think coffee is an intoxicant and therefore not only against the rules, but breaking sila. However, I drank coffee with meals openly and teachers never scolded me for it.



I was known to be a bit loose with the rules, so I wasn't a tyrant with meditators in my charge, but I felt responsible to uphold the conditions for the sake of everyone there, so I was still completely strict in that sense, but in a tactful way... People appreciated that. They want me to keep a strict sense of order (but without being 'the dhamma police' teehee).



There is a primary motive that everyone is happy, so I worked to that end when serving in dana - everything with metta - all in the practice of everything.


Today I have to lift some heavy squats, so focus, equanimity, alertness, self-awareness and 'right effort'. I can catch quite a lot of negative, unskilled thinking creep in when feeling the pains of heavy weight, so it's always good practice, consistently and continuously, and when the whole effort is given, there's no one there to say it can't be done. There is a lift sans a lifter. Teaching sans teacher. Observation sans observer. No halves.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by ketzer

This is a concept I often think I understand. However, when I do I can't help but wonder who or what is doing the understanding.

How do you understand (or not understand) the buddhist concept of "anatta" (no-self)?
How do you buddhists see it misconstrued by non buddhists?
And finally, for those who do believe they understand this concept, who is doing the understanding?

Contemplating your post again from the beginning I’ve come to this realisation.
Our true nature would have to be wordless awareness.
So really any language would misconstruct this, if your not coming from this point of awareness in you expressing as this.
If the no self is wordless awareness then the understanding would be through the ‘one aware of itself as wordless awareness’ speaking/expressing ��

So in this view, it isn’t what one is saying, but how integrated your mind body is as this ‘no self’ awareness. Are you aware your still playing games with your illusionary self? Are you still entertaining it, unaware you are?

There is probably lots more questions that don’t need answers..��

[muffin]

Originally Posted by JustBe

There is probably lots more questions that don’t need answers..��

Good afternoon JustBe

At what point do you stop asking

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

In Buddhist ashrams we aren't allowed to eat after midday,

It's very similar. We had 3 meals and no snacking other times. Then during lent, we fasted, which meant one meal a day and very limited food choices during that meal.

I think there are a lot of similarities between Catholic and Buddhist monks as lots of writers and monks have explored. Like Buddhist's say meditate, and Benedictines say contemplation, but in many ways, the practices can be the same. Both types of monks chant, limit speech etc.

Then Buddhist monks visit and live with Catholic monks and the reverse. Thomas Merton was a Catholic Trappist monk who studied Buddhism and wrote books on it like his book, Zen and the Birds of Appetite.

Our monastery library had a lot of Buddhist and Hindu books in it though the majority where Christian. I got a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita there and I was reading it one day and the Abbot came in, he was very "old school" lol and he said, "oh no, that is not what you should be reading! and he went to his room and gave me three books of his. He left me with the Gita though.

Originally Posted by Gem

However, I drank coffee with meals openly and teachers never scolded me for it.

That reminds me of when I was new, during the first week, I assumed this one period was for reading and contemplation/meditation so I spent that time in my room. Well one day I decided to go for a walk during this time and I saw the vocation director standing with some of the other new monks. I went over and he was assigning them chores to do. I said isn't this period for reading and prayer? He said no, this is a work period. I said, oh I thought it was for reading and prayer! Why didn't you come tell me? And he said, I assumed you wanted to use it for prayer.

He was a very open minded priest, ended up being voted to be the next abbot eventually. But yea I worked from then on during that time. I was amazed he never came to tell me to work.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Contemplating your post again from the beginning I’ve come to this realization.

Our true nature would have to be wordless awareness.
So really any language would misconstrue this, if your not coming from this point of awareness in you expressing as this.

If the no self is wordless awareness then the understanding would be through the ‘one aware of itself as wordless awareness’ speaking/expressing ��

So in this view, it isn’t what one is saying, but how integrated your mind body is as this ‘no self’ awareness. Are you aware your still playing games with your illusionary self? Are you still entertaining it, unaware you are?

There is probably lots more questions that don’t need answers..��

That's a great post. Some of what appears to me...

If the no self is wordless awareness then the understanding would be through the ‘one aware of itself as wordless awareness’ speaking/expressing

Yes the wordless awareness, I like to say it as non-conceptual awareness, the noticing of it's absence in the now by becoming aware of what is, brings it back into forefront or being. Once you know the wordless state, you can bring it into being by recognizing it is not present. But one is always naturally returning to words. So it is a constant thing or practice to be aware now. Seems like only the awareness of, and denial of word based awareness brings the other into being. But teachers say with enough practice this reverses. One will be wordless or non-conceptual the majority of the time and return to "ego" rarely. For me it's the reverse of that. Word based majority, wordless rarely.

Are you aware your still playing games with your illusionary self? Are you still entertaining it, unaware you are?

My answer to that is yes. Well I would not say I am aware I am unaware. I am unaware I am unaware! That's why we slip back into ego and words. Complete forgetting and unawareness. The words become us and us them. It happens easily and without noticing. But I'm still in a period where "wordless awareness" is rare, I'd also say depth varies. How wordless we are in other words, how much of the conceptual or ego or person is cleared away.

[sentient]

“Do we really wanna wake up”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFBQSppXGQI

One Ground – 2 pathes.

Spiritual Awakening – 2 components:
1) Divinity – Sacredness pervading everything …..
2) Our World = a madhouse, a psych ward.

(Which is why we “whites” & one “yellowish” nicknamed the Aboriginal place as a “psychiatric ward 10”. Not because they were mad, but because when we became ‘inmates’ of that community, we learned bit by bit to laugh at our own self-importance, the utter separate-self-illusion-absurdity of it in the face/atmosphere of non-dual love/acceptance).

Sorry to flood the thread with youtubes.
(^ Thomas Merton is mentioned).

*

Originally Posted by sky123

No Sky didn't take out any words, what I posted are the actual words taken from his book, I have given you the name so you can look for yourself.

Hi sky123,

My take is that we aren't dealing with an honest individual, so you are more likely to be met with games and trying to divert attention in return:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...postcount=1340

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...postcount=1357

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...postcount=1368

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...postcount=1370

Rain95 has claimed on this forum she is an ex military strong male, then a young female, then a one time retreatant, then a student of Krish/Mooji, now an ex-Benedictine monk who lived at a monastery.

I think there are some serious issues here; I wish Rain95 well, and good mental health in future.

_______

I also think that this has been a very informative discussion, not least because people who read a book and repeat it back, are regurgitating information - but not yet practical insight or transformative experiential being-ness. It's sad when there is malice or lying though, and this is where the interest dies down for me - people who can't be honest have a way to go in their spiritual foundation, in my opinion.

JL