Anattā (no self)

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by janielee

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

Janielee, LOL@coffee shop...also a fair point.

But...I also think that the discussion of morality and ethics, of our manifest behavior (word, deed) on the ground is exactly how we live anatta. How we manifest the being and doing of anatta. So for me, the conversation naturally flows from mental states or expanded states of consciousness, etc., to our manifest being and doing.

As Gem noted and really most of us have noted or agreed as well, there is no spontaneously arising word or deed for 99% of us. There are feelings, cravings, thoughts, intent, and so forth. And then we have to take decisions about what comes next. We exercise restraint, discipline, judgment/discernment, empathy, and compassion, etc. We discuss the foundational tenets of our morality and what those ethical standards look like when manifest in our day-to-day lives.

Do other people really matter? Equally to ourselves? This is a radical concept...more radical than any other in human history. That is what the heart-led "no-self" consciousness embodies, rooted in lovingkindness and equanimity. However, if we don't truly believe this at core, then humanity will inexorably move away from manifesting this in our society and our governments, and the future will begin to simple resemble an automated version of the past.

On the other hand, if we do believe this, then it follows we can't abrogate the agency and the humanity of others, simply because we are powerful. If so, then we shouldn't exploit them or dehumanise them, simply because we are stronger or more privileged (or both). We take ownership. We decide to do and be this versus that. And in the decisions and the ownership and the struggle, the fullness of our becoming is revealed.

Peace & blessings
7L

[running]

Originally Posted by sentient

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????

*

let me know if im not explaining in a way that you understand. i would gladly try other words to explain. or if im answering your question. thanks

shakti is the flow of energy in the body that excites the nervous system. that excitement gives joy in the body and mind by the activation of the brain that was before dormant.

not everyhody seems to open up to the feminine(shakti) but more just open up to the masculine(shiva) where the mind acts like a black hole sucking out the noise making a peaceful calm experience in the mind. many do open to both. cause the feminine and masculine have become one. married in a sense.

these aspects once it becomes in ones being permanently act like gravity in that the mind and emotions may do whatever but reguardless your feet are firmly planted in joy and silence. or for some just silence.

this redefines the living experience. where as before it was about the mind and the emotions. being pulled around by circumstances. bliss and silence then becomes the primary aspect of experince. secondary becomes the mind, emotions, and circumstances that move those around.

everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense. simply because in all experinces and in all moments of life is joy and silence. then it becomes the new normal and no longer strange. everything matters but always comforted by joy and silence in the body and mind.

i dont know the human anatomy well enough to describe exactly what becomes activated in the brain that was dormant. i think noone on the forum mentioned dmt. i think. in any case its sorta like an orgasm that never ends and quenches ones thirst.

edit. that sound activates shakti. so i would say yes.

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

thank you for sharing

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

not everyhody seems to open up to the feminine(shakti) but more just open up to the masculine(shiva) where the mind acts like a black hole sucking out the noise making a peaceful calm experience in the mind. many do open to both. cause the feminine and masculine have become one. married in a sense.

everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense.

I do want to understand - and this sentence I get from one perspective anyway:
"everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense".

For me nonduality could perhaps be illustrated by Rubin’s vase:


It is as if at first there is a separate and solid ‘me’ and the separate and solid other. The form reality, we take so for granted.

But then when “everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense” – ‘the assemblage point of awareness’ (Castaneda) has shifted into the vase, and now what used to be the solid ‘me’ has turned into an empty mask, like everybody else – the others. The 'space-emptiness-vase' has taken over. ‘Shiva’ aspect?

When the ‘vase’ takes the totality of one’s being (and one goes like through a ‘wormhole’ so to speak) – the whole universe is now seen as dancing (‘Shakti’?) to the tuneless tune of 'Shiva'? And energetically your mask is moved to ‘dance’.


But ‘shaktipat’??? ‘feels’ more like a psychic energy dimension has ‘invaded’ , not like the vast emptiness has ‘invaded’ dimension?

So I guess (???) there can be 2 approaches to the ‘Shiva/Shakti’ union?

edit. that sound activates shakti. so i would say yes.

The deeper, lower, eerier tones have that psychic energy dimension 'invasion' 'feel' to them.

*

[running]

Originally Posted by sentient

I do want to understand - and this sentence I get from one perspective anyway:
"everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense".

For me nonduality could perhaps be illustrated by Rubin’s vase:


It is as if at first there is a separate and solid ‘me’ and the separate and solid other. The form reality, we take so for granted.

But then when “everything becomes turned on its head. upside down in a sense” – ‘the assemblage point of awareness’ (Castaneda) has shifted into the vase, and now what used to be the solid ‘me’ has turned into an empty mask, like everybody else – the others. The 'space-emptiness-vase' has taken over. ‘Shiva’ aspect?

When the ‘vase’ takes the totality of one’s being (and one goes like through a ‘wormhole’ so to speak) – the whole universe is now seen as dancing (‘Shakti’?) to the tuneless tune of 'Shiva'? And energetically your mask is moved to ‘dance’.


But ‘shaktipat’??? ‘feels’ more like a psychic energy dimension has ‘invaded’ , not like the vast emptiness has ‘invaded’ dimension?

So I guess (???) there can be 2 approaches to the ‘Shiva/Shakti’ union?

The deeper, lower, eerier tones have that psychic energy dimension 'invasion' 'feel' to them.

*

not very many buddhist seem to get to the point of becoming one with shakti if i was to base that on what i read. not saying they don't. im saying there is little evidence if i was to go by what i read here from the teachings. jonesboy i think is the only one that i have seen to pinpoint buddhist teachings about accomplishing such. emptiness. the void is what they seem to open to. the masculine. the black hole in the mind as i put it.

shakti can definitely be described as an invasion. it invades and makes everything into it. cell by cell. vibrating joy where ever it makes itself invaded into. i don't think of it as psychic energy. almost no psychics i have met have become invaded by shakti. im sure many psychics are. one is not the other is the point im trying to make.

you sound like your perception is on it from what i read from you. perhaps if you haven't opened to the shakti you have opened to the shiva(masculine). emptyness. the void or black hole as i put it. perhaps that has opened up your perception.

thank you for sharing and the vase to!

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

emptyness. the void or black hole as i put it.

Yes - the black hole is an apt description.

The “Black Hole” similar to (art by Alex Grey):
https://ugc.kn3.net/i/760x/http://2p...76_unknown.jpg



Alexe's take on Rubin's vase ....“Vajra Being”:
https://d111vui60acwyt.cloudfront.ne...b_original.jpg


*

I agree with you on 'psychics' - in a general sense.

*

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Janielee, LOL@coffee shop...also a fair point.

But...I also think that the discussion of morality and ethics, of our manifest behavior (word, deed) on the ground is exactly how we live anatta. How we manifest the being and doing of anatta.

This thread doesn't interest me much anymore to be honest - it's like a riff raff of side talk, not really centered on Buddhist practice or terminology, but I peek in once and a while only to skim

I don't dispute your care and view of the world, 7L and respect you for what you care about.

I just wanted to note that as this is the Buddhist forum, anatta is not a way of morality or manifestation.

Anatta - means not-self.

Feelings are not self, thoughts are not self, CONSCIOUSNESS is not self, form is not self, perception is not self....

It's not a guide of morality - it's not a prescription of how to live - it's an invitation to know your true self.

I don't have the appetite to go further.

In respect,

Namaste -

JL

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by janielee

This thread doesn't interest me much anymore to be honest - it's like a riff raff of side talk, not really centered on Buddhist practice or terminology, but I peek in once and a while only to skim

I don't dispute your care and view of the world, 7L and respect you for what you care about.

I just wanted to note that as this is the Buddhist forum, anatta is not a way of morality or manifestation.

Anatta - means not-self.

Feelings are not self, thoughts are not self, CONSCIOUSNESS is not self, form is not self, perception is not self....

It's not a guide of morality - it's not a prescription of how to live - it's an invitation to know your true self.

I don't have the appetite to go further.

In respect,

Namaste -

JL

JL I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree.
As to all those other things you mention are not self...(feelings, consciousness, etc)...

1) I'm not talking about those things either, per se. And yet, now you mentioned it, Oneness includes them all. So, yes and no. As we become more centred, a fuller alignment occurs amongst all these things. Thus why I don't focus on whether those things are or are not self. They are in fact who you are, but they are not the fullness or totality of self, nor of your (right-aligned) self -- which is who you are at core, at centre.

2) This is what I just said earlier to Sentient when he said "I thought we were talking about no-self"....

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

That is, IMO, we cannot separate no-self from realised manifestation in the mundance, day-to-day world. Why would we even want to do this?
Is it so the guru can act with great misalignment? So that we can do the same? Because it does derive from a wanting, a craving to be and do other than we are truly at centre. A craving to act out? or a craving to avoid ownership? Perhaps both, for certain.

As I see it, we can talk about what no-self is, what our experience of what no-self is, and (our experience of) how we go about doing and being no-self. And either of the latter two will involve discussion of our manifest word and deed. We may have preferences about which area we want to explore and that's fine. Some may prefer to discuss no-self in the abstract or conceptual and not discuss what this means to them or how it impacts them concretely in their day-to-day lives, particularly in the sense of conscious living.

I think this is all good and true. I think it is exactly where we're at and what we need to be discussing, each according to our own perspectives and experiences. But if you perhaps think otherwise that's good too. It's good to bring our different perspectives to the table and see where we are each at today and on our journey at present.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

JL I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree.
As to all those other things you mention are not self...(feelings, consciousness, etc)...

1) I'm not talking about those things either, per se. And yet, now you mentioned it, Oneness includes them all. So, yes and no. As we become more centred, a fuller alignment occurs amongst all these things. Thus why I don't focus on whether those things are or are not self. They are in fact who you are, but they are not the fullness or totality of self, nor of your (right-aligned) self -- which is who you are at core, at centre.

I haven’t read in full but peace and blessings to you, dear 7L.

This is a Buddhist teaching and so yes it says exactly what I said,

Feelings are. Not self
Thoughts are. Not self
Perception is not self
Form is not self
Consciousness is not self

It’s not a belief system or philosophy as taught by the Buddha, and the implications of it are to be experienced and realised by the wise, not speculated about or theorised on

I understand some people like to conceptualise it but as this is the Buddhist forum, I’m merely adding in what the Buddha actually taught, not what you or I would like it to be,

with pleasure

JL