-
What could be possible with no self?
What could be real?
I have heard from various spiritual literature that what is real falls into 2 categories:
- the material elements of earth, water, fire, and air
- the ultimate, absolute reality (which underlies all of the material creation)
In terms of a permanent self as discussed in this thread, in Buddhist doctrine it seems to refer to a permanent self made up of material elements. Not understanding this distinction leads to conceptual and linguistic confusion.
All of the various displays of selves that are comprised of gross material or super subtle material elements, are just temporary displays which will dissolve sooner or later, after seconds or aeons. This is so due to their inherent IMPERMANENCE..
I have been told that nibbana is beyond materiality. It is unchanging, permanent, free of modification. It does not involve becoming "someone" or going "anywhere." It is the "unbinding" (from materiality and mentality).
When contrasting this view with inSelf Yoga, I think the main difference is that inSelf Yoga does not feel it is possible to ever separate the core self from the sense of identity adjunct. In Buddhism, the sense of identity (all those displays of impermanent selves and mentalities) is to be cast off. One writer, Upasika Ke Nanayon, compared the sense of identity to a sticky glob of tar which one has to get unstuck from. And I assume that when one achieves that, one experiences nibbana, which is called the deathless, the unbinding, release, no more becoming etc. I guess it falls into the category of the "mystical" which needs to be experienced in order to fully comprehend. Those who claim to have the experience, all seem to say that ordinary language can only allude to it.
I am actually fine with either statement:
- Because their is a self, that is why everything is possible.
- Because there is no self, that is why everything is possible.
Each statement has its own basis and assumption, which lends it to credibility.
However, based on my own meditation experiences so far, I don't feel that the core self or the "deathless," is permanently fused to a sense of identity.
The important thing for us all, is to keep practicing and to keep assumptions out of the practice, so that we get direct experiences which are not skewed by the intellect. Reaching the state of stillness, of no thought, so that we are directly knowing without being goaded by the thinking mind. We train on the basis of many assumptions, but then we are required to LET GO.
-
All of the various displays of selves that are comprised of gross material or super subtle material elements, are just temporary displays which will dissolve sooner or later, after seconds or aeons. This is so due to their inherent IMPERMANENCE..
Mi~Beloved’s Response:
In this statement Buddhism contradicts itself because if these various displays of self are JUST temporary, then why are they declaring eight noble truths in which one has to behave in a certain way using these displays of self, why does it matter what one does or does not do. That is a contradiction. Either these displays are something or they are nothing and it is not required to do anything nor to reform anything or have any stipulated behaviors.
~~~~~~~
However, based on my own meditation experiences so far, I don't feel that the core self or the "deathless," is permanently fused to a sense of identity.
Mi~Beloved’s Response:
Yes, for the purpose of inSelf Yoga, it is not possible for the limited self to divest itself of the sense of identity. That is impossible. It does not have that power. While in Buddhism everyone can be buddha or can be like buddha, inSelf Yoga says, no, others who are limited coreSelves cannot be like Buddha. The limited selves cannot divest themselves of the sense of identity but what they can do is restrict the involvement between the sense of identity and the intellect. And even to do that the yogi has to make tons of effort because that is unnatural. There can be detachment from and isolation from the influence of the sense of identity but that sense cannot be eliminated by the coreSelf.
In inselfyoga, the core did not create itself and thus it has no power to de-create itself. It may study itself and its adjuncts and then it can see what it can do and how to do what it is capable of doing. Everything it dreams up is not possible for it, only some things are.
Periodic experiences in meditation where there is absence of the sense of identity in no way shows that it is nonexistent. Many features and mystic objects which do not show in a meditation are in existence except that the meditator has no means of perceiving the invisible imperceptible objects while in those meditative states because the means of perception are absent during such experiences.
But the big event in this is the reappearance of the adjuncts after a meditation session. Why do they reappear if they were actually non-existent? And why do they reappear with their same qualities and functions. At least if I go into a state where my computer disappears, then if again another computer appears it should not have memories, functions, actions which are exactly the same as the one which disappeared.
Why does the adjunct appear again?
And if the reply is that it does so because the meditator was not liberated, or did not attain nirvana, that is a cop-out. Even if the meditator becomes liberated even then what is the proof that he or she may not involuntarily assume all or some of the adjuncts again. And why does it have to be that at death this total disappearance happens and it does not do so during life. Buddha got nirvana at the time of enlightenment and still he kept his adjuncts, used his intellect in arguments with others and so on.
And why the need to get rid of the adjuncts. What is causing that need???????
Why not keep the adjuncts and work to keep them in the least harmful way because the evidence that they cannot be eliminated is so pressing because of the way the manifestation is configured by nature.
Comment to If There is No Self
