The Scam of Nonduality Spiritual Awakening (youtube.com)

Spiritual Awakening is Bullshit (youtube.com)

Is Enlightenment Delusional? (youtube.com)

That would explain why there are so many people who say they feel like they don't have a self but act like they do have a self. I have called it a delusion. (I hope the man in the video doesn't have the bad luck to trigger a demented stalker.) It's a scam, but I think at least some of the perpetrators are themselves deluded and are teaching what they believe to be true.

On the other hand I don't believe he can read the minds of other people so I think it's possible in some cases the ego does go away.

When Daniel describes his experience is it equivalent to saying the ego disappeared?
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/2715189#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_2718243
If this is not the ego disappearing can someone explain exactly what the ego means in that context?

In my own usage, I use "ego" to refer to those feeling/emotions I get when my inner child can't have what it wants or doesn't like what it has - this includes situations when my self-image is threatened.


A number of people say you are both your mundane self and also in unity with the all. That is how I think of it, like a wave in water has individuality but is not  separate from the water. I am not exactly sure if that's what he's trying to say when he says you wake up to who you are. He ought to be clearer on that point. And when he describes his own awakening it is also not clear what he is describing, but I don't think he has the experience to speak for others who have deep awakenings.

And Shinzen Young said:

https://www.lionsroar.com/on-enlightenment-an-interview-with-shinzen-young/Does anyone know if he would say the ego is gone when an elightened being is not caught in one's sense of self or caught in feel-image-talk, or when there is little or no subjective activity in the mind, when subjective space vanishes?

Maybe we need a glossary somewhere defining different terms like ego, self, no-self, realizing anatta.

I suppose if any of those teachers mentioned in the video are saying the ego goes away with the first experience, that is pretty unlikely and they shouldn't be encouraging students to believe that. But if they are saying the ego goes away when enlightenment is perfected that could be okay, even if no one ever attains that perfected state, it is just defining what a perfected awakening would mean in their opinion. An ideal to work toward even if impossible. I don't necessarily object to that. 

To some extent I think the guy in the video is over simplifying the issue because he doesn't distinguish between the first experience from deeper levels of awakening.

https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/27600575#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_27606091

​​​​​​​Just sayin' - and said it yesterday.

In default mode network root of main consciousness (which can be thought as anchor, origin or destination of main consciousness) is at place which supports making copies of consciousnesses which can then be acted upon - which then support delusion of doer by what you could call visualization. I recognize it as Corpus Callosum - not 100% sure if that is 100% accurate but its how it feels.

If you shift this root to place which doesn't support this (Anterios Commisure) you won't be able to experience reality through a lens of these copies. They can still be created and exist in the mind but nm this case the experience of them won't be direct and therefore not support this doer/agency delusion - which is about where from actions originate. It is just clearer that actions happen where they happen.

It isn't therefore anything disappearing but merely a shift in perspective.
More akin to ego disappearing are experiences which I bet anyone at later parts of 3rd path experienced where they mastered ability to not use these copies. I would even say after 4th path people typically first experience them continuing to do that 3rd path thing but later kinda stop doing it but at the same time since perspective is different these same faculties which previously facilitated delusion of self now are more like small buffers that aid cognition and at this point the way these copy consciousness feel makes it obvious if anything comes out of them - which again isn't where root of main consciousness is so its clear they are where they are while originals are where they are.

Since I have a rule to learn how to control stuff in my brain/mind in both direction I did attempt to shift that root of consciousness back to where it was and it was not only possible but relatively quite easy. The other way - less easy - even though I already did it before and knew what I need to do and how it feels and everything. So yeah, this flip or untangling of perception isn't that easy to pull off and it is worth it. It is kinda like jhanas - only easy when you already experience jhanic mind.

What does ego mean... well, you have technical issues and you have attitudes, beliefs and all sorts of things, some of which run very deeply and even owners don't realize them or recognize them as 'how things are'. In some sense one can say their ego disappeared if they precisely define what they mean by ego. If for someone ego is this experience that compels them to believe there is this thing that does everything from central position then 4th path makes this perspective moot so stating it caused ego to disappear isn't even invalid.

Anyhoo, the best way to know stuff about these things is to just do them and check for yourself.
One note though: doing it doesn't give you immediately complete knowledge about the mind. More like you have better perspective to investigate it unobstructed by all these visualizations of consciousnesses happening left and right and of course you can then read testimony of people who describe 4th path and their hints and know exactly what they refer to. Other than that lots of stuff that mind does and can do which can be understood even before (also after) 4th path isn't necessarily known. Also why I always called BS on some complete knowledge being granted to anyone who flipped their perception. Just by itself without putting additional effort to figure stuff out the only knowledge granted is that mind suck less than before.

By the end of the day 4th path is only about waking experience that suck less and why its worth doing. And on that note imho people invest themselves emotionally too much in to it. That isn't necessary and is even harmful. Best to be consistent in beind mindful, do not overstress oneself through practice but also don't slack in it too much and always try to be in whatever is beind done whithin mind skillful and over time mind will get clear enough it will untangle itself. After all, this is our the so called "natural state" so while it is hard it shouldn't be too hard. It's only too hard when person excercises exactly the same faculties of copied visualized consciousnesses with visualizations of supposed benefits they will experience afterwards. In other words people think too much about it, want it too much and in effect only reinforce the very thing they should not reinforce to be able to get it

Suppose some people are not scammers and they really do feel like they have no ego.

One explanation for this might be that the aggregates are running things just as they always have been, making them do ego things.
But their frontal lobe (or some component of the aggregates) is 100% non-attached, so they don't care, they feel like they don't have an ego even if their nervous system has an ego.

In that case do they have an ego or not?

Consciously they don't feel like they have an ego.

Unconsciously their nervous system is acting like it always did making them do ego things.

They might even say "I don't feel like I have an ego even though I can tell my nervous system is making me do ego things. People see me lose my temper but it's like I'm dissociated, I'm just watching my body lose it's temper, I actually feel calm."

Because I remember reading in this forum a famous arhat somewhere in Asia said something like, "It's the aggregates that are crying."

I know a fair number of people who claim to be awakened and I believe they are, but they all still act out of self-interest, sometimes by design through choice and sometimes through unconscious processing. This not having an ego or a self at all stuff is just inaccurate and misleading.

Is it even possible to not act out of self interest!?
I mean, you should have a reference point, and when there is one reference points, there are other reference points, and you gravitate towards one of them, and that defines preference.

And if a being doesn't have any reference point or don't perceive any reference points, I guess they can not function in this form of life?
Even rocks gravitate toward earth, and not clouds!

I don't believe it's possible to eliminate all self-interest any more than it's possible to eliminate the ego or the sense of self.

Well said
There is too much emphasis on 'elimination' as in completely as it it even mattered if its complete or not. Its the same kind of binary 0-1 thinking that prevents people from being able to use faculty of cognition correctly.

In reality with e.g. dukkha the issue is low to medium intensity that wears us down and make everything seem hopeless. When this is removed then even if we experience e.g. physical trauma and experience extreme pain, or emotional trauma or whatever kind of trauma (e.g. financial ) then it won't feel anywhere as bad as it would have it been only suffering waiting for you once this suffering subsides. Sure it would be nice to never ever have to worry about any suffering... but would it really?

The thing is that "eliminate most dukkha" never sounds as good as total elimination of suffering, ego and emotions and that is the only reason we still have to deal with these myths.

Regarding sense of self its like that constant low intensity dukkha (not to mention it is often - but not always - very related to sense of self when its misused) which when gone sense of self feels like a non-issue.

Personally I think the purpose of sense of self is sexual attraction in case of opposite sex and bonding in case of same sex and these are two very different beasts. I am not sure anyone would want to eliminate that first one projected outwards because then they wouldn't really exist as potential sex partner. Though maybe a monk would - dunno. Second one in the same vein would only make you feel off. Then we have different senses of self for different people, groups, etc. Different for family, different for other people, different for mortal enemies, etc. Surprisingly with some specific people its like its totally different than for everyone else. Here the 4th path internal appearances don't really change anything because even if internally we are not as directly in aggregates which are doing the sense of self we are even more intimate with all parts of mind on average. Its easier to be aware of all that stuff and even adjust/change it but its not like suddenly you meet someone and feel like the best way to interact with them is "no-self". When you are alone then sense of self can very well be no-self because then it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

And this is imho why people who are "awakened" don't really seem all that different. Maybe they are more confident, have more radiant sense of self it not being used when its not needed and no other constant low intensity dukkha to wear down their enthusiasm and other such changes but nothing fundamental in the sense of sense of self that can be felt from them, what they project outwards.

<br /><br />I know two people who are probably awakened. I say probably because they both would deny it if asked directly, but then can effortlessly meet me where I'm at and bump things around in such a pointed and specific way it's hard to believe they're not. Both of these people act in their own self interest. Like Krishnamurti once said "if you turn a corner and you here the rattle of a rattlesnake, you jump out of the way." And also in the basic sense when faced with the question "pasta, or Mexican food?"&nbsp;<br /><br />There's a phrase that came to me regarding these people when I was high on bliss. "As compassion deepens it slowly disappears until nothing is left but it's effects." This describes them perfectly.&nbsp;<br /><br />I think neither of these people would ever become public teachers, and both have gently encouraged me not to talk too much about it or speak publicly about my own personal details. One told me that there are people out there that would attack others if they could, and I've seen Jim's rumblings about such things recently, though I know nothing about his situation.&nbsp;<br /><br />the rise of all these non-duality "teachers" is interesting though.<br />the debunkers are also interesting. I can't see any good reason to believe or not believe what others say about their own enlightenment. I sometimes listen, and as someone said above, try it out on myself. I'm no expert but it seems the only way. As for publicly debunking or promoting non-duality it happens for whatever reason it does. For me it kind of relates to the idea that meditation is not actually the practice. It's just a tool to aide the actual practice.&nbsp;<br /><br /> 

Okay, but how do you relate ego to other statements other people make. Like Daniel saying there is no watcher or agency? Is that the same as no ego?

And Shinzen saying things like "no subjective activity" arises etc (see my post) this thread.

You are saying "no ego" is false, but what exactly do you mean by ego. There is a dictionary definition, a psychological definition, an everyday usage definition.

If you have a definition of ego that doesn't correspond to what other people are saying about other aspects of awakening, you might just a well be saying, "no lgi43l2 is false". A word is useful only when people can understand it in relation to other things they know.

I think it is useful to consider that awakening is a continuum. 

There are different definitions of stream entry, and different ways to satisfy those definitions, and different intensity of the experience that satisfies the definition.

So you can have different people having stream entry with widely different sense of anatta and lessened suffering.

And as they progress toward full awakening using different techniques they will continue to have differences in understanding of anatta and differences in how much they suffer.

And then you have to consider what full awakening is. Is there one definition? Is it based amount of suffering or depth of understanding of anatta, or both, or something else.

And awakening is just a path to nirvana (complete absence of suffering). Except for those who see it as a path to realizing anatta.

Maybe there are other techniques that can bring someone who has full awakening closer to nirvana. If their ego is still causing suffering, maybe traditional psychology or a different Buddhist practice can bring them closer to nirvana?

If you are going to criticize statements about awakening, you really need to understand that statement in terms of the context of whether they are talking about stream entry, full awakening, somewhere in between, and how they define it in terms of suffering and anatta and then base your criticism on what they are actually saying. And if the statement being criticized is not being specific, that opens it to criticism based on that fault.

Shinzen Young describes gradual enlightenment this way:

https://www.lionsroar.com/on-enlightenment-an-interview-with-shinzen-young/



If someone has stream entry a different way, do they still need to work through the mula kleshas to reach full enlightenment?

I suppose that depends on how they define full enlightenment.

Would someone who is after "full anatta", and doesn't work with the kleshas, find they still have more suffering that they can ease by working through the kleshas?

In my opinion awakening where you maximize less suffering you don't necessarily feel like you don't have a self, you just know the self is not a thing, it's just a projection from the aggregates, a self-image, and you learn not to be attached to your self image. You lose identity view, you are a lot less egocentric, but you are not experiencing something like non-duality.

Experiencing non-duality is a real thing. People might still have an ego, but it feels like you don't have a self. I think that is what creates a lot of confusion. People are describing how they feel they feel like they don't have a self, and they use the term ego in that sense - they are not referring to suffering they are referring to feeling like they don't have a self.

But other people like the man in the video and Chris use ego in a different sense, they mean the unconscious processes that make you suffer etc.

So students who have to sort through this confusing situation need to understand the different ways the word is used.

Look at the first two definitions below. One means self, another means a part of the psyche that controls behavior.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/ego

The fourth definition is close to how I use the term. Suffering is caused when your self-esteem/self-image/ego is threatened. We measure success by our ability to get what we want and avoid what we don't want. At the root of most suffering is "I want" or "I don't want" or "I don't like". When you lose your attachment to your self-image you lose a lot of suffering.

This is why I am critical of sudden awakening. I think you get less suffering from working through the kleshas than from realizing anatta. My main interest is less suffering. People who's main interest is realizing anatta can have a different opinion.

​​​​​​​Sometimes "realizing anatta" means you lose attachments to self, but sometimes it just means you feel like you don't have a self.

You can work through the kleshas before stream entry, instead of stream entry, or after stream entry. But if you want to minimize suffering I think you have to do it.

What would you say if it happened to you tomorrow, Jim? It does happen to people on occasion, sometimes without prompting or even practicing.

There are a lot of different phenomena people describe as sudden awakening. I didn't enumerate them all because I didn't want to write a book for a conversation on an internet forum. And it would take a lot of effort for me to respond to your question for each type of phenomenon. But if I pick one to answer your question you can say, "no, I meant this...". I don't want to play that game. Please be more specific if that is not just a rhetorical question, what is the initial experience, what are the immediate effects, do some of them fade after a time? What are the long term effects?

I have had experiences similar to what other people have described as stream entry but I didn't think they were significant. To me it seems like some people see a sunset and they only want to paint pictures, write poetry, and sing songs about them, while other people look at the sky and say, "that's nice" and go back to what they were doing. (I ask a lot of question because I am trying to figure out exactly what people are experiencing and why they think it is significant - people assume I never had similar experiences - I can't help people jumping to false conclusions.) Daniel was very determined to pursue noself, to him it was important. To me noself is just a weird brain state that doesn't really mean anything. Different people have different interests I am not trying to belittle Daniel. I am interested in ending suffering. In all the talk about awakening and Buddhism in general, the subject is mostly about noself for its own sake. My understanding of the Pali canon is that it doesn't address noself, it addresses not-self (wherever you look you can't  find a self), when you lose identity view it is not a non-dual experience. I am on the path because I want to lessen suffering. The end of my path is nirvana. Buddhist practice is just a means to that end. There might be other aspects of life outside Buddhist practice that can also bring me closer.

And when talking to other people, I out of necessity have to try to use their definition of stream entry, but personally I think stream entry is defined in the Pali canon. There it says identity view is lost at stream entry. Other fetters are lost in stages, but not identity view, it is lost entirely at stream entry. What Daniel calls fourth path the Pali canon calls stream entry.

So if I had sudden awakening like what I think you mean, I would probably say, "that's nice" and go back to what I was doing,  (if it was cessation I would enjoy the afterglow). I started meditating when I was 11 or 12 years old. I've had lots of weird experiences my whole life (obe's, clairvoyance, precognition, law of attraction (a form of psychokinesis) etc), so very little surprises or impresses me. The only time I was stunned for days afterward was my first experience learning to communicate with spirits. That blew my mind. (Using the law of attraction worked too well*, it scared me so I don't use it anymore). Non-dual experiences, weird brain states, don't move me. Maybe they would if I hadn't had all those other types of experiences. But to my way of thinking the term "spiritual awakening" used in the video has nothing to do with Buddhist awakening or anatta. Spiritual awakening, to me, means recognizing that we are spirits first and are only in a biological vehicle temporarily.

...

For anyone who is inclined to pray, or talks to deceased relatives or their spirit guides, or entities like that, the next time your mind is quiet in meditation, or when you are on the edge of sleep, think loving thoughts of them and ask them for a mental hug. Anytime, or particularly when you are going through tough times, they may be happy to lift your spirits.

I first noticed this phenomenon when I was taking classes in mediumship and spiritual healing at a Spiritualist church, I would get them occasionally without asking for them, but I found I could also request one. I asked around and other people also experience the phenomenon. Anyone can experience this if they are open to it even materialists - if they need a rationale to try it, they should consider that the placebo effect is a real effect.


-------------
* As a child, when I tried using the law of attraction to get somethig I wanted the result was that an adult broke the rules to help me get it. When I ask them why they did that, they got glassy eyed and said, "I don't know". Take my advice, don't mess with black magic, you don't know what the karmic consequences of manipulating other people will be.

Chris I think I have a guy at my postal service work who got it very fast after practicing mindfulness for not that long when he was 21 years of age and something happened that's still to this day "permanent". He feels to this day he didn't need to do anything else. However, I do sense he doesn't really know about stages or even states, nor path moments.  He just says "there is nothing there, no you, no here, no there, no other, just is, and its good enough for me". He eats once a day (does that remind you of anyone?)   And he has such a deep eye gaze! At first I thought he was into me , as in gay But he has a girlfriend and when we, strangely, somehow got to the subject of awakening, I kind of was thinking "Oh, now I know why your eyes are so intently taking all in without reservation"   I will have more conversations with him surely but so far Im in no doubt at all that something rather deep happened to him and in a very short amount of time, short amount of investigating time (so to speak).

It is defined in Pali canon but you can interpret it in very different ways.

To me identity views have nothing to do with self but with identification with views - which itself has severe consequences in how person thinks about literally anything. Its not rushing to decide what is objectively true (in reality just an arbitrary opinion taken as view) and then using it as reference for truth and everything else that doesn't confirm it as false. People tend to have this thinking even if they don't really hold views on the level where its more visible they have views. Of course these views are just this thinking + some time and opportunities to solidify them in to views.

Doubt in Buddha is doubt in the process of observation, thinking about and testing things yourself to arrive at more correct ways of doing things and more correct models. Most obvious sign of this doubt is seeking dharma elsewhere.

Last fetter would having passion for repetitively doing things without good understanding of the topic and rather giving in to promise of liberation. Also tendency to see difficulty of them as proof of their efficacy and tendency to glorify suffering and struggle as the way to liberation.

I have other models too (since I don't have 1st fetter nothing stops me) and my understanding of these models is that rather than choosing the right one I need to attain Stream Entry in all of them. This too include bip bip bip blip but that one I remember from my childhood. Made quite an impression on me how mind I had afterwards wasn't at all the same as was there before. In fact I started pondering how it works and maybe, just maybe, my mind changes like that but in less drastic way leading to illusion of continuity of mind. Then again maybe as a small child I wasn't as advanced to have such deep thoughts about nature of self and some of these realizations were spread out over span of few years. That said I definitely noticed that my mind completely changed and I remember looking in my mind for the mind which was there before to not avail. Then and there I had deeper realization of what fruition was than most people have. I also know why - it also in a sense means I cannot really be too conceited about it. It was in some sense a matter of stupid luck to have it at the age when I could notice it. In this sense I feel obliged to give back the luck and explain how is it people don't get it if anyone is ready to hold another model and maybe learn a few new tricks.

What is your understanding of fetters or SE in general you read from suttas?

Uh oh, saint papa has found his guru! Look out world!!

He can be my guru only if he buys me a drink! It ain't cheap to MY guru! 

This guy is my guru! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7MRBjcG7CA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFK8iLiSuE&list=PLWaJltRtpGGe87uvCvwH6_7yq8LrXuoR3&index=3

Luang Ta Maha Bua, how to reach Anagami, and Arahanthood 
(starting from Mn17)
In this video, translation is very accurate and subtitles are very much in sync with the speaker (which is rarely the case) It is very important because the teacher (Venerable Maha Bua or Maha Boowa) speaks from the heart, so the hands movements and the face expressions make the whole presentation quite unique.
To reach third path, He advocates the practice of Asubha meditation, starting with the meditation on the 32 body parts. He is the only theravada teacher who talks about the automatic stage (we can hear Him saying "atanomat" many times), that is to be experienced once the meditator has completed third path. Meaning that from third path to fourth path, anagami to arahanthood, all remaining impurities in the heart, the kilesas, are being cleansed automatically, as soon as the meditator wakes up in the morning, and like this from day to day, till nothing remains.
The reason He is the only teacher to author such a bold presentation comes from His very dedicated practice. Before reaching third path, at some point, during one month, on nine occasions, he meditated from evening to dawn, without moving from his sitting posture.

I'm pretty sure this is also the same person, good (free) book:

Arahattamagga Arahattaphala (abhayagiri.org) ​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​A Compilation of Venerable Ãcariya Mahã Boowa’s Dhamma Talks About His Own Path of Practice