http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/30344

Thank you for the share.   Her book is here :  http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/Analytic%20buddhism.pdf

Have you read it? I am definitely interested in her interpretation. 

No, just discovered it,

Its great to see this stuff being talked about openly in a non-buddhist forum. Some comments...

Based on the interview around 8:16 her idea of non-self, she is basically talking about witnessing / persence as being special or permenant. 

This is the Adivaita Vedanta view, rather than a Buddhist one. At around 38:00 they talk about tribalism from Buddhism towards Adivaita.

Except it isn't necessarily tribalism, but rather the Buddhists trying to convey an experential realization.

The discovery of presence or witnessing is a wonderful realization in its own right. But when it is reified as true Self or permanance it is an obstruction to the realization of Annata. 

In the realization of Annata the presence or witnessing type awareness is seen to be just another sensation.

So in realizing Annata the witnessing quality, or presence is thus stripped of special importance. A sensation cannot witness or illuminate another sensation. The very appearance of sensations is its illuminating quality. Thus we can say they are self-luminous.

Some vedanta teachers also talk about something like the 'Absolute' (eg. Nisrigadatta in his later years) that is beyond presence. Realizing this 'absolute' is closer to the Buddhist realization of non-arising bliss. 

But their view becomes quite convoluted when they try to integrate the realization into the Vedic view oneness, for eg...
 http://blogs.k10world.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/A_Dimensionless_Map_For_Self-R-1.jpeg

I think various Buddhist views like Dependent Origination, annata, and emptienss do a better job at pointing to the realization while minimizing confusion with things like 'presence' or 'True Self'. But that may just be a matter of personal taste.

"Based on the interview around 8:16 her idea of non-self, she is basically talking about witnessing / persence as being special or permenant. 

This is the Adivaita Vedanta view, rather than a Buddhist one."

How do you know that this is not the Buddhist view? Her book is a scholarly attempt to demonstrate that it is in fact a Buddhist view. If anything, it is open for debate. 

From the beginning of her book:

"While there will, of course, be those who take exception to this reading, it should at the very least make clear that what has often been touted as 'the Buddhist view' on the status of self and consciousness is, actually, based on inference as well. The popularized view is not there explicitely in the words of the Buddha and neither is the view I espouse. The Buddha was not interested in asserting ontological doctrines of consciousness or the self; his modus operandi was not philosophy but praxis - to teach one how to end suffering. Gleaning semantic, ontological and metaphysical positions from Buddhist suttas is therefore likely to involve inference and speculation - and I hope that what I have to offer is more accurate than the party line."

DZ, I agree with you about the importance of witnessing and its relation to nibbana, which she also mentioned quite frequently ("nirvana").

Being somewhat less compulsive and less identified with the mind brings with it the ability to witness what is left of the mind, but it is -- as she said -- only a beginning.   As you say, it is a great state to have earned for work well done.   I am just now beginning to experience a more complementary attitude towards others' fixed ideas, as my own now are less fixed, less identified with so no need to butt heads.  And my own mind's fixed compulsions are also less "me".   It is what I would call equanimity.  It still requires wisdom and mindfulness about one's interactions.   I almost see myself as expressionless at times.

It is a better human, so to speak, but still far away from nirvana.   I myself see nirvana as "no mind", meaning the egoic mind that holds onto one purpose and its opposer simultaneously, and craves sensation. No longer anything to witness, in terms of mind.  I also see that once the current mind is vanished, I can at will recreate a mind of limitations to suit whatever games or interactions I choose.   Of course it will be much more lighthearted, no vengeance mechanism to kick in, etc., AND I can drop that created mind when I decide to no longer oppose a playmate.  Imagine beings playing their version of "bumper cars", all lighthearted and thrilling.  Perhaps not the best example, but it comes to my mind.  One of the first games beings played with each other was to give oneself a surprise, and then later to have "others" to play the surprise game with.   Still a fun game by the way.    In nirvana you never get stuck, have unlimited options, including the option to simply go quiet -- like the void with potential. 

My other thought was to put both craving and aversion into the class of "compulsion", so "compulsion" is the thing to be eradicated.  That is all that we are doing no matter how we do it in realizing nirvana.

I work as a psychotherapist and any psychotherapist who works with a client from the basis of their stated compulsion is going to have a successful practice.  For example, a compulsion "To Eat" -- the job is to clear out all the possible oppositions regarding eating, i.e. being forced to eat, being prevented from eating, forcing others to eat, preventing others from eating, for a start.  At some point the client is going to start realizing that, 'hey, I don't crave/hate such and such anymore".   In the mind, wherever there is craving there is also the opposing aversion.  That IS the mind.

Perhaps I am writing all of this because I am holding onto a compulsion "Must be known"  ???   I constantly remind myself that I am forever on a learning curve.

Colleen, I read your post right after a meditation. It was the perfect thing to hear, I was right there with you

I'm glad your meditation activities are paying off for you  

http://www.dharmaseed.org/talks/audio_player/25/23159.html
47:30

Here Annie Nugent talks about the difficulty of seeing the impermanence of consciousness.  She describes it as stitched moments of knowing making knowing look solid.  This matches others who mention consciousness like a movie (or a magician's trick).

Thank you, Richard, will give it a listen.  Speaking of movie, a few years ago during a session I was amazed to actually see the "flicker rate" of this movie.   It seems like a solution to the problem of how to make the creation persist.   Goodness, what a shift it would be if someone would always see the flicker rate?   Things would start to shift and bend and come apart and not be there when one took their attention off of it.   Oh, I forget, millions of others are still holding it there!

The flicker rate is just something to notice to remind yourself that consciousness is not permanently solid.  Still one has to remember the middle path and to treat things as real but undergoing the 3 characteristics.  Sometimes getting attached and enjoying a vacation or a flower and just to marinate in experience is perfectly healthy instead of reminding yourself of "cinema-mode".  Yet we want the freedom from addictiveness when it's needed.  Aversion to a "self-mode" is just more aversion.  A self-mode is very useful in daily life.

Interdependence is the other part of seeing consciousness and how consciousness needs an object.  If the brain wants something and the consciousness is flickering out towards objects it'll probably aim intention towards past likes and dislikes repeating the same behaviour.

I'd like to know Miri's interpretation of the Bahiya Sutta "no seer, just seeing etc" compared to Advaita.

to sum, life is real no matter what it manifests and life wants the sensation of creating, loving, owning, etc., etc.  Bodies are vias for sensation, both in the sense of To Know and To Be Known.

In hindsight my comment was bit too heavy handed, and critical.

Don't mean to suggest there is some sort of universal Buddhist view.

There are schools in Buddhism that have similar views (eg Shentong, Dhamakaya movement) to the one the author is arguing.

As she says, it is not the mainstream Buddhist view. Shentong for instance is considered contraversial due to potential to mislead the practioner into grasping at some sort of ultimate cognition.

IMO there are good (scriptual, experential, historical, and analytical) reasons for this sort of criticism. 

If it helps, I am not a fan of the nibbana as a blackout cessassion view either.

I always see the flicker but it didn't seem to lead to any great insight all by itself.  I considered it likely a visual processing defect up until recently when I started reading here.  There are lots of others who see a flickering also and don't know what it is and who don't meditate.  Doctors have been trying to 'cure' it for many years now with no luck!  If it is in fact the flickering of reality itself, well now that just makes it pretty funny to think of all the concerted effort to fix it.  Maybe the trick is not to see the flickers but to see what's between the flickers? 
-Eva