My own experience to give background: The ‘self’ (inverted commas to emphasize its separative action) becomes more and more an unnecessary position, revealing itself as a mental/social construct at the root of suffering.

1/ the more it is known to be the very form of suffering, the easier it is to relinquish.

2/ the impersonal or objective view of one’s own life come to the front.

3/ a great deal of blissful relief is felt in every moment of conscious release of ‘self’ or noticing of release.

4/ the personality remains as it is, there may be purification and change of action over time, but the basic self-pattern remains.

5/ self-objectifying insights arise such as: ‘This particular life has no great importance’. ‘The death or misfortune/loss of this particular body-mind is perfectly Ok’. ‘My own enlightenment/liberation/nirvana is of no concern’. These are not in any sense negative or depressive observations.

6/ it’s possible to move in at least two directions from here. I’m sure there are other routes and many variations of the two:

(a) Emphasis on the loss of the suffering ‘door’ and the perfect sufficiency of this: no-self, no problem, no suffering, even when difficultly, pain, distress arise it is noticed that because there is no one to claim them ‘as mine’. The being remains somehow untouched by what would otherwise be a suffering experience. This is the classic Theravada direction. Schools such as Actual Freedom take this route to the extreme. In this case the philosophical view of world and body-mind may tend to secular physicalism and materialism (denial of spirit in any shape or form).

(b) Emphasis is on that which is the case when the ‘self’ vanishes often called the Self, Consciousness, Being, Reality, Citta, Primordial Perfection, Awareness, the Unborn etc. Here attention moves more to the ground of being, rather than to the end of suffering as the ‘Big Deal’ that’s not to say ‘no- suffering ‘is not appreciated but it appears secondary to the Greatness of Being itself. A good but odd example of this emphasis is from John Wren-Lewis

Thanks. I don't have anything to add, but I would give you a +1 / Like if there were such a thing.

An often extremely well articulated post but it falls down to me due to the points hightlighted above. The last point in particular is tenuous because the whole purpose of at least the Buddhist path & the not-self reality is Nibbana (no suffering). 

The words "being" ("satta") & "self" ("atta") are basically synonymous in Buddhism therefore having no-self & being together does not make much sense. 


The "Being" above, and the other words in capital letters, such as "Consciousness", sound like permanence. This is not enlightenment. In the enlightened not-self state, consciousness is seen to have no substance; in that it comes & goes and is essentially meaningless. 


..........

Hi Nicky, I'm not a Buddhist though much appreciative, so your recourse to scripture is wasted on me. If you wish to speak from personal experience and exchange views please do so. Yes I take the view that Consciousness ( not mind small 'c' consciousness ) is permanent as is Being or Self( not 'self' feel the nuance? ) what is impermanent is all conditional arising, also Nirvana must be permanent otherwise what is the point? I'm sure the pundits have debated these point endlessly.

OK... speaking from personal experince, I would regard the idea of 'Being' as a delusion (unless I try to keep my eye lids permanently open using toothpicks so I can permanently stare into space). 

Nirvana is certainly permanent but not the consciousness that knows Nirvana. 

Knowledgable pundits have not debated this well-established truth in 2,600 years. 

.............

So, would you say that this is the same as seeing from the "watcher", or is this more non-doership or... both?

Love that this topic is coming up. I'm working with a lot of no-self "myself' at this time. First big experience was watching "myself" driving a few months ago, as a witness. Still bouncing back and forth from this view and a view I would characterize as "not noticing non-doership".

I'm a buddhist, but very interested in Advaita.

I guess, deciphering your cryptic point, you are suggesting that Being or
in your limited definition 'being' or 'consciousness'  is confined to
the waking state or physicality alone. That's a limited view I'm happy
for you to hold.
Only consciousness knows or is aware, so by your statement above Nirvana is not permanent, since the consciousness that knows it fluctuates, unless it's an  unconsciousness state, in which  case you  could know nothing about it or even it it exists.Sounds like a political party propaganda statement 

Great stuff Stirling, will get back to you in more detail or with more expansion.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'not noticing'  in this context ?

Nirvana is not consciousness but an object of consciousness. 

Consciousness is always 'the born' while Nirvana is the 'unborn'. 

The very fact that you equated Consciousness with the Unborn shows the tenuous nature of your Interfaith rhetoric. 

Unlike your good 'Self', when the mind is fully enlightened, the defilments in it are permanently eradicated. 

When the defilements are eradicted, which includes the eradication of the delusions of 'Self' & 'Being', life or experience does not disappear or enter into a black hole or unconscious void. Instead, what is experienced is a perfect peace that is not made by the mind but is just a perfect peace that was always there. 

While Nirvana is not space, space can be used as an anology. When objects are destroyed, such as mountains or houses, what remains is space. Therefore, it is a logical inference that the space was always there. 

Or closer to Nirvana, when the wind stop blowing in the atmosphere, there remains stillness. Therefore, it is a logical inference that the stillness was always there. (However, what was/is always there is not the ground of 'Being' but only the unconditioned eternal peace). 

Nirvana is not something "mental". Nor is it physical. It is a stillness or peace that is always there in the entire universe but the defilements & Self delusions of the mind prevented Nirvana from being known. 

The Supreme Blessed (Fortunate) Lord Buddha, who was fully enlightened, called Nirvana the UNCONDITIONED ELEMENT, clearly distinguishing Nirvana from mind & matter.

Thus, when the mind is unconscious, such as in sleep; or when the illusory present moment consciousness ceases as quickly as it arose; or when there is the termination of life, the Nirvana element (dhatu) will always be there, whether it is experienced or not. 

The same Nirvana the Buddha experienced 2,600 years is exactly the same Nirvana fully enlightened minds experience today. This is unlike Mt Everest, which is different today to the Mt Everest the Buddha experienced 2,600 years ago. This Nirvana does not change its nature or flavour over time. It does not changet at all. It is the very same Nirvana forever. 

As I said, there is nothing to debate. 

But when we believe the reported words of the Buddha are "wasted on us" yet we continue like a thief to steal whatever Buddha teachings appeal to our personal Self Being agenda (and discard others), yes, certainly a contradicted conflict. 

The bottom line is who do we trust as a guide: (i) The Supreme Blessed Lord Buddha or; (ii) MartyG, wanna-Be? 

'Advaita' means the 'One God'. It believes the mind is the centre & maker of the universe, similar how Monotheists believe the One God is the centre & maker of the universe, similar to believing the Earth is flat, the Earth is the centre of the universe or pigs can fly. 

The Buddha taught the mind is dependent upon the body (rather than the centre & maker of the universe) & merely an element (dhatu) thus is nothing special. 

Advaita is a form of spiritual theism, as found in the Buddhist suttas (quoted below) & is for those still grasping at the last remnants of 'self', unable to fully let go or 'die'. 'Advaita' is an infatuation, delight or lust with consciousness & is a fetter. 

 I am not always cognizant that I am not the doer. There are long periods of time at work, for example, where I am working on the computer and I'm not aware that the "I" is not present. I feel like my sense of non-doer is not complete... not locked in. I can shift to it to its very little effort, but it doesn't feel completed. Make sense?

I found this video helpful, in relation to your query, it takes a little time to warm up but he does cover it quite well. I don't go all the way to his outcomes but good enough for a basic understanding. I've never pursued this particular line of thinking to any degree. Others make it a center piece, which may be true in your case. Often I feel that the 'whole thing' is scripted, all past, all future but we never need to be 'implicated' in any of it, that's a very happy insight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBN-GrXPSrc

Best not-self quote ever, from Zem Master Dogen Zenjii:

I won't say it seems to be presenting as the center of my work right now, but it is a component for sure. I wasn't really looking for it, but was "presented" with it. I really like what Scott has to say about now there is only the present moment. This is a central understanding, and his way of explaining has a lot of clarity.

I don't think everything is scripted exactly... my feeling is that our experience is a verb, not a noun. That the present moment is always arising and that it is the ONLY moment that exists, but that it is spontaneously arising - and NOT from the past.

If you haven't heard of it/read it, I can highly recommend David Carse's book, "Perfect Brilliant Stillness" than other poster recommended on here some time ago. It is an amusing and VERY clear read on these ideas, in my opinion. It is out of print, but available in a great audio book (a format I'm not usually that fond of) with Terence Stamp reading it on Audible.

My feeling is the weakness of the Advaita teachings is that they don't dissolve the watcher as part of the practice and realizations. My feeling is that this is paramount to getting the whole enchilada. I'm fine with finding out I'm wrong about this, however.

Currenly working in the Zen tradition, so ALWAYS happy to see some Dogen!

Save

Save

Save

I think there are limitations in Advaita, I just side more there more often, but do not consider myself an Advaitan.

The watcher = The mind?. When no-self is really active and strong, it seems to suck all things away like a vortex of force, no watcher, no mind, headless; then :

"As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death." Dogen

(thanks to Chris for the Dogen inspiration)

Nicky, you seem to masking terrible suffering and delusion, that's the first thing to address, admit you are a suffering, foolishly self-inflated ego, like the rest of us, me included. That's an honest position to take, rather than the obnoxious hiding behind Buddhism stance. Everybody suffers here, in that knowledge we can be a lot kinder to each other and more tolerant of different viewpoints. There is a quiet violence in fundamentalism that divides rather than unites. Writing this is also doomed to failure in the sense you most likely can't see what it points to, and may just see another chance to score points. Peace to you regardless.

Marty.

100% agree... and yet it seems to have a lot to offer. I stil consider myself Buddhist, if anything, but at this point the practices seem to arise of their own accord. Most of what I do is acceptance/surrender and sitting. 


By watcher I mean the observer in the space between thoughts and the mental chatter we THINK of as us. AKA: witness, etc. I agree, in a strong no-self experience, the "I" as a center of things disappears, replaced by an "everywhere" perception.

No. Advaita means 'nonduality'. From

• the privative prefix a-/an-, cognate to 'un-' in English and German, a-/an- in Greek and in- in Latin, 
• dve (Sanskrit for 'two'),
• the suffix -ta which makes abstract nouns from concrete nouns to describe a quality of being.

The construction is similar to many words in English, as the suffix is cognate to the Latin -itas and the English '-ity'.Compare Sanskrit dvaita ('duality', Latin dualitas), Sanskrit treta ('triplicity', Latin trinitas), Sanskrit virata ('virility', Latin virilitas), Sanskrit devata ('divinity', Latin divinitas). The similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin (and hence English) always fascinate me.

'God' does not enter it in any way. Nor does 'one'.

Definitely not. 

I will continue to highlight dubious views. What is real is unrelated to "ego". To insist the sky is blue is not ego. 

The mind (rather than a 'Self') is the watcher. How can observing or watching occur without something that watches? How can this chat site be used without a watcher? The mind or consciousness is the (impermanent) watcher. 

If Dogen really said the above, this was delusion. There is delusion; there is realization, there is 'buddha'('enlightened mind'). Funny how we reject the Lord Buddha, who all of Buddhism is indebted to, but religously embrace another superstitious wanne-Be.

To restate:
 

Advaita Vedanta is a type of Hinduism. People who believe in Advaita believe that their soul is never really different from God. The Sanskrit word for soul is Atman and the Sanskrit word for God is Brahman. The most famous Hindu philosopher who taught about Advaita Vedanta was Adi Shankara who lived in India more than a thousand years ago. Adi Sankara learned the sacred texts of Hinduism, like Vedas and Upanishads under his teacher Govinda Bhagavadpada and later wrote extensive commentaries of Hindu sacred texts called Upanishads. In these commentaries, he proposed the theory of Advaita, saying that the Upanishad actually teach that the individual soul (called Atman) is not different from God (called Brahman). He also taught that there is only one essential principle called Brahman (means God) and everything else is a kind of expression of that one Brahman. Because of this theory of one being, his teachings became popular as the "Advaita" (a = not, dvaita = two, means no-two or non-dual). The way he said this to people was "Atman is Brahman."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta  


Advaita, which states that all of the universe is one essential reality, and that all facets and aspects of the universe are ultimately an expression or appearance of that one reality.This is an ontological approach to nondualism, and asserts non-difference between Ātman (soul) and Brahman Absolute).This idea is best known from Advaita Vedanta, but also found in other Hindu traditions such as the Kashmir Shaivism, popular teachers like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj;


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism 

Advaita does not mean the 'one god'. It means 'non-duality'.

Also, the article you copied from the Simple English Wikipedia incorrectly conflates brahman (the impersonal principle) and Brahma (the personal god).

Advaita means "not two" if remember correctly and DOES refer to the non-duality state.

 I guess I'm not sure why we need to get derailed by an argument about which of these practices is better. Everybody here seems to agree that Buddhism is more complete. Having said that, many, including Kenneth Folk for example, find the ideas around Advaita compelling, and it does have a lot of ideas about no-self that are germane to this topic. Can't we just rock on?  

I think Buddhism as commonly presented has limitations as well. All 'isms' do, the great reformers such as the Buddha and Jesus would most likely not have a bar of what has followed from them. People like Kenneth represent ( to me at least) a new more inclusive direction. They seem to have found limits and speak of them and deal with them in their own way. Cultural preference is fine (this is my lineage etc)  and adds much. 

That you put classic and newage to the same level, is cringe.

What i mean newage is what KF and DI etc other names, if they themselves would undertand it there wouldn't be any cringiness.

More Ken wilber than new-age ( assuming that's what you mean) your posts normally sound (look) like zen cartoons, they need a certain coaxing along to make sense...

touche --- i still got it !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Dvvqf1EZk

 

I think i meant melting newage and classics together by doing it you may get newcage.

Just so we're clear, Advaita Vendanta teachings begin from about 400-500CE. It's not "New Age"... it appears at roughly the same time as the Buddha's life and death.