Message Boards Message Boards

Books and Websites

Gateless Gatecrashers

Toggle
Gateless Gatecrashers b man 9/6/15 4:41 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Jeff Wright 9/6/15 10:17 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers neko 9/7/15 2:23 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Nik 9/7/15 12:06 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Small Steps 9/7/15 1:30 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Jeff Wright 9/10/15 9:25 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Rednaxela 9/8/15 4:24 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Jeff Wright 9/8/15 8:18 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Small Steps 9/8/15 8:53 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Jeff Wright 9/8/15 9:12 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Matt 9/9/15 1:30 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Noah 9/9/15 2:27 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Rednaxela 9/9/15 7:57 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers neko 9/10/15 7:00 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers b man 9/10/15 2:32 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Jeff Wright 9/10/15 2:52 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Mattias Wilhelm Stenberg 11/3/15 4:05 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Eric B 11/4/15 10:38 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Darrell 11/19/15 4:06 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers svmonk 11/19/15 10:18 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Darrell 11/21/15 11:35 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers svmonk 11/24/15 9:47 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/25/15 8:47 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/20/15 12:26 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Darrell 11/21/15 11:54 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/23/15 12:47 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Eva Nie 11/24/15 12:04 AM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/24/15 3:38 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/24/15 7:09 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Psi 11/24/15 7:34 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Eva Nie 11/24/15 8:55 PM
RE: Gateless Gatecrashers Eva Nie 11/24/15 9:31 PM
Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/6/15 4:41 AM
Just discovered this ebook recently, Gateless Gatecrashers.  Its about understanding no-self using "direct pointing." I dont really know much about direct pointing and I cant work out if I am just not seeing the vaule in it, or what. Perhaps its because I havent fully finished reading it all yet, but Im wondering what others takes on it is...

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/6/15 10:17 PM as a reply to b man.
b man:
Just discovered this ebook recently, [url=]Gateless Gatecrashers.  Its about understanding no-self using "direct pointing." I dont really know much about direct pointing and I cant work out if I am just not seeing the vaule in it, or what. Perhaps its because I havent fully finished reading it all yet, but Im wondering what others takes on it is...


I've read through about half of it. I'm also working with one of the 'guides' on the private forums they have a Liberation Unleashed. So far it has been quite an interesting experience. I have been prompted with a lot of questions and asked to make observations designed to get to that point where I "get it." So far, I see the liklihood of No-Self from an intellectual standpoint, but the direct seeing has evaded me. Would be interested to hear what your experience with it all is so far.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/7/15 2:23 AM as a reply to Jeff Wright.
Jeff Wright:

I've read through about half of it. I'm also working with one of the 'guides' on the private forums they have a Liberation Unleashed. So far it has been quite an interesting experience. I have been prompted with a lot of questions and asked to make observations designed to get to that point where I "get it." So far, I see the liklihood of No-Self from an intellectual standpoint, but the direct seeing has evaded me. Would be interested to hear what your experience with it all is so far.

In my own experience, some breakthroughs into direct, non-verbal insight into no-self through intellectual, verbal, discoursive investigation are possible, reaching A&P-like states. I don't know if one can go all the way even to 'just' first path this way, though.

In any case, I am putting this book in my to-read list.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/7/15 12:06 PM as a reply to neko.
Two of my friends had bonafide no-self insights using one of these direct pointing resources ('Brutal Beginnings' by Ruthless Truth). Neither had any previous background with Buddhism or meditation and I introduced it to them. Both said it was probably the most important thing they had ever done for 'themselves'. 

I tried for quite a while, but wasn't able to make it click. It seems that for some people it 'works' really quickly, but for many others it doesn't for whatever reason.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/7/15 1:30 PM as a reply to Nik.
Nik:
I tried for quite a while, but wasn't able to make it click. It seems that for some people it 'works' really quickly, but for many others it doesn't for whatever reason.
Might be the same reason why some people are easily hypnotized and others are not as susceptible (see this brief article). It seems to point to real physical differences in our brains, and however they became that way, through conditioning, life experiences, etc. This must surely play a role in the way we take to things like various meditation modalities (or pointing out instructions).

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/8/15 4:24 PM as a reply to Jeff Wright.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/8/15 8:18 PM as a reply to b man.
What is interesting about all this Self / No Self business is that in the grander scheme of eliminating suffering, it's a meaingless question. Is there a Self? Is there not a Self? etc...all of these being "nonskillful" questions that are, according to the Buddha, put aside.

This essay by Thanissaro Bikkhu (which I am reading now) is bringing up the possibilty that my time spent over on LU trying to see Not Self may be illuminating, but a dead end as far as reaching the end of suffering goes (which is really why I'm in this whole game to begin with).

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/8/15 8:53 PM as a reply to Jeff Wright.
Jeff Wright:
What is interesting about all this Self / No Self business is that in the grander scheme of eliminating suffering, it's a meaingless question. Is there a Self? Is there not a Self? etc...all of these being "nonskillful" questions that are, according to the Buddha, put aside.

This essay by Thanissaro Bikkhu (which I am reading now) is bringing up the possibilty that my time spent over on LU trying to see Not Self may be illuminating, but a dead end as far as reaching the end of suffering goes (which is really why I'm in this whole game to begin with).

That's the bigger picture, how do these realizations help one understand the nature of dukkha, it's cause, the end of it, and the path leading there? If one doesn't have this framework of the four Noble Truths, I surely hope there's some other paradigm employed that is able to ground and provide further evolution. Just having someone come up to you and give you some kind of pointing out instructions could very well:

a) not do anything
b) leave you in some kind of existential crisis

I'd almost prefer the former, if I wasn't prepared...

Insofar as the Buddha's teachings go, seeing into the truth of anatta feels to me more like the gradual negation of those things we might have formerly thought or taken to be a self, rather than some kind of seeing into an ultimate truth of 'no self.' Eventually with practice, the negation seems to result in a profound change. Learning about and meditating on the five aggregates and dependent origination was very helpful in this regard.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/8/15 9:12 PM as a reply to Small Steps.
Small Steps:
That's the bigger picture, how do these realizations help one understand the nature of dukkha, it's cause, the end of it, and the path leading there? If one doesn't have this framework of the four Noble Truths, I surely hope there's some other paradigm employed that is able to ground and provide further evolution. Just having someone come up to you and give you some kind of pointing out instructions could very well:

a) not do anything
b) leave you in some kind of existential crisis

I'd almost prefer the former, if I wasn't prepared...

Insofar as the Buddha's teachings go, seeing into the truth of anatta feels to me more like the gradual negation of those things we might have formerly thought or taken to be a self, rather than some kind of seeing into an ultimate truth of 'no self.' Eventually with practice, the negation seems to result in a profound change. Learning about and meditating on the five aggregates and dependent origination was very helpful in this regard.

Agreed. My feeling from the LU site is that 'success' comes about when you have direct clear-seeing of the non-self aspect of all things. So in that regard, I am not (yet) a success. However, I have advanced my thought on this critical topic of undersrtanding so it's not all wasted time.

I seem to be taking the gradual, wait-for-it-to-soak-in approach.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/9/15 1:30 AM as a reply to Jeff Wright.
Jeff Wright:
What is interesting about all this Self / No Self business is that in the grander scheme of eliminating suffering, it's a meaingless question. Is there a Self? Is there not a Self? etc...all of these being "nonskillful" questions that are, according to the Buddha, put aside.
IMHO, the vipassana pursuit of sensations of self is a worthwhile process that reveals truth to the seeker.  Putting aside the question happens automatically after the (valuable) insights are experienced.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/9/15 2:27 AM as a reply to Matt.
My experience with vipassana/paths is that they are more like energy-body-building... which do provide some sort of 'knowing' in the gut the same way any experience in life builds with time into a sense of familiarity.  This sense of familiarity is what is known as "knowledge of not-self."  

This knowledge doesn't directly lead to relief from suffering.  Just because I am simply the flow of emptiness does not mean that I do not frequently "stick" to various negative experiences on a fudnamental, perceptual level.  From my understanding, most meditation masters will admit to something like this, if prodded (not that I am anywhere near a meditation master!!).

The thing that does lead to relief from suffering is simply a side-effect (of improvements to the brain-circuitry/energy body), the same way any constructive activity in life could have positive side-effects (i.e. working out causing a rise in self-esteem).  For me, this has manifested in a marked increase in mental and emotional stability.  Its really quite amazing considering where I was at.  But I don't know exactly how one thing has lead to another (anatta to dukkha).

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/9/15 7:57 AM as a reply to Noah.
I've had a copy of this article in my satchel for a month or two know and plan to read it on the train ride home tonight.  It's seems appropriate: Mahasi on 'the magical illusion of self".


http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?p=8655

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/10/15 9:25 AM as a reply to Nik.
Nik:
Two of my friends had bonafide no-self insights using one of these direct pointing resources ('Brutal Beginnings' by Ruthless Truth). Neither had any previous background with Buddhism or meditation and I introduced it to them. Both said it was probably the most important thing they had ever done for 'themselves'. 

I tried for quite a while, but wasn't able to make it click. It seems that for some people it 'works' really quickly, but for many others it doesn't for whatever reason.
I have been reading thru the Brutal Beginnings book. Basically a PDF of a bunch of newgroup or email threads AFAICT. I was initially skeptical because profanity is something that I've been slowly purging from my life, but I will admit this is getting to me at my core in a much more visceral way than all the polite ponitificating I've been a part of at the GG / LU forum. I haven't quite "got it" yet, in terms of Clear Seeing (tm), but I've had some good intellectual insights, and those can be a nice launching pad.

This quote from BB made me laugh out loud, precisely because it exactly describes how I've been approaching this thing:
You're thinking too much. Trying to understand. Don't worry; you'll understand fully when you're
on the other side, so to speak.

I use the riding a bike analogy. You've read how to do it. You've questioned how to do it. You've
asked everyone how to ride it. You've even gone out and bought a brand new fucking bike. But
you're sitting there looking at the bike.
And then quickly on the heels of that all-too-accurate prod, I see this:
"There is no you."

That little reaction right there, distancing or denying this statement, where is it coming from?

Your thoughts are writing you.

Experience is writing your thoughts.

You are being written by experience.

Thus, you are inseparable from experience. If you are inseparable, who's experiencing?
Mind starting to melt...

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/10/15 7:00 PM as a reply to b man.
Hello all,

I have some thoughts to share on the Gateless Gatecrashers book and this style of direct pointing in general. This failed attempt on the DhO is, in my opinion, a necessary complement to the book:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1996253

About me

My current self-diagnosis is MCTB 1st or possibly 2nd path. Definitely not 3rd or 4th.

I have a range of direct insights and into the not-self / no-self / non-duality spectrum, both on cushion and off. These I classify in a kind of mental hierarchy of "depth" and "quality" of the insight, with the 'softest' ones somewhere around A&P and the 'hardest' ones, again, definitely below MCTB non-duality (although sharing a few of its characteristics). Some of these isnights I can tap into at will or with some work, others have come up spontaneously and were either frequent or intense enough that I can remember many aspects of what they felt like clearly.


How I have approached the book

I have read a part of the dialogues. Not all of them, also because they become a bit repetitive after a time, I have done my best to put myself in the shoes of the "pointee", comparing their experiences with mine, thinking up what my answer would be to each of the pointing tips, based on my current and past experiences. My main question was: Would I qualify for having crashed what they call the Gateless Gate?


The good

The people doing direct pointing definitely seem to have some insight into no-self. Some of the directions they give were kind of new to me. All of them seem to be pointing at something that is good and useful, both the familiar and the unfamiliar ones. No pointing seemed 'wrong' or not useful.

The enthusiasm and commitment of Ilona and Elena is also very nice, and they come across as nice people. That is unfortunately not a given, as we know.


The not as good

They seem to have relatively low standards for having crashed the gateless gate. The minimum that seems to be required to 'have made it' seems to be two ingredients:

1) Using direct effort, being able to investigate the feeling of "selfness" in real time and being able to see that it is illusory and nowhere to be found in practice. I repeat, this does not need to be a real-time, permanent, unconditioned shift into something like what MCTB calls non-duality. Rather, an at-will ability to see that the self is slippery and nowhere to be found is enough.

2) Based on (1), giving up inquiry into what the (no)self is, having "understood" that it is futile.

See, for example, the chapter called "Jamie" in Gateless Crashers.  In that chapter, Jaime passes the "having crashed the gate" test, but it seems to me that he doesn't have MCTB 4th path or anything comparable to it. So the problem here is that (1) is, in my opinion, a low standard, so (2) is a dead end.

Disclaimer: Reading the book, it is entirely possibile that the Ilona and Elena themselves have a higher realisation of than one I have given above. Similarly, I cannot exclude that some of the pointees have obtained more than (1). However, the minimum standard that they set for the pontees is the one I have given above, and that seems to be it.


So would I qualify for having crashed what they call the Gateless Gate?

I am afraid I would, and that is disappointing. I am currently able to chase the perception of a self around and see it slip from one "place" to another one until it becomes clear, in an experiential-deductive way, that there is actually no self to be found. In my current scale, this is some relatively low-level insight into no-self and not into non-duality. So:

A. Had I not read MCTB,

B. had I not had some momentary flashes of insight into non-duality,

C. were I willing to accept that all there is to waking up is points (1) and (2) above,

I would believe I have crashed the Gateless Gate as they understand it, and possibly ended my search.

The problem is: I know, from direct experience, that there is much more to it than (1) above. It is not enough to know that a self cannot be found and (2) giving up. I know (from direct experience) that it is possible to shift into a "state" in which:

- The idea of there being a self that can be looked for and debunked in real time with effort and then given up is replaced by a direct, radical non-experience of the self.

- The idea of there being self as the experiencer of stuff that can be looked for and debunked in real time with effort and then given up is replaced by a direct, radical lack of experience of the experiencer.

- The idea that the process of labelling things as 'me' or 'not me' can be looked at and debunked in real time with effort and then given up is replaced by complete lack of a barrier or divide or possibility / non-arising of labels such as 'here/me' and a 'there/not me'.

I believe, based on MCTB and people I have talked to, that "stabilising" this in real time is possible. Therefore, I will keep on looking.


TL;DR

Gateless Gatecrashers is useful, but it can be a dead end. Feel free to play with it, but do not fool yourself into thinking that it is the endgame.


Makes sense?

If you believe that I am wrong, and there is more to this style of Direct Pointing than what I have called (1), and you can point me (hehe emoticon ) to it, I will be happy to look!

______________

Has edits to clarify my point of view.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/10/15 2:32 PM as a reply to neko.
I've got to say I think I agree with you Neko. This might well be of some benefit to someone, but it certainly isnt going to get you the same results as years of mediation. I read the one with the Mediation teacher and it reminded me of the Emperors new clothes story. 



My hunch is that its getting people to the point that reading the very first Ekhart tolle book did for me, When I realised I wasnt my thoughts. That was important, and it was the start of the journey for me, but thats the start, not the end, as far as I am concerned. 

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
9/10/15 2:52 PM as a reply to b man.
I admit that I have to agree with Neko as well, as far as the GG/LU stuff goes. I have been having some insights - mostly intellectual - the most recent being that a label such as "bottle," "cloud," or "Jeff" can't be experienced, even though the 'thing' being pointed to can indeed be experienced. But is that it? It seems like a letdown; a illumination only in that our linguistic symantics are fluid and we often mistake the finger for the moon.

I have not had anything close to the direct seeing that I would anticipate.

I might be getting closer with the BB material. The quotes I provided above were illuminating. They keep hammering home the point of "I don't exist. Is that true?"  Then forcing (in a foul mothed way) the reader to investigate that.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/3/15 4:05 PM as a reply to b man.
I'm impressed with their methods and was helped both by the "Direct Pointing" method and the "Deep Looking" method that Illona and co. have developed.

From my perspective this is possibly the fastest way to "stream entry" or 1:st path (not really sure about path definitions). More importantly it does break down the false-self belief in a very radical, and hopefully permanent, way like no other method has for me. Of course a few days of DP won't give the same 'benefits' as 10 years of Vipassana, but why would it and why would that comparison even be valid. I've met people who have been meditating for decades and still have no fucking clue what they are doing and why they are doing it, this DP stuff gets to the nuts and bolts of the problem very fast.

My only criticism of the LU community (and it is a mild one) is that it doesn't really pick up that well were it leaves the seeker. Once the no-self is seen, it's almost the end game for that particular teaching. I would prefer to see it integrated into a more comprehensive framework of practise that can move people further along the path once the first (and possibly biggest) hurdle is over come.

If I were to do my "spiritual journey" all over again, knowing what I do today, I would consider *starting* with DP. Then again, I would also consider skipping a lot of the meditation I have done, especially the concentration meditations. That can be saved for last IMO, if you're not just chasing altered states.

The community around LU is nice and they main crew definetely have high levels of attainment, but there's also a bit of an "that's it, I'm done" attitude I am picking up on. Personally I'm using the superior AQAL map to track my evolution and I find that once you are past the no-self stage it becomes more a process of energy- and shadow-work.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/4/15 10:38 AM as a reply to b man.
I did the LU thing, not recently.  I went through a dialogue that left me with the same intellectual understanding I had when I started.  My answers must have sounded right because at one point my guide asked my how it felt to be awake (or something of that ilk).  Overall, an underwhelming experience.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/19/15 4:06 PM as a reply to b man.
I'm starting to think Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rob Burbea and others are correct. That "no self" is a mistranslation and misunderstanding. That what was meant was *not self* as a perception, and that there is a self of sorts, although it is in constant flux, and sometimes it's not as present as others. 

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/19/15 10:18 PM as a reply to Darrell.
I think the understanding is not that the self doesn't exist but that it is not what it seems to be. Rather than being a solid, unchanging thing inside the mind/body, it is instead constructed, impermanent, always changing, always wanting "more". This couples to the two other Cs, dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanence), in that because we take it to be permanent and unchanging we suffer when we experience that it isn't.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/20/15 12:26 AM as a reply to Darrell.
Darrell:
I'm starting to think Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rob Burbea and others are correct. That "no self" is a mistranslation and misunderstanding. That what was meant was *not self* as a perception, and that there is a self of sorts, although it is in constant flux, and sometimes it's not as present as others. 
Greetings Darrell, 

I would have to look into the writings of Thanissaro and Burbea again, but there are, at times when they do express the view that there is no self.  I think that trying to teach the phenomenon of no self is not only very hard , but possibly very dangerous.  Dangerous, because without enough other insight and moral training the phenomenon of no self will become a concept, and as a concept become a misconception.  In other words a delusion, and a delusion that there is no self can cause the sense that there is no purpose, no meaning, apathy, etc.  I think this arises because there is still the ego mental formation in existence, and if the ego mental formation is negated intellectually, yet still exists, this is a paradox for the mind, and it will spin in bewilderment.  Like an endless computer programming loop.  

So, what I think they do, is to teach the methods to understand anatta for oneself, little by little, piece by piece.

It is like that with children and Santa Claus, tell them there is no Santa, and it can tear up their world, but let them find out on their own , perhaps by dropping hints, and they will be cool with it all.

Here is the last bit of a Thannissaro essay that seems to support my understanding of their way of teaching,
These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

all traces of self-identification are gone , so what would be left when there is no self identification, what is Thanissaro pointing to??


But, to be true to the Buddha Teachings in the last section above, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it.  Where could the concern exist??  Again, what is Thanissaro pointing to??

Here below, the Buddha points out time and time again the difference between what is experiencing and just experiencing by itself.  In other words the experience is okay all by itself, there need to be no experiencer, just the experience.
Bahuya Sutta, translated , ironically by , Thanissaro Bhikku...
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

Anatta, is just .... freaky  emoticon With No Self, Stress and Dukkha have nowhere to land on, nothing in the mind to stick to.  There is nothing that has to take anything personally.

So, in the instructions from the Buddha above, Anatta can be experienced and pracitced here and now.  Everything does not always have to be a permanent shift, the mind will oscillate between Self and Anatta anyway, depending upon the level of Insight, and the dependent upon the amount of Old habitual tendencies that can be worked through.

I think even noticing the sensation on a fingertip, and how it does not have to have a self involved, even just that can bring an instant knowing, when realized for what is actually occuring, on its own, impersonally, irregardless of whether a self wants the sensation to occur , or not.

Just some thoughts that arose, but not mine, lol

Psi

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/21/15 11:35 PM as a reply to svmonk.
svmonk - yes, basically that is what I was trying to express as well. But I've heard it said by many that there is quite literally, no self of any kind at all, even the kind you describe.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/21/15 11:54 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi, I don't disagree with you, or the quotes you provided. Where the confusion comes in, for me at least is the no self vs not self. Which, as you probably already know, is the title of a talk and written article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. After hearing him talk about it, and reading his ideas as well, there's been a clear line drawn for me as to the difference between the two. But after reading what you've posted, it really seems I've misunderstood him somehow.

What is really cool is that the Buddha's quote from the suttas you posted. I hadn't seen that before, and basically it seems to tell us, indirectly, what liberation is. If liberation is the end of stress, then what he describes would seem to have to be liberation.

Even the sensation in a fingertip does not have to be self involved? I had an experience a few months ago that would sounds like what you are getting at. I became aware of a simple action I was doing with my fingers, rubbing one against the next, and realized I hadn't willed it, or made any conscious effort to take this action. This made created a sense of being outside of what my body was doing. And what's more, there's was no sense of any ability to stop it. It was happening on it's own, of it's own accord, and I was simply aware of it. I wish I knew how to capitalize on these sorts of insights when they happen.

So, I'm curious and would like to know, how do you practice anatta?

And thanks for the response, much good information and insight. Thanks.

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/23/15 12:47 AM as a reply to Darrell.
Darrell:

So, I'm curious and would like to know, how do you practice anatta?


Hmmm...   I am thinking on how to approach that question, give me a little time.  There are many many ways to observe No Self,Not Self, the Impersonal Aspects of Existence.  Ironically I can not think of one way to prove and show a Self that is permanent, underlying and directing activities in the background. Yet it is the sense of Self that pervades Humanity. Thoughts, it seems comes closest to being proof of a Self, Thought, Planning, Action, all that.  Yet that crumbles too, under close scrutiny and Investigation, coupled with the understanding and living with Bare Attention.    

But anyway , I was reading this article, and it seemed pertinent to the discussion. Excerpt below, full article link below that.

Article written by: Thusness/PasserBy

Wonder why but of late, the topic on anatta kept surfacing in forums. Perhaps 'yuan' (condition) has arisen. -emoticon I will just jot down some thoughts on my experiences of ‘no-self’. A casual sharing, nothing authoritative.

The 2 stanzas below are pivotal in leading me to the direct experience of no-self. Although they appear to convey the same stuff about anatta, meditating on these 2 stanzas can yield 2 very different experiential insights -- one on the emptiness aspect and the other, the non-dual luminosity aspect. The insights that arise from these experiences are very illuminating as they contradict so much our ordinary understanding of what awareness is.



There is thinking, no thinker
There is hearing, no hearer
There is seeing, no seer



In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.


Before proceeding any further, it is of absolute importance to know that there is no way the stanzas can be correctly understood by way of inference, logical deduction or induction. Not that there is something mystical or transcendental about the stanzas but simply the way of mental chattering is a 'wrong approach'. The right technique is through 'vipassana' or any more direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are. Just a casual note, such mode of knowing turns natural when non-dual insight matures, before that it can be quite 'efforting'.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

 So, anyway I need a second to let the thoughts come together.

Psi

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 12:04 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Darrell:
I'm starting to think Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rob Burbea and others are correct. That "no self" is a mistranslation and misunderstanding. That what was meant was *not self* as a perception, and that there is a self of sorts, although it is in constant flux, and sometimes it's not as present as others. 
Very interesing link there thank you so much!  I think you are correct htat from what I am reading there, it seems very strong evidence that Gautama taught 'not self' ideas when he thought it conducive to the path of cessation of dukkha and also taught 'self' ideas when he thought it conducive to the same.  And that he was fairly careful to not choose indicate either side as dominant, and that he felt thinking about self or not self too much beyond that was a 'thicket of views' and NOT conducive to cessation of dukkha and that clinging to either side was also NOT conducive to enlightenment.  And that he did not teach no self but only not self in fabrications and phenomenon specifically.  And that he felt the enlightened state was not describable and something like that once enlightement was reached, the issue of self/not self was something like a moot point.   Gautama seemed very intent on not taking sides on the 'no self' thing.   

Greetings Darrell, 

I would have to look into the writings of Thanissaro and Burbea again, but there are, at times when they do express the view that there is no self.  I think that trying to teach the phenomenon of no self is not only very hard , but possibly very dangerous.  Dangerous, because without enough other insight and moral training the phenomenon of no self will become a concept, and as a concept become a misconception.  In other words a delusion, and a delusion that there is no self can cause the sense that there is no purpose, no meaning, apathy, etc.  I think this arises because there is still the ego mental formation in existence, and if the ego mental formation is negated intellectually, yet still exists, this is a paradox for the mind, and it will spin in bewilderment.  Like an endless computer programming loop.  

So, what I think they do, is to teach the methods to understand anatta for oneself, little by little, piece by piece.

It is like that with children and Santa Claus, tell them there is no Santa, and it can tear up their world, but let them find out on their own , perhaps by dropping hints, and they will be cool with it all.

Here is the last bit of a Thannissaro essay that seems to support my understanding of their way of teaching,
These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

all traces of self-identification are gone , so what would be left when there is no self identification, what is Thanissaro pointing to??
Dude, from this end, it looks like you are working really hard to find a hint of  'not self' preference though.  ;-P  This stuff is kind of like the Bible I think and perhaps what Thanissaro was in part trying to show, in that whatever side you prefer of the two, you will find some words of Gautama's that support it.  However, what Gautama said is thinking on either side or clinging to either side is in his opinion the wrong way to try to progress to enlightenment.  Maybe it is like one of those questions that can't be answered correctly because it contains too many wrong assumptoins in it like 'Why did you burn down your house?' When probably you have never burnt down your or any house, and maybe never even owned one.  Hence maybe the question can't be answered correctly.  Anyway, it seems like Gautama felt that trying to figure it out or have strong opinions on it before enlightenment was just a thicket of views.  ;-P

Here speaking of a Tathagata judging truth and falsehood my impression is he is saying to cling to either view is to be tied down: Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others,One who is Suchamong those who are self-fetteredwould not further assume to be true or even false.Having seen well in advance that arrowwhere generations are fastened and hung ‘I know, I see, that’s just how it is!’ there’s nothing of the Tathagata fastened.— AN 4:24

‘Does Master Gotama have any position at all?’


A “position,” Vaccha, is something a Tathagata [a fully awakened
one] has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: “Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.” Because of that, I say, a Tathagatawith the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, and relinquishment of all construings, all 24excogitations, all I-making and my-making and obsession with conceitis, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.’ MN 72

On another note, because there is such a shortage of controversy around here, I was struck by how similar this argument sounded to past argument concerning Actualism, and in case anyone thinks I am trying to elevate Richard, the irony is I would guess he would totally hate this comparison, nevertheless I see very strong parallels, no matter whose toes may inadvertently get smooshed:
The fact that nothing is felt through the senses, however, does not mean that the experience of the goal is a total blank. It contains its own inherent sukha:pleasure, happiness, ease, and bliss.

‘Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, “Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How is this?” When they say that, they are to be told, “It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure" SN 36:19

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 3:38 PM as a reply to Eva Nie.
Eva M Nie
 Gautama seemed very intent on not taking sides on the "no self" thing.  

I think this is because no self is something to be realized for one's self.  Can I say One's Self???  haha :-P
But, let me put it like this in a metaphor, from my viewpoint.

Say I have a Time Travel Machine, and I wanted to show you something, you agree to go.  I wanted to show you a  Visual Holodeck, it looks breathtakingly real.  We have to sit in a chair and just watch, that is the rules.  We discuss , and contemplate on how real everything is, you say, Psi, "This is real, just look, there is skin on the animals, they look at us, chirp, fly. These are real animals."  But, having been there before, I know it is not, I have had the opportunity to get up from the chair and wave my hands throigh the lifelike holographic images, and I know that it is not real, in the conventional sense of real.  But, there are times, since everything appears real, and my mind is wired by evolution and whatnot to believe my sense contacts, so yes there are still times I fall for the realness of the Holodeck.

But, at the end of the viewing, you too are allowed free roam, to explore, you move about the Holodeck, waving your hands through the lifelike images.  Eva exclaims, " Holy Moly, it is a Hologram, wowwy zowwy!"

So, in this way, people can talk about No Self or Not Self, but nobody will ever convince anyone of it.  It is indeed wise to not take sides and only point to what is Not Self, that way one knows and takes nobody else's word on the subject.




Dude, from this end, it looks like you are working really hard to find a hint of  'not self' preference though.  ;-P  This stuff is kind of like the Bible I think and perhaps what Thanissaro was in part trying to show, in that whatever side you prefer of the two, you will find some words of Gautama's that support it.  However, what Gautama said is thinking on either side or clinging to either side is in his opinion the wrong way to try to progress to enlightenment.  Maybe it is like one of those questions that can't be answered correctly because it contains too many wrong assumptoins in it like 'Why did you burn down your house?' When probably you have never burnt down your or any house, and maybe never even owned one.  Hence maybe the question can't be answered correctly.  Anyway, it seems like Gautama felt that trying to figure it out or have strong opinions on it before enlightenment was just a thicket of views.  ;-P
Either way, No Self, Not Self, PCE, Actaul Freedom, Nirvana , Shunyata, Pure Mindfulness, Bare Attention.  Varying degrees and interpretations of the same cloth.

As to the thicket of views, what about when the mind is in the state of no thought and no view?  The state of mind that you have described personally before, when in that state, none of this really matters, right?  emoticon


Here speaking of a Tathagata judging truth and falsehood my impression is he is saying to cling to either view is to be tied down: Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others,One who is Suchamong those who are self-fetteredwould not further assume to be true or even false.Having seen well in advance that arrowwhere generations are fastened and hung ‘I know, I see, that’s just how it is!’ there’s nothing of the Tathagata fastened.— AN 4:24

‘Does Master Gotama have any position at all?’


A “position,” Vaccha, is something a Tathagata [a fully awakened
one] has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: “Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.” Because of that, I say, a Tathagatawith the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, and relinquishment of all construings, all 24excogitations, all I-making and my-making and obsession with conceitis, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.’ MN 72

On another note, because there is such a shortage of controversy around here, I was struck by how similar this argument sounded to past argument concerning Actualism, and in case anyone thinks I am trying to elevate Richard, the irony is I would guess he would totally hate this comparison, nevertheless I see very strong parallels, no matter whose toes may inadvertently get smooshed:
Right, and if Actualism went one step further and dropped Conceit, i.e. comparing and contrasting, they could move even closer to what is found fully in Buddhism, but somehow there is still that clinging adhered to.  Views are fetters.

The fact that nothing is felt through the senses, however, does not mean that the experience of the goal is a total blank. It contains its own inherent sukha:pleasure, happiness, ease, and bliss.

‘Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, “Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How is this?” When they say that, they are to be told, “It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure" SN 36:19
Hmmm, Scopenhauer describes the absence of pain as pleasure ....  Similar lines of thought

I had a couple other thoughts, which I will add as a reply to this post.

Psi

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 7:09 PM as a reply to Psi.
[quote=Psi

]I had a couple other thoughts, which I will add as a reply to this post.

PsiSo, yes we say and write I, me , you etc, this is a way to communicate, it is inherent in language, but it does not prove there is a self, or me, or I.  Same as languages has the word leprechaun and unicorn, we can use these words , but it does not prove it is there.


Buddha talked about a chariot, I am going to talk about a car, this is my line of contempation.

There is a car, a car has parts, engine, brakes, fenders , hood, headlights, horn,paint,  upholstery, fluids, etc, It can travel, idle, produce heat, make sounds, rust, decay, etc.

Threre is a body, liver , eyes, bones, lungs, hair, skin, fluids, etc.  It can travel, idle, produce heat, make sounds, age, decay, etc.

We call one an Automobile and one a Self, both run based upon causes and conditions, either one runs out of fuel it comes to a stop.  

But, the trap is to think there is an actual Car inside the automoblie running the show, there is not, there is No Car.  There is a collection of parts that have causes and conditions.

But, also, the trap is to think there is an actual Self inside the body running the show, there is not, there is No Self.  There is a collection of parts that have causes and conditions.

What makes it so believable, the aspect of a Self, I think, is that the Human Mind is very complex, and puts on quite a show, most causes and conditions are hidden from awareness, making them seem like they arise from a Self somewhere behind the curtain...

Well, that is one line of contemplation, anyway.

Psi

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 7:34 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
And a couple more thoughts, or rather a disclaimer...

Since there are many things I do not know, and I admit that things I think I know, I try to put to constant reobservation and investigation.  I could not at this time rule out that there may be a further continuation of the Human Formation, based upon some known or unknown causes and conditions after the physical body dissolves back into the Universe, of which it is, I think, never really separate from anyway.  So, in other words, I think, it is possible that there are many strange and unknown phenomenon that we, as humans do not yet either understand or can not yet come into direct contact with, i.e. the unexplained.  After all, the Universe is vast, and has existed for billions of years, even if this is the one and only cycle.  Not even mentioning other dimensions and such.

So, what I am saying is that formations may arise and pass away, whether they have a life span of 1 day, 10 years, 70 years, 120 years, or millions of years.  But, what it seems to me is that the Formations, are just that, formations of the same Cosmic Stuff, never separated, though they may certainly think so.  This could explain Devas, Angels, and how Human created Energies carry on as some type of Formation, or continuing pattern, after a physical death.  Just speculating.

Like a gallon of water in the ocean, there is a gallon there, and it can always be examined as a gallon of water, but never separate from the ocean for long.  At least in the big scheme of things.  So too, is , what , I think, we label as the Self.

Psi

Yeah , probably should have started another thread??....  I am the Postless Postcrasher...  

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 8:55 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Psi:
And a couple more thoughts, or rather a disclaimer...

Since there are many things I do not know, and I admit that things I think I know, I try to put to constant reobservation and investigation.  I could not at this time rule out that there may be a further continuation of the Human Formation, based upon some known or unknown causes and conditions after the physical body dissolves back into the Universe, of which it is, I think, never really separate from anyway.  So, in other words, I think, it is possible that there are many strange and unknown phenomenon that we, as humans do not yet either understand or can not yet come into direct contact with, i.e. the unexplained.  After all, the Universe is vast, and has existed for billions of years, even if this is the one and only cycle.  Not even mentioning other dimensions and such.
I can see fairly easily see why you say there might not be a self.  Of course there are tons of ways to put forth the idea comparing to various more human concepts.  It helps explain the concept but is not actually evidence itself.  What I don't understand is why you can believe very strongly there is not a self of some kind, not necesarily something unchanging but at least something that carries along long term from one situation to another, some kind of potentially evolving consciousness.  I find it easy to believe such could be possible.  We don't understand consciousness or existence so I don't see how we can have sure opinions on the existence of consciousness of self.  So what I don't see  is how people could feel strongly either way, with basically no evidence either way.  That is what always confused me, a lot of people here said no self as if it was a fact that has to be believed for enlightenment, and then comes Thanissaro saying Gautama said not to cling to either idea, self nor no self.  I find that a lot easier to do than to cling to an idea which I see no evidence for.   I also cannot say for sure there is a 'self' not even being sure what a self is in the first place.  

I think I relate to Thanissaro Bhikku in that I share with him (at least according to my interpretations of his words) an idea that the trainings of Gautama are a large part simply ways that he found to bring the mind to a cessation or minimalist state of suffering. Thanissaro makes Gautama sound like the original practical Dharma teacher, ie this is what works so think like this and put your mind in these directions.  Why?  Becuase this is what works.  To argue about what is right (self or no self ) is not the point and is in fact counterproductive, the point is to practice a certain way of thinking that works best toward the end goal.  And clinging to ideas of self or no self is clinging to a fabrication and hence counterproductive, yet people read that and then turn around and immediately cling anyway like in the next breath or sentence!  I kind of amazes me they can do that!  Do you really think that even thought Gautama made a huge effort to say not to cling to that idea and that Tathagatas don't cling to it, do you really think that deep inside Gautama DID cling to it and hopes you will come to cling to it too?  Seems unlikely!!!  This kind of mental gymnastics is weird.  It would make more sense to me if people just said they disagreed with Gautama, that would be a more logical sounding response to me, but I guess since Gautama is so venerated by many, people would rarely have that audacity so instead the mental gymnastics turn to an idea that deep inside Gautama felt the complete opposite of what he said out loud...  ;-P  ;-P

What I find hugely ironic is that Buddhism is full of people regularly doing things Gautama  seems to have clearly said not to do, even as they venerate him.  People are on here all the time confidently stating that self does not exist, yet apparently Buddha really clearly said that is not the way to think.  I have also heard it said Gautama also said not to worship him and to by no means use his image to worship, yet tons of sangas have his image and bow to it.  And yes they make various excuses for it, but Gautama very specifically said, it is my understanding, not to do that. 

So what I see from my perspective at least is that Gautama said various things, and even though he was very specific about some of them, people do not follow some of them and make various excuses for not following them.  And I suspect people have a strong desire to do thes ethings that Gautama said not to do, that is way they make kind of a collective agreement to all agree to the excuses or at least not kick up much fuss and still in their miind tell themselves they are following Gautama's words, even when they aren't.  In this way they can have one foot in each world, telling themselves they are following Gautama but in areas they don't want to, still not following him.  And as long as they don't admit to themselves they are not following him, they won't feel presssure to make any uncomfortable changes.  The mind is so sneaky it even lies to itself! 
-Eva

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 9:31 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Eva M Nie
 Gautama seemed very intent on not taking sides on the "no self" thing.  

I think this is because no self is something to be realized for one's self.  Can I say One's Self???  haha :-P
But, let me put it like this in a metaphor, from my viewpoint.

Say I have a Time Travel Machine, and I wanted to show you something, you agree to go.  I wanted to show you a  Visual Holodeck, it looks breathtakingly real.  We have to sit in a chair and just watch, that is the rules.  We discuss , and contemplate on how real everything is, you say, Psi, "This is real, just look, there is skin on the animals, they look at us, chirp, fly. These are real animals."  But, having been there before, I know it is not, I have had the opportunity to get up from the chair and wave my hands throigh the lifelike holographic images, and I know that it is not real, in the conventional sense of real.  But, there are times, since everything appears real, and my mind is wired by evolution and whatnot to believe my sense contacts, so yes there are still times I fall for the realness of the Holodeck.

But, at the end of the viewing, you too are allowed free roam, to explore, you move about the Holodeck, waving your hands through the lifelike images.  Eva exclaims, " Holy Moly, it is a Hologram, wowwy zowwy!"

So, in this way, people can talk about No Self or Not Self, but nobody will ever convince anyone of it.  It is indeed wise to not take sides and only point to what is Not Self, that way one knows and takes nobody else's word on the subject.




Dude, from this end, it looks like you are working really hard to find a hint of  'not self' preference though.  ;-P  This stuff is kind of like the Bible I think and perhaps what Thanissaro was in part trying to show, in that whatever side you prefer of the two, you will find some words of Gautama's that support it.  However, what Gautama said is thinking on either side or clinging to either side is in his opinion the wrong way to try to progress to enlightenment.  Maybe it is like one of those questions that can't be answered correctly because it contains too many wrong assumptoins in it like 'Why did you burn down your house?' When probably you have never burnt down your or any house, and maybe never even owned one.  Hence maybe the question can't be answered correctly.  Anyway, it seems like Gautama felt that trying to figure it out or have strong opinions on it before enlightenment was just a thicket of views.  ;-P
Either way, No Self, Not Self, PCE, Actaul Freedom, Nirvana , Shunyata, Pure Mindfulness, Bare Attention.  Varying degrees and interpretations of the same cloth.

As to the thicket of views, what about when the mind is in the state of no thought and no view?  The state of mind that you have described personally before, when in that state, none of this really matters, right?  emoticon
Yes, agreed, the argument does not seem important, but in that state, I still find it easy to laugh at ironic things.  ;-p  As for the hologram thing, I  have had experiences like that but the idea that the world/experience is like a hologram did not to me seem to be evidence of no self.  So I find it easy to think the nature of experience is different than we tend to think of it and certainly that the nature of 'self' is quite possibly  (I would say very likely) differnet than we tend to think of it.  But I still don't find that to be evidence of NO self at all anywhere ever.  And again, not even being sure what self or sense of self is, it's hard to negate something that is not even known.  It's IMO without evidence very very hard to be able to tack it down either way.  And here is Gautama apparently saying it's better not to try to tack it down in his opinion. 

Here speaking of a Tathagata judging truth and falsehood my impression is he is saying to cling to either view is to be tied down: Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others,One who is Suchamong those who are self-fetteredwould not further assume to be true or even false.Having seen well in advance that arrowwhere generations are fastened and hung ‘I know, I see, that’s just how it is!’ there’s nothing of the Tathagata fastened.— AN 4:24

‘Does Master Gotama have any position at all?’


A “position,” Vaccha, is something a Tathagata [a fully awakened
one] has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: “Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.” Because of that, I say, a Tathagatawith the ending, fading, cessation, renunciation, and relinquishment of all construings, all 24excogitations, all I-making and my-making and obsession with conceitis, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.’ MN 72

On another note, because there is such a shortage of controversy around here, I was struck by how similar this argument sounded to past argument concerning Actualism, and in case anyone thinks I am trying to elevate Richard, the irony is I would guess he would totally hate this comparison, nevertheless I see very strong parallels, no matter whose toes may inadvertently get smooshed:
Right, and if Actualism went one step further and dropped Conceit, i.e. comparing and contrasting, they could move even closer to what is found fully in Buddhism, but somehow there is still that clinging adhered to.  Views are fetters.
Yeah, not saying I think Actualism is the one and only in all things, just that the irony almost punched me in the face there.  We had many on here (me included) saying that Actualists made no sense saying they want no feelings in order to feel pleasure, then I find this quote by Gautama saying he says the same thing as the Actualists (I mean it's really close to the exact same thing in that area at least) AND that he gets the exact same confusions and accusations as the Actualists too and is advising how to deal with the problem.  That irony is huge and seems unlikley to be coincidence.  Then you get the additional irony that Richard seems to hate insinuations that his stuff is at all Buddhist and here you have Gautama himself saying the exact same thing as a main tenant of Actualism. 

Of course many will probably have opinions as to why the similarity.   Could be that Richard has an experience similar to Gautama or could be that Richard has read from Gautama in the past (In another thread, strong evidence was given that Richard once lifted talking points from 2 other Buddhist authors so it is reasonable to assume he has done a fair amount of Buddhist reading)
The fact that nothing is felt through the senses, however, does not mean that the experience of the goal is a total blank. It contains its own inherent sukha:pleasure, happiness, ease, and bliss.

‘Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, “Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How is this?” When they say that, they are to be told, “It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure" SN 36:19
Hmmm, Scopenhauer describes the absence of pain as pleasure ....  Similar lines of thought

I had a couple other thoughts, which I will add as a reply to this post.

Psi

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/24/15 9:47 PM as a reply to Darrell.
Hi Darrell
svmonk - yes, basically that is what I was trying to express as well. But I've heard it said by many that there is quite literally, no self of any kind at all, even the kind you describe.

Well, the traditional approach is to frame the discussion in terms of a "person"  or "sentient being" (puggala). A person is considered to be composed of five skandhas ("heaps"): material form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousnesses. These are the target of vipassana noting. None of these things can rightly be designated as a permanent and lasting self, since they are all constantly changing, but, on the other hand, one also cannot deny that a person is standing in front of you saying something and doing something. So, in that sense, one can designate the five skandhas as the impermanent self. If someone were to deny that, I would suggest using the Zen approach: tweak their nose and see what happens. emoticon

RE: Gateless Gatecrashers
Answer
11/25/15 8:47 AM as a reply to svmonk.
svmonk:
Hi Darrell
svmonk - yes, basically that is what I was trying to express as well. But I've heard it said by many that there is quite literally, no self of any kind at all, even the kind you describe.

Well, the traditional approach is to frame the discussion in terms of a "person"  or "sentient being" (puggala). A person is considered to be composed of five skandhas ("heaps"): material form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousnesses. These are the target of vipassana noting. None of these things can rightly be designated as a permanent and lasting self, since they are all constantly changing, but, on the other hand, one also cannot deny that a person is standing in front of you saying something and doing something. So, in that sense, one can designate the five skandhas as the impermanent self. If someone were to deny that, I would suggest using the Zen approach: tweak their nose and see what happens. emoticon
So true SVmonk, 

How do we, which is the nose nab? Is it just a  Painful Sensation, or is it the Nose of a Self being grabbed?

http://products.culturenik.com/img/products/detail/136-543.jpg?

True Zen

Psi