Recognize no-self in real life

[Hicquodiam]

It's possible to recognize no-self in real life, all it takes is one look.

See that there is already no you,

No thinker to thoughts, just thoughts

No seer of sight, just seeing,

No experiencer of experience, just experience,

No breather of breath, just breathing.

Recognize this once, and you are liberated.

[Ananda]

Hello Hicquodiam,

Take a closer look at your post;

You say:

No seer of sight, just seeing

But you also say:

See that there is already no you

If there is no seer, then why are you asking us to 'see'? Who are you asking, if not a seer?

Also, you say:

It's possible to recognize no-self in real life

and again:

there is already no you

But then you say:

you are liberated

How is a non-existent self to be liberated? Whom is this 'you' that shall be liberated when you also say this 'you' is non-existent? How is it that you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

You should know that the doctrine of no-self (anatman) has already been soundly refuted by the teachers of Advaita (non-duality).

[SOV]

Hi there,

Have you recognized that you are no-self?
I mean will it ever happen, and how does that state be?

Has anyone recognized no-self in real life?

[devotee]

That is the problem with Buddhism !

OM

[Kismet]

I have both intellectual and personal reasons for why Buddhism cannot be true.

The intellectual pretty much revolve around the fact of how denying the existence of the self is logically self-defeating and so on. We are the self, and we know this by being aware of ourselves, not in the mirror, but in terms of the primal "I" sense. While the mind can get so clouded to the point at which we lose ourselves in external things, and thereby feel as though we are "nothing", the sense of our real being always manages to resurface...

On personal grounds I view Buddhism to be hollow: a hopeless void without anything eternal or infinite in it. I want fullness, not emptiness. The latter may give you peace, but only the former can get you joy...

[TheOne]

These are a rather common misconception each of which I will deal with independently.

First, the Buddha refused to answer the question whether there is an eternal self or not because he deemed that it would be counter-productive to his message and spiritual pursuit in general.

But, when Buddhists say this is "Annata" not self. They refer to the objects of perception and to a large extent agree with Hindus but disagree on the final implication. A Buddhist and Hindu would agree that eyes, ears, nose, mouth, mind, and the material experiences contained therein are not-self. But the Buddhists take it a step forward and what we recognize as consciousness is not eternal and it always shifts from day to day, and when we die it dissolves and reforms according to our samskaras.

The idea that the Buddha shattered the idea of an immortal soul is simply not true. When asked, he remained silent.

Another problem with saying Buddhism destroys the idea of an immortal self is thus. Atman, as many of the Sanskrit scholars on here will know has multiple meanings in different contexts. It can refer to the self of the Upanishads or various less mystical ideas. The "problem" if you see it as thus is that we don't know which "atman" Buddha was referring to in several of his discourses.


"On personal grounds I view Buddhism to be hollow: a hopeless void without anything eternal or infinite in it. I want fullness, not emptiness. The latter may give you peace, but only the former can get you joy..."

Buddhism from all my experience is about embracing the fullness of life and if you believe the concept of sunyata translates to a sort of nihilism than you are the product of yet another Western propaganda. Sunyata is that nothing has an independent existence of its own and is always interrelated in an amazingly complex way.

I don't deem it necessary to go into detail into Sunyata because online resources exist such as this one.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f6.htm




Remember, ignorance of the subject matter is just as blinding in Buddhism as it is in Hinduism or any other realm of thought for that matter.

Here is a video by one of my favourite authors regarding Buddhism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iih7QsbuVLM

[Eastern Mind]

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about Buddhism. Let's say there is a self. Is it fixed? Our experiences will confirm that this so-called self keeps changing - a certain situation creates an angry self, a favorable situation creates a happy self. And so on.

So if the self is changing all the time, what self are we referring to - the self that was angry a minute ago, or the self which is happy now, or a self that is yet to be? As you can see, the concept of self is rendered meaningless by our daily experience.

No-self has to be understand in this context. It is not as simple as 'you don't exist.'

Vannakkam: In Hinduism there is self and Self, usually distinguished by the capital. The first is ego. The second is essence. And you`re right, the term does cause confusion, especially when we intermingle them.

Aum Namasivaya

[Kismet]

"On personal grounds I view Buddhism to be hollow: a hopeless void without anything eternal or infinite in it. I want fullness, not emptiness. The latter may give you peace, but only the former can get you joy..."

Buddhism from all my experience is about embracing the fullness of life and if you believe the concept of sunyata translates to a sort of nihilism than you are the product of yet another Western propaganda. Sunyata is that nothing has an independent existence of its own and is always interrelated in an amazingly complex way.

Certainly I think Buddhism is far more sophisticated and nuanced than any run-of-the-mill nihilism. I am not trying to reduce it to that.

Nonetheless, in my own experiences of certain states which I would regard as Buddhistic in their raw "phenomenology" I have not found something that could satisfy me. While I by no means claim to be a great mystic (though perhaps I am, who knows?), I can attest to having experienced states where I felt profound peace, having accepted and acceded to the "isness" and "suchness" of the world, having bathed myself in the immanence of it all and finding nothing to do but rest in the ever-present Now... There is something missing is all I could say, as ecstatic and wonderfully alienating and Kerouacian as those experiences have been...

[Kismet]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hindura...with-acharyaji

An interesting radio program looking at Buddha and Buddhism from a Vedic perspective.