No self?

Yesterday I was able to sit three times I think.
Sit number two I noticed my usual habit of having a running comentary in my head about all the details of what was going on while meditating with analyses of every minute detail.
This made me try with a renewed effort to just stay with BARE sensations so intently that the commentary wouldn't have room to enter the experience.
This was pretty successful and somewhere in there I had a strong appreciation for:
1. The complete irrelevance of the thing I've created and recreate second by second, this "Mike Monson" thing.
2. How utterly wrong it is for Mike Monson to think that his thoughts and concerns are anything other than haphazard fictions created by a fiction.
Anyway, I practiced for a while longer and then later I was in my car running various errands and I noticed "Mike Monson" creeping in followed by another strong awareness of .... you know ..... this caused a momentary experience of lightness and freedom and insight.
Now, of course, Mike Monson still managed to analyze all that to death but, I feel that the basic insight, which was probably the beginning of a basic appreciation for one of the three characteristics, was good and sound and will be further explored and strengthened with further practice.
This seems to be how developmental insight works in general.
- Mike Monson

This is good stuff, Mike.

It's really easy to get caught up in the mind-stream and misidentify it with a Self. The phrase, "you are not your thoughts," has become a sort of platitude in spiritual communities over time, but it takes on a whole knew meaning when experienced directly via the application of mindfulness in vipassana meditation. It sounds like you are doing just that.

Since this realization ("thoughts are not me") is hitting home for you right now, you may wish to turn your attention to the space from which thoughts arise and to which they return. Who knows that these thoughts are not "I"? This may be a great time to really get a good feel for Witnessing. You can also just keep the vipassana going, as it seems there is some momentum building in your practice.

Practice well,
Jackson

"This is good stuff, Mike.

It's really easy to get caught up in the mind-stream and misidentify it with a Self. The phrase, "you are not your thoughts," has become a sort of platitude in spiritual communities over time, but it takes on a whole knew meaning when experienced directly via the application of mindfulness in vipassana meditation. It sounds like you are doing just that.

Since this realization ("thoughts are not me") is hitting home for you right now, you may wish to turn your attention to the space from which thoughts arise and to which they return. Who knows that these thoughts are not "I"? This may be a great time to really get a good feel for Witnessing. You can also just keep the vipassana going, as it seems there is some momentum building in your practice.

Practice well,
Jackson"

Thanks Jackson.
When I first read your post I thought I understood what you were saying, but now I'm confused.
"It's easy to get caught up in the mind-stream and misidentify it with a Self"
but isn't that mind-stream what we think is a self? your choice of words "misidenify" makes me think you are implying that there is something else that can be correctly identified as a Self, which goes against my current understanding.
"thoughts are not me" -- sure, but nothing else is, right?

anyway, even though I think my insight was pretty clear and good, my ability to talk about it and discuss it is not so good which I don't think is as important
there is a moment to moment entity that exists right now with a body and a brain that is a mike monson that can act and interact and breathe and get food and work and procreate, however, there is a fundamental misunderstanding for most of these entitites about their true nature.

""thoughts are not me" -- sure, but nothing else is, right? "

Hi Mike,

You are right to apply "not-self" to all conditioned phenomena (e.g. anything that can arise and pass away). Both mind objects (nama) and material objects (rupa) fall into this "not-self" category.

As you continue to practice, you may come to ask, "What's left after emptiness?" I'm not saying that there is or isn't a Self. I'm suggesting that you should continue explore without clinging too tightly to any particular view. If I've piqued your curiosity, than I'm simply fulfilling my duty as one of your dharma companions

~Jackson

This continues, for me, to be the single most elusive thing. Intellectually I kind of understand this, but I have yet to feel in my gut what this is about with any conviction.

Thanks tomotvos.
I get "no permanent self" but when I then turn to my sensations they still feel like me!

"This continues, for me, to be the single most elusive thing. Intellectually I kind of understand this, but I have yet to feel in my gut what this is about with any conviction."

Hi Tom,

Not to say I have a complete understanding in my gut, but I can remember how this hit home to me with great significance.
Everything in consciousness is an interpretation, there are no colours, no brick walls, no keyboard ... except with consciousness. So the investigation of Reality or the real need only be from the POV of consciousness. There was a sudden knowing that every - thing is an appearance with nothing "out there". Now watching thoughts is like watching story.

"This continues, for me, to be the single most elusive thing. Intellectually I kind of understand this, but I have yet to feel in my gut what this is about with any conviction."

I was in the same boat until very recently. In the experiential sense, it is something you need to feel in order to understand, just like any other experience. But I think the conceptual sense could be articulated more clearly than it usually is. Not to say that I have the "correct" understanding, but these thoughts have been helpful for my practice and maybe for you too.

Although "no self" is an apt name for the corresponding experience, I think the corresponding intellectual realization would better be termed "contingent self" or "constructed self". The sense of self seems to be there all the time, automatically, as if it simply must be there, as if it's a given. But like any other experience, the sense of self is a mental construct. Some sort of "mental work" needs to be added on top of the basic perceptual sensations you have in order to construct this experiential self. Experiencing no-self is a visceral experiential demonstration of this. This is sort of like a fish realizing (1) that it's swimming in water, and (2) the water isn't "just there" as a given; it's not the "true" or essential or necessary nature of things; it could have been otherwise. Taking the fish out of the water is one way to viscerally impart this understanding.

Similarly, there is a neuropsychological condition called "prosopagnosia" in which an individual can visually identify all the components of a human face, but nonetheless can't perceive a face as a whole. This surprising fact demonstrates that face perception does not come "for free" from perception of the individual parts of the face; appearances to the contrary, it is a construct, a fabrication. Just like "self."

Regarding the phenomenology of self, here are some notes I took down a while ago.
__

My current understanding, in brief: there is a mental process of identification, by means of which mental contents can be either included in or excluded from the "self" construct. This property of inclusion or exclusion from self has phenomenological correlates, some of which could be expressed roughly as follows.

When a mental content or process is self-identified, it is as if we experience the world "with" or "through" or "by means of" that content. It has a kind of transparency to it, such that it is more like an "instrument" than an "object." It is like part of the causal chain that culminates in perception rather than an aspect of perception itself. But when a mental content or process is not self-identified, it loses these properties of instrumentality and transparency, and seems more like an external object, more like a percept.

Here's a crude analogy. The "mental content" is a pair of sunglasses. If you wear the sunglasses, they become a sort of instrument through which or by means of which you experience the world. They color everything you see, but simultaneously you lose your awareness of them as a separate thing; they are more like a medium or instrument than an object. Wearing the sunglasses, then, is like self-identifying with a mental content. But we can also take off the sunglasses and consider them from a distance, as an object. Now the glasses are no longer an instrument of perception but an object to be perceived. This is what it is like to dis-identify a mental content from the self.

(con't)

So when doing vipassana, I can use these phenomenological notions of self and no-self to notice when I am and am not identifying with a content. For instance, I may have a thought in the usual sense, and only subsequently notice the thought in a vipassana sort of way. I can recognize, among other things, that the initial thought had a kind of transparent quality that was barely noticed; it was as if in that moment, I was living "in" or "through" or "by means of" that thought. I can notice that that thought had the experiential aspect of "self." Other times, if I am meditating well, I may notice thoughts fully as they come and go. They seem like passing objects that I observe, rather than instruments by means of which I observe. When this happens I can then explicitly notice their experiential aspect of "no-self."
__

Observing no-self with vipassana is like (1) taking inventory of what experiences are and are not self-identified in the above sense, and (2) systematically passing every self-identified experience over to the side of "objectified" experiential content. Imagine yourself wearing sunglasses, a hat, coat, etc. Systematically, you take these off and hand them over to the other side, so you're not wearing them anymore, you're just perceiving them as objects. Eventually you do this for every self-identified sensation and you see there's nothing left on this side! "You" were some fabricated construct made up of those glasses, hat, coat, etc. all along.

That's really very good, Brian. I'd like to add a few comments from my perspective:

1. I like to use the term "not self" as opposed to "no self" (see below)
2. There are unique aspects to your body and mind that lead you to believe you are a "self" with permanence:
a) the perspective of your senses, since no other being has the perspective of your eyes, ears, etc.
b) thoughts that are generated in your mind as a result of the activity of your senses
c) memories that are unique to your body and mind, stemming from a) and b), above

All of these things are *unique*, but they are not permanent, do not satisfy, and are NOT YOU -- which is why I prefer the term "not self" as opposed to "no self." Re-read Jackson's comments above. I think he is right to challenge you on this whole area of practice as it is not at all simple.

JMHO

Garyth:the point of view you just conveyed is not agreed upon by all vipassana practiioners, right?

-- I think I found the link to this somewhere on this forum; it states the case the most reasonable way, I think...

The Not-self Strategy by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1993'“2009

Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon '” the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings '” suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress.

"Garyth:the point of view you just conveyed is not agreed upon by all vipassana practiioners, right? "

Not sure of the detail with regards to vipassana, I do relate to the 3 characteristics but how much I am interpreting this to fit my insight I am not sure. I write using the words that come naturally to me and perhaps this is conflict with some vipassana definition.
So these words were the best way for me to describe what I know. When I knew the "outside" did not exist as I had previously imagined a lump of self idenfication went. This body / mind is an appearance destined only to appear, come and go. Now there is a reality of consciousness where my identification looks a little silly with attention to its detail. Subject and object arise as and appearance, how dumb it is that I should have any identification with the subject! This is the story that I refferred to.

Are these the same results as vipassana? I am not sure, there are a lot of similarities but I do not relate well to the maps.

Hi Mike,
Stay encouraged, keep practicing... you're doing great! People have given you excellent feedback here.
I thought it was an interesting choice of words when you said: "...still managed to analyze all that to death..." So, if you don't mind, I'm going to stretch this a bit, taking it out of context from your sentence, and put it into the context of this overall topic.

To contemplate on "death" as it relates to impermanence can be a positive tool for the realization of "not self." For me, such contemplation opens/opened doors in this way:
Impermanence --> Emptiness --> Awareness.
When one contemplates on death of this "physical" body, what more can there be? We can realize that the sensations and perceptions are not "it".
What is "it" that continues to exist... is beginningless and without end?
It is what we're all searching for, but is already here. The cool thing is that we can experience this realization right here and now in this "living", breathing body.
- Tina

[edited typo]

Another point of significance, and perhaps what may contribute to your confusion as you try to sift through related info pertaining to this "no self" topic... "Broadly speaking, there are two competing and mutually exclusive views about what constitutes the "final understanding." One view is that everything that can be experienced is "dependently arisen" according to conditions. That means that there is no inherently existing Primordial Awareness. Let's call that the conservative Theravada view. The other view is that there is an inherently existing Primordial Awareness that is uncompounded and unconditioned. It is said to pervade and give rise to all things, and as such is considered "non-dual" or "not-two." Let's call this the Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhist view, although it is also shared by the more progressive elements within Theravada Buddhism such as the Thai Forest Tradition." - Kenneth kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+Controversy

Also of relevance, as Kenneth so eloquently describes it: "Your true nature is not "you." Neither is it other than you. It is not the "Witness." It's not your True Self, or a Big Self that subsumes your small self. Your true nature is the true nature of everything. Your sense of self arises and simultaneously vanishes within this simplest of realities, as does the entire manifest world. The simplest "thing," that which cannot be further reduced is pure, empty awareness without time or location. It has no shape or size. It does not change or diminish. Its only characteristic is awareness. It is empty of self, inherently existing and intrinsically aware. Let's call it Primordial Awareness."

There is nothing outside of this. Primordial Awareness pervades and gives rise to and is not other than the entire manifest Universe. You don't have to do anything to be it; nothing you could do would make you other than it. You can't mess it up or tarnish or stain it. You've never been apart from it. In order to recognize it, you have only to stop adding "yourself" to it. To even refer to this most fundamental of realities as "it" or to call it anything at all, including "Primordial Awareness" is to risk reducing it to a concept and thereby missing it. Nonetheless, having once discovered it and learned to trust it, we feel compelled to share, so we do our best to point using the words we have." - Kenneth kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/3rd+Gear

[edit: added link]

"Thanks tomotvos.
I get "no permanent self" but when I then turn to my sensations they still feel like me!"

Hi Mike,

Do you think your sensations feel more like you than thoughts? I am considering here the possibility that there maybe an interesting difference between individuals on this.

Gary

"Hi Tom,

Not to say I have a complete understanding in my gut, but I can remember how this hit home to me with great significance.
Everything in consciousness is an interpretation, there are no colours, no brick walls, no keyboard ... except with consciousness. So the investigation of Reality or the real need only be from the POV of consciousness. There was a sudden knowing that every - thing is an appearance with nothing "out there". Now watching thoughts is like watching story.
"

This is the doctrine of indirect perception, i.e. the idea that we never actually experience the "external world", rather what we perceive is internal experience that is structured in such a way as to represent the external world.

Not sure how it maps onto vipassana and Buddhist philosophy, but like much of Buddhist philosophy it is a deep and insightful perspective on the phenomenology of self, world, and consciousness so is worthy of investigation (experientially as well as conceptually).

You might be interested in the following
cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/epist/epist.html
cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/cartoonepist/cartoonepist.html

"Hi Mike,

Do you think your sensations feel more like you than thoughts? I am considering here the possibility that there maybe an interesting difference between individuals on this.

Gary
"

Maybe a little bit.

The me that thinks it is a me under most circumstances "feels" sensations and thoughts as coming from him.

However, thoughts are a little more ephemeral and insubstantial feeling while itches, tickles, chills, pain, etc. seem more "solid" (even when reduced to vibrations!) than thoughts.

I'm really interested in the insight that sensations "are happening over there and are not me!" because it sure hasn't come to me yet, but I've only been doing vipassana with a real clear awareness of vibrations for a couple of months now (since the A&P crossing) and I know it will happen when/if it is supposed to as long as I keep practicing.

With thoughts my insight so far is that they aren't real not that they aren't "me."

"With thoughts my insight so far is that they aren't real not that they aren't "me."
"

Hi Mke,

You left me hanging here!
You have differentiated between real and "me". What is the atrribute that you are considering that makes something real?

"
"

Garyrh: okay, this is really challenging. I don't really understand all this very well so all I can do is relate what my experience and ideas are right now.
Thoughts are "real" in the sense that they are (I think) an organic (electrical?) function of my brain. Thoughts do exist, in my opinion right now because I think things exist apart from my mind (unlike you, right?). I define "brain" as the orgainic grey stuff and mind as it's mysterious product.
However, years ago, before doing some insight work, my faith in the accuracy of my thoughts was strong (in fact I don't think I'd ever doubted them) until I started to really look and I realized while they could be very powerful they were mostly a big fiction created by a big fiction ("mike monson").
So - words are really failing me here! - just like my sensations, when I look at my thoughts I still believe they are coming from that "me" feeling, I haven't yet seen them as "over there."
In fact, what feels more true is that there is awareness of me feeling me as me that feels that my feelings and thoughts arise from me and that this feeling of me arises from a moment to moment combination of that awareness, those sensations and my thoughts. It is random, fluid, haphazard and jumpled up and the result of millions of bits of mental and physical input, but with illusionary continuity it incorrectly appears to be solid.
I don't think I answered your question ......

Oh, so at this time I'm definitely a conservative theravada type as defined by Kenneth. Unless I was as unclear as I suspect -- my explanation above leaves no room for "primordial awareness." Right now it just seems like everything keeps coming from every thing else, including "awareness." But, I don't really know any of this for sure right now, this is just my hunch and what feels for correct to me at this time.

Hi Mike,
With my question there is no right or wrong I was looking for an expansion, and this you did and I can see your thinking on this.

If I say everything is an appearance, could you agree with this? At the experiencal level could you say there a "space" you have where ALL appears. Hearing, feeling, sight, thoughts etc are all appearing in the same "space". If ALL is in the same "space" can you agree there is therefore some commonality in ALL things because they can all be in the same "space"? Where are you? Will you say you are not this "space" and ALL other things are this "space" or this "space" is you, or you are not sure.


Sorry for so many questions, but after reading your response I can see where we diverge and I don't want to put content down without getting some commonality.

www.tricycle.com/feature/freud-and-dr-bu...elflessness?page=0,0