Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The distinction between no-self and not-self is subtle and important. I also see the potential pitfalls in Atman as Self because it does lead some to think Atman is a thing. Some tenuous entity/connection between ego and Brahman that oscillates one way or the other depending on knowing/not knowing. I think it's sometimes conflated with jiva?
All these concepts are simply pointers to truth and not truth in and of themselves. Truth - i.e. Awakening - is far beyond them and that is apparent to anyone who has had even a tiny glimpse. Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I? (Nan Yar?)" can easily be misunderstood/misapplied too if one thinks one is seeking something when in truth it's about deconstructing something (self). His preferred method of teaching was silence. I tend to think of it more in terms of "What Am I?" and even that can be misinterpreted as "what" implies a thing.
A short story about Swami Vivekananda, Maya, Vedanta, Life, the Universe and Everything. Brahman is very simple. Maya is complicated. https://youtu.be/MxUXl2YXXL4?t=70
There's really nothing that can be said about Brahman, Nirvana, Liberation and much that can be argued ad nauseam about Maya, e.g. "The Seven Great Untenables (Sapia-vidha Anupapatti) ~ John Grimes. A better alternative to debate is practice.
Not-self and neti, neti seem identical to me and any differences are constructs of ego. Ahamkara. The I-Maker incorporating it into its narrative. It's "Story of Me". A self-referential survival mechanism. A false reinforcement of its existence (intrinsic vs. extrinsic). Maya.
Last edited by JustASimpleGuy; 05-23-2023 at 04:42 AM..
The distinction between no-self and not-self is subtle and important. I also see the potential pitfalls in Atman as Self because it does lead some to think Atman is a thing. Some tenuous entity/connection between ego and Brahman that oscillates one way or the other depending on knowing/not knowing. I think it's sometimes conflated with jiva?
All these concepts are simply pointers to truth and not truth in and of themselves. Truth - i.e. Awakening - is far beyond them and that is apparent to anyone who has had even a tiny glimpse. Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I? (Nan Yar?)" can easily be misunderstood/misapplied too if one thinks one is seeking something when in truth it's about deconstructing something (self). His preferred method of teaching was silence. I tend to think of it more in terms of "What Am I?" and even that can be misinterpreted as "what" implies a thing.
A short story about Swami Vivekananda, Maya, Vedanta, Life, the Universe and Everything. Brahman is very simple. Maya is complicated. https://youtu.be/MxUXl2YXXL4?t=70
There's really nothing that can be said about Brahman, Nirvana, Liberation and much that can be argued ad nauseam about Maya, e.g. "The Seven Great Untenables (Sapia-vidha Anupapatti) ~ John Grimes. A better alternative to debate is practice.
Not-self and neti, neti seem identical to me and any differences are constructs of ego. Ahamkara. The I-Maker incorporating it into its narrative. It's "Story of Me". A self-referential survival mechanism. A false reinforcement of its existence (intrinsic vs. extrinsic). Maya.
I like this from Tzaph’s post
Quote:
You find true happiness by letting go. When there’s no more clinging, you have no need for perceptions either of self or not-self.
The quote seems to say Buddha never said there is no self. Apparently one of those questions that met with silence
Atman literally means self, i don’t see a choice in that. Jiva is the incarnated being, that experiences the world, the pain and pleasure of living. Atma does not experience, it is witness-consciousness, sakshi, and is unlimited. The translation of Sanskrit terms to English and back and forth loses a lot of nuances. It was this frustration that led me to study Sanskrit. Vedanta has its own glossary of terms that have specific meaning, as in any other discipline. I like it when the commentary on Vedantic works uses the Sanskrit terms rather than translate it to English. I write these terms down so I can refer back to them.
Ramana’s Nan Yaar is a work in Tamil, a South Indian language with its own grammar. A more accurate translation would be Who is this Self? It is not the one that says Mine. It is the matter of peeling the onion.
Ramana’s Nan Yaar is a work in Tamil, a South Indian language with its own grammar. A more accurate translation would be Who is this Self? It is not the one that says Mine. It is the matter of peeling the onion.
Another way to look at it is the eye trying to see itself in order to establish its existence. It doesn't need to as the very nature of seeing establishes its existence. In fact it can't see itself just like one will never find "I" no matter how deep one looks, however one just might Realize they are what they seek.
Another way to look at it is the eye trying to see itself in order to establish its existence. It doesn't need to as the very nature of seeing establishes its existence. In fact it can't see itself just like one will never find "I" no matter how deep one looks, however one just might Realize they are what they seek.
The way Ramana says it, it is a play on I and mine, which rhyme in Tamil. When the thoughts are silenced, the ego of Mine is silenced, the atma shines bright spontaneously as the only I.
Something doesn't add up tho IMO. The ego is what wants to see and be seen. I thought ego was a nono.
Ego is a delusion, but a powerful one that can pervade over and hide the true self as the doer. It is a state of delusion. There is only atma and nothing else.
I dont know what that is that “wants to see and be seen. “
Ego is a delusion, but a powerful one that can pervade over and hide the true self as the doer. It is a state of delusion. There is only atma and nothing else.
I dont know what that is that “wants to see and be seen. “
Something doesn't add up tho IMO. The ego is what wants to see and be seen. I thought ego was a nono.
Ego has a sense there's more than body and more than mind and why not? The problem seems to be it thinks it is that more, and not just a reflection/illumination of that more. More than just a bundle of thoughts. It's looking for some individualized personhood - i.e. Self - beyond the perishable self and that it will never find. The intuition is correct, however the looking is in all the wrong places. Actually the looking itself is the problem - Doership. The sense of being a doer.
The Buddha will say not-self and if one reads Ramanan Maharshi one will find the final stage of "Who Am I" is to realize there is no "I" that can be found, no matter how long, far and wide one seeks. In essence it seems like the ego runs itself out of juice in the seeking and that reveals reality shining forth unfiltered.
There's something in meditation called the observer trap and it's just a more benign version of ego. It's still a doing. A person sitting in a chair or on a cushion meditating.
Here is a meditation technique that does just that. I call it the “Do Nothing” technique (which is the name given to it by meditation teacher Shinzen Young), but the same method (or something quite similar) is called shikantaza (“just sitting”) in Zen Buddhism, dzogchen in Tibetan Buddhism, and is practiced in Advaita Vedanta (nondual Hinduism) as well. The famous teacher Krishnamurti called it “choiceless awareness.”
The core idea of this practice is that while, yes, total awakening is already present in your mind at every moment, we often have trouble noticing it or contacting it (to say the least). One of the main blockages or obscurations that gets in the way is the sense of being a doer. Doership is the core of the sense of self, the heart of the ego. When you let go of the sense of effort, the sense of trying, the sense of choosing and doing, then there is a corresponding relaxing and diminishment of the ego.
That is, by sitting and intentionally doing nothing for long enough, we eventually starve the ego of its juice, and something very different begins to shine through.
For me it was a game-changer and I stumbled across it described by Jon Kabat-Zinn as Resting in Awareness here:
Ego has a sense there's more than body and more than mind and why not? The problem seems to be it thinks it is that more, and not just a reflection/illumination of that more. More than just a bundle of thoughts. It's looking for some individualized personhood - i.e. Self - beyond the perishable self and that it will never find. The intuition is correct, however the looking is in all the wrong places. Actually the looking itself is the problem - Doership. The sense of being a doer.
The Buddha will say not-self and if one reads Ramanan Maharshi one will find the final stage of "Who Am I" is to realize there is no "I" that can be found, no matter how long, far and wide one seeks. In essence it seems like the ego runs itself out of juice in the seeking and that reveals reality shining forth unfiltered.
There's something in meditation called the observer trap and it's just a more benign version of ego. It's still a doing. A person sitting in a chair or on a cushion meditating.
Here is a meditation technique that does just that. I call it the “Do Nothing” technique (which is the name given to it by meditation teacher Shinzen Young), but the same method (or something quite similar) is called shikantaza (“just sitting”) in Zen Buddhism, dzogchen in Tibetan Buddhism, and is practiced in Advaita Vedanta (nondual Hinduism) as well. The famous teacher Krishnamurti called it “choiceless awareness.”
The core idea of this practice is that while, yes, total awakening is already present in your mind at every moment, we often have trouble noticing it or contacting it (to say the least). One of the main blockages or obscurations that gets in the way is the sense of being a doer. Doership is the core of the sense of self, the heart of the ego. When you let go of the sense of effort, the sense of trying, the sense of choosing and doing, then there is a corresponding relaxing and diminishment of the ego.
That is, by sitting and intentionally doing nothing for long enough, we eventually starve the ego of its juice, and something very different begins to shine through.
For me it was a game-changer and I stumbled across it described by Jon Kabat-Zinn as Resting in Awareness here:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brahman is very simple. Maya is complicated. 
