« Sober or drunk? Sacred or profane? | Main | Zen says the door is wide open (while we cling to bars) »

January 25, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"the new mental field could open out into a seemingly new dimension of OTHER-consciousness."
end quote

The selfless state opens no new states
of consciousness. The' self' just stops
performing selfish actions, because it sees
it does not exist. Why wax a self that
doesn't exist ?

Any attempt to get rid of a self that
already doesn't exist, is quite funny.

Being in the now will not produce
enlightenment. It will only
emulate it.

Is the witness ever obscured ?

A: The person is of little use. It is deeply involved in its own affairs and is completely ignorant of its true being. Unless the witnessing consciousness begins to play on the person, and the person becomes the object of observation rather than the subject, realization is not feasible. It is the witness that makes realization possible

Nisargadatta Maharaj

The witness, the observed ?

'WHO' makes the distinction ?

I have never met an enlightened Buddhist.

Why ?

Because living in the now, is no different
from a Radhasoami trying to still thought
by concentration.

Both techniques only stop
the 'self' from action momentarily.

Both are trying to copy what they think
enlightenment must be like.

They try to still the 'self'.

But, by trying to still the self,
they both give it life.

A life it does not have,
except as a belief.

A ghost is not chased out of a
house with a cannon.

A ghost is chased out of a house
with a broomstick.

The enlightened do not live in
the now.

All their thoughts come from the past
just like the unenlightened.

What's the difference ?

No matter how fast the mind works,
it cannot produce action from a self.

The self is gone ... not whitewashed.

"The' self' just stops performing selfish actions, because it sees it does not exist."

If it doesn't exist, how can it see?

"If the self doesn't exist, how can it see
it doesn't exist ?" quote

The 'self' is not to be confused with consciousness. Consciousness exists in micro
seconds, flashes. It is not continuous.
But, it does exist, or we couldn't be aware.

Within temporal consciousness is the belief in
a 'self'.

It is the belief, which is seen by temporal consciousness, that is the problem.

The self we try to git rid of and eliminate
doesn't exist.

By trying to get rid of the self, we wax the
idea we have one.

Therefore, any religious effort to still the self is going in the wrong direction.

The self is realized away. It simply
happens. The realization happens despite
ones best efforts, not as a result of ones best efforts.

In contrast with other spiritual and mystical paths that enjoin the necessity of "self-realization," Austin says that Zen is out to leave the illusion of the Self behind.

Austin's characterization of Zen as contrasted with "other spiritual and mystical paths" is inaccurate then . From Wikipedia on self-realization:

For instance, for the Hindu or Bharat
religion self-realization refers to a
profound spiritual awakening where there
is an awakening from an illusory self
identify image (Ego), to the true, divine,
perfect condition that the individual is.
The branch of Advaita Vedanta is the one
that has especially developed this

And I've never understood mystical self realization to posit a separative self that somehow remains after enlightenment. But rather just shedding of an illusory 'self' that appears to be separate and persist through time. The "individual" that attains the "true, divine, perfect condition" is gone.

Dungeness, here's a few counter examples to your comment regarding Eastern philosophies that venerate the "self."

-- Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship

-- Surat Shabd Yoga, where the goal also is self-realization

I don't know if there is a deeper hidden truth, but it seems the language used is perhaps the biggest impediment. Words like 'self', 'awareness' and 'illusion' - seem to have different meaning depending on the person who is using them.

To me all of the various mystical traditions are suggesting that our sense of an individual self is perhaps not so much completely wrong, as obscuring a more fundamental aspect to our nature, which is common to the universe, a sort of pure primordial unconditioned universal Self or cosmic consciousness.

But even that description is not clear, let alone provable. But I really get lost when these things are taken for granted and ppl say something completely vague and bland like 'the self doesn't exist', but what does that even mean? There is no breakthrough in thought here at all, its just totally unclear.

What is a 'self'? How can we know if a self exists or not?

I think therefore I am.

If there is no self, why is it that I do not think your thoughts, nor you mine?

We can only think our own thoughts, hence our sense of 'own' or 'I' or 'self'.

So what is producing these individual thoughts?

The physical and immediate answer is an individial human brain produces these thoughts. A unique brain forming part of a unique physical body belonging to an individual. Each brain being responsible for controlling and preserving that body, and hence developing a sense of I or self.

The alternative is that we dont have physical bodies, that all that exists is some sort of wierd universal consciousness, thats decieving itself by creating the illusions of sepate bodies and selves. I cant really undestand such a possibility at all. How can this be an enlightening or improved explanation of reality?

So then you've got the third explanation, which seems to try blend the physical and spiritual. It accepts that the physical world does exist, but that it is merely an imperfect or more gross manifestation of a finer purer spirit or mind. Then it starts to get very confusing, with some believing all our destinies and thoughts and bodies are predestined and controlled by this higher spirit, which we are somehow interconnect with and is our true original nature, but also that our physical bodies still seem to contain or be associated with a spark or drop of this higher spirit within us, which hearkens us forth to be reconnected and all that malarchy.

All very wierd, all seeking to understand and explain the meaning of it all, and perhaps the universe's ultimate trick is that there is no meaning, but that because of our particular line of evolutionary development, human beings are lifeforms that look for meaning and pattern in a potentially meaningless and patternless universe.

who knows? certainly not I, but none of these explanations seem to be completely clear, far from it.

Hi George,
I made a big point of the language
when first coming on this club. Your
right. It is a stumbling block.

First consciousness has been proven by science to be temporal. See Susan Blackmore.
The continuity of consciousness is indeed
a delusion. It only lasts for micro seconds,

Therefore the idea of a Universal Self
behind our little self is disproven.

Consciousness was a result of evolution,
not the cause.

The 'self' we are concerned with, is an
idea, or belief in our head.

All thought is impersonal. But, our particular brain somehow personalizes
thought to become 'our' thought.

'Our' thought becomes 'our' self.

It is given temporal continuity by temporal consciousness.

Temporal thought and temporal consciousness
combine to create a creature looking to 'become' eternal.

Thought devises the 'Self' and soul and universal consciousness, to make itself think it will live forever.

None of these things exist, except as a faulty belief. The same faulty belief
that creates a personalized 'self' in the brain we use.

The best way to see this is to ask; Can impersonal thought personalize itself ?

re: Yogananda

I lost the thread of a poster debating
Hariharinanda lineage.

I want to say I knew his editor, whom
went to federal prison for 6 months for
a copyright violation of SRF material.
His Kriya yoga book on Surat Shabda Yoga
caused it.

I received a letter from this editor
personally, which described the mis doings
of Hariharinanda, before he went to prison.
I passed the letter to David Lane along with the violation book about 12 years ago.

And, am aware of the controversy.

Hariharinanda was one of the Gurus whom
had almost 100% experience at initiation.
Same yoga as Radhasoami, only with 7 initiations, of which Radhasoami only gives

Thakar Singh was the only Radhasoami guru
I saw do this. No others.

Once again, I am an atheist, but very much suspect Evil does exist.

This is why I am so much upset with Rajinder Singh, SOS and the Kirpal Singh lineage.

http://radhasoamis.freeyellow.com/index.htmlI have seen hundreds of possessed people
in this lineage.

I believe the Devils Thakar Singh said exist at Manav Kendra do exist.

That's why I beleieve this to be the most dangerous cult on the earth today.

Had I not seen this so many times, I never would have come on the internet.

Hi Mike
You seem to have gone from bad to worse?
What does 'temporal' mean? What is consciousness?
Does consciousness mean only conscious thought or also sensory perception of our evironment? Does consciousness stop when we still our mind thru meditation? What do you mean by temporal, if you mean consciousness is time-based, surely everything is. If you mean consciousness changes with time, again there seems nothing remarkable about this observation even if it is the truth.

Thought cannot just happen, something must be producing it. Do you believe a rock is capable of thought? We associate conscious thought as emerging from the brain of a specific individual organism. The conscious perspective of a bat is likely to be different from a human and each human and bat have their own personal thoughts. I cannot generate or think your thoughts, nor you mine.

These thoughts are produced by an individual brain that firms part of and controls an individual body, thus it is unsurprising a sense of self is developed, since each brain can only control it's own body and think it's own thought to protect and guide it fir survival in it's environment

Blackmore is so-so as a scientist IMO, and I believe has a strong background in the paranormal and zen practice too.

Conscioiusness is barely even understood, so I'd be hesitant to call it a science.

George, a belated reply to your comment above about the reality of the self.

I agree that we are individual beings. But this doesn't mean that we are an independent "self." Rather, science (including neuroscience) tells us that we are intimately related to the world through all sorts of connections: physical, cultural, sociological, and such.

This doesn't entail any spiritual hypotheses. It is simply factual. Understanding who we are and what we do involves looking way beyond the confines of our cranium and the rest of the body. We're affected by all kinds of influences in the world, and likewise we influence others.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.