Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Question on attachment

santhisouksanthisouk Veteran
edited July 2011 in Meditation
namaste,

I have noticed that my unattached sense of being has been coming to me either when I meditate, or throughout the day when I allow it to. I do sense a mind that foresees this "self", and sometimes my mind will try to contemplate a sense of self as a different being, or just see my "self" for just who and what I am. The thought of complete detachment from the self has crossed my mind. How would a person act with a mind that is not attached to the "self"? I guess one could completely detach from the self and be ok. Maybe this is just one of the steps?

regards

Comments

  • robotrobot Veteran
    One cannot really detach from the self. The self that you would be detaching from is the same one doing the detaching. Neither one is inherently real in the first place. Functioning with a diminished sense of self is possible I believe.
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    I suppose one would be free to act in accordance with the best needs of a given situation instead of necessarily what is best for the self?
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    It's conceivable that it could be done, but probably only by a very experienced adept. But the more I think about it the more I'm inclined to doubt it, actually. I mean, in specific psychological terms it would be impossible to operate without a sense of self. Even the Buddha operated from the point of view of a conventional self during the remainder of his lifetime after his enlightenment.

    Nah. I take it back and I'm too lazy to edit this post. There is no functioning in the real world without at least a rudimentary sense of self. I'm sure adepts have a lot less "baggage", but everybody's got to be somebody.
  • robotrobot Veteran
    For example you could give money to a panhandler with only an acknowledgment of a transfer of money. The money is not yours or his. No pride in the act or pity for the panhandler. Or judgement of worthiness or speculation on what he might do with it. A hand goes out another puts money in it. That might be selflessness in action.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    For example you could give money to a panhandler with only an acknowledgment of a transfer of money. The money is not yours or his. No pride in the act or pity for the panhandler. Or judgement of worthiness or speculation on what he might do with it. A hand goes out another puts money in it. That might be selflessness in action.
    You're right about "selflessness". It happens all the time. Therefore, we seem to have answered the OP's question. But I assume there is someone who refers to himself as "robot", who is probably not actually a robot but a person with a name, friends, family, and so forth.

    What I am referring to is fundamental integrity of self. IMO, if the OP was referring to mere "selflessness", he/she would not have asked the question. Selfless acts happen all the time, but people do them.

  • robotrobot Veteran

    You're right about "selflessness". It happens all the time. Therefore, we seem to have answered the OP's question. But I assume there is someone who refers to himself as "robot", who is probably not actually a robot but a person with a name, friends, family, and so forth.

    What I am referring to is fundamental integrity of self. IMO, if the OP was referring to mere "selflessness", he/she would not have asked the question. Selfless acts happen all the time, but people do them.

    Of course, people will know me as Pete and that is how I will introduce myself. To have an experience of selflessness while functioning in the world is a practical affair. That is what the op is referring to I think. As you said there is no functioning in the world without a sense of self. The self and the world interdependent. No?
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    I guess we'll have to wait for the OP to clarify then.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    How would a person act with a mind that is not attached to the "self"?
    As you continue to watch the mind push out thoughts, and let them settle, the inward turned thoughts stop arising. It isn't like "self" is over there and seperate, it just never comes up. The clung, unintentional thinking doesn't arise, and so there is nowhere for the object of self to remain spinning.

    There is still a body, senses, deciding, observing.
  • santhisouksanthisouk Veteran
    Thank you for your comments. Actually I ask all the questions you ask as well. As far as the doctrine of "not self" or anatta goes, what would be the best way to follow this doctrine? To have selflessness in a sense moral interaction amongst others? Or is it something much more than that? Is it a certain level of spiritual achievement that one must reach to be considered having understood this doctrine?
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    Thank you for your comments. Actually I ask all the questions you ask as well. As far as the doctrine of "not self" or anatta goes, what would be the best way to follow this doctrine? To have selflessness in a sense moral interaction amongst others? Or is it something much more than that? Is it a certain level of spiritual achievement that one must reach to be considered having understood this doctrine?
    It's both moral interaction and non-clinging to "wordly" things so as not to continue to experience dukkha.

  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    @santhisouk

    take it as a general observation of reality (there's no permanent and unchanging self) and as a method to be free from dukkha.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    As far as the doctrine of "not self" or anatta goes, what would be the best way to follow this doctrine?
    In terms of santhisouk's non-self, let go of the senses. Those are thoughts the body has, smells the body smells, reflected light the body sees. Otherwise, there's nothing but empty.

    When observing non-self of external phenomena, notice that every object and creature did not get there without millions and millions of previous moments that push and pull the shape and matter that composes it. Thich Nhat Hanh has a great talk on youtube on this view of emptiness if you're interested.
  • santhisouksanthisouk Veteran
    It's both moral interaction and non-clinging to "wordly" things so as not to continue to experience dukkha.
    I agree with you. It's also a good way to notice how much one understands and practices anatta through their actions. Sometimes we can see how thick this cloud of attachments can get as when we people are stampeding into a Walmart.
    Thich Nhat Hanh has a great talk on youtube on this view of emptiness if you're interested.
    Thanks. I'll check it out.


  • MissnMissn
    edited July 2011
    In my search, this is how I have come to look at attachment. Since in this world it is very common for people to get attached to a certain self, I try to remember that I am, the real me, is soul. It is not this body or the shape of this body that I have become attached to, my hair, any of those things that keep me from the soul which is the thing that connects me to something greater than myself. It is the attachment to these things that keeps me from knowing the true self and knowing what the "divine plan" for me is. How can we know our real selves if we stay attached to those things instead of the "real" people that we are underneath it all. These are the lessons that I am working with.
  • santhisouksanthisouk Veteran
    I will say that the Buddha's teaching on emptiness and non-attachment has definitely made my life more meaningful, and we are actually fortunate to have been left with this teaching. The more I question it, the more I believe it to be true, to the point where I want to commit my life to practice.

    I can imagine living my life in another way, one where attachments rule it, and it does not seem appealing to me at all. I can imagine myself living within the realm of my being and constantly trying to satisfy my wants and needs. Being taught that we should limit our wants and needs was the best teaching that I have ever been taught.

    Appiyehi sampayogo dukkho piyehi vippayogo dukkho yamp'icchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ,

    Association with things disliked is stressful, separation from things liked is stressful, not getting what one wants is stressful,

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammayut/chanting.html#morning


    Learning more about stress and its origin has made me more cautious of my thoughts and actions, and throughout these years of taking caution, I do not have any regrets, and I have a deeply felt inner joy that lasts.
  • kacikaci
    yay! the arising of mudita :)
  • TreeLuvr87TreeLuvr87 Veteran
    Something that really helps me is to remember that what I perceive as this "self" is actually just a whole lot of Buddha Nature being slightly held together by some skin, with breath constantly coming in and going out to keep this body connected to that which it came from (Buddha Nature).

    So, for me, detaching from the self is actually just detaching from the way I was previously perceiving my "self," as separate from all else.
Sign In or Register to comment.