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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
NOTE: Objects and surroundings do not respond to the child's human communication ability. Therefore, an object doesn't count as being 'part of me'. That's why children reach tentatively for things or put them in their mouths. It's an exploratory instinct.
Kids will put everything into their mouths as a means of determining what the object could be....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
It's a FORM of awareness. But it's disassociated from self until a cognitive recognition of others develops at around the age of 2.
I don't know. They know how to call out for Mommy and Daddy. I would agree that it gets much more pronounced around 2. They distinguish between different kinds of people pretty quick actually. The sight of one person can elicit squeals of joy while another elicits fearful cries.
My daughter always cries when my mom-in-law comes around but absolutely loves my sister and brother. That's been since about 6 months of age.
Awareness is always there.
But an infant brain does not have the level of intelligence sufficient to be able to discriminate between 'me' and 'them'.
This would be hard to prove and doesn't appear to be the case in most kids I've known. I dare say it doesn't take a lot, relatively speaking.
It's always 'me' and extension-of-me', until such a time as their brain develops an understanding of being not only PHYSICALLY but also PSYCHOLOGICALLY separately-functioning.
Again I think that's hard to prove because at a little over a year my daughter was able to correctly point out "Mommy", "Daddy" and "Ayla" and we've been told she is behind a bit developmentally speaking.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@federica said:
NOTE: Objects and surroundings do not respond to the child's human communication ability. Therefore, an object doesn't count as being 'part of me'. That's why children reach tentatively for things or put them in their mouths. It's an exploratory instinct.
Kids will put everything into their mouths as a means of determining what the object could be....
I get that part.
In my experience though, babies can distinguish not only between their self and another but between others as well.
Not just my daughter but I have over 30 nieces and nephews if you count their kids.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Naming them doesn't define an awareness of separation.
I don't know how else I can explain it.....
Look at it in a 'reverse' situation....Simply because you call your arm 'arm' and your 'leg' leg, doesn't mean they are separate from you, but they can be....
Development is looked at as an aspect of the psychology that is learnt/taught, usually (Though yeah, I know, not always).
There is a difference between 'development' as taught and marked by adults, looking for levels of educational ability.
The psychological development in children is occasionally measured in different ways.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
I do understand what you're saying and all I'm saying is the kinds of experiments used to determine these things don't seem very reliable to me.
It kind of seems like you're saying they think other people are an extension of themselves because of dependency (in which case they would kind of be right from my view of inter-being and D.O.) but I don't know how we can actually determine that.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2016
By understanding the different behaviour between children Under the age of 1-and-a-half, to two, when they try to remove the dot from the person in the reflection's nose, and those OVER those ages, seeing the reflection and trying to remove the dot from their OWN nose.
It wasn't just an amateur experiment carried out with just two children.
It's a behavioural trait observed across an enormous range of children.
How many 'experiments' would it take to make it 'reliable'?
You have a single young child, whose experience is the only reliable evidence you've put forward so far. Evidence I have agreed with.
I must have interacted with at least 500 children, over the three years I was actively and repetitively involved with, plus, I also did quite a bit of personal research into child development traits; research funded by and backed up by the school I worked with.
I fail to understand why clinically-approved 'experiments' and statements, seem unreliable to you, and you refuse to accept any form of input that doesn't match your apparently narrow-field observation of your child.....?
Perhaps you'd like to consider changing your name to 'Thomas...?
I wonder if the dot experiment merely show that children are learning about how their mind works with their sense of sight, i.e. they are simply learning how mirrors work. I'm not sure it is an actual barometer of self-awareness.
Dogs can't seem to grasp the concept of mirrors, but there are a few animals that apparently can.
I'm just saying that one experiment involving a single sense faculty may not prove that a human or animal has or doesn't have any sense of self-awareness.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
it's part of a barometer; it wasn't the whole of it. I merely mentioned it as an interesting aspect of developmental behaviour....
Dogs eventually DO grasp the concept of mirrors, btw. It takes them some time though.
It may have been ONE experiment, but it wasn't the focus or single factor of research....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@federica said:
By understanding the different behaviour between children Under the age of 1-and-a-half, to two, when they try to remove the dot from the person in the reflection's nose, and those OVER those ages, seeing the reflection and trying to remove the dot from their OWN nose.
That still doesn't mean much except we have a better grasp. It doesn't add up to self awareness and the lack thereof in my opinion.
It wasn't just an amateur experiment carried out with just two children.
It's a behavioural trait observed across an enormous range of children.
How many 'experiments' would it take to make it 'reliable'?
At least one that doesn't rely on assumptions. What that would be, I cannot say.
You have a single young child, whose experience is the only reliable evidence you've put forward so far. Evidence I have agreed with.
I must have interacted with at least 500 children, over the three years I was actively and repetitively involved with, plus, I also did quite a bit of personal research into child development traits; research funded by and backed up by the school I worked with.
I fail to understand why clinically-approved 'experiments' and statements, seem unreliable to you, and you refuse to accept any form of input that doesn't match your apparently narrow-field observation of your child.....?
It isn't about that, I just don't see the experiment as being very sound or reliable.
Perhaps you'd like to consider changing your name to 'Thomas...?
Lol. Thomas was right to doubt. I doubt Jesus came back from the dead too. Sadly for Thomas, it only took a sly trick to convince him to believe the absurd.
A dog that finally gets that it's seeing a reflection and not another dog wouldn't seem more self aware to me than one that hasn't gotten it yet if they both know their names.
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are as empty as self. You really can't set one above the rest as less real. Since everything is equal, in that it's empty, what is the point in insisting that it is self that has no existence?
Form is empty! Nuff said.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Yes but you seem to miss that the illusion is a tool. Nothing wrong with using it as such once we see it for what it is.
Can anybody point to themselves?
Point to? No, but if I only had one hand I couldn't point to my finger either.
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can see a void where you thought you were, you were looking in the wrong place.
It's like trying to find a microscope under its own lens.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are as empty as self. You really can't set one above the rest as less real. Since everything is equal, in that it's empty, what is the point in insisting that it is self that has no existence?
Form is empty! Nuff said.
I thought I completely agreed with you here but as I reread it something went wait.
Form is empty of self but self is not form as I seem to understand it at the moment.
Damn, I think I had something for a second there but the words fail me as it slips away.
I've been up for too long. Almost time to give up night shift I think.
Right @David. I think we can all agree that self is dependent on form so is empty of real existence. And form is empty so what is left to talk about? Chris' insistence that that self doesn't exist seems to reify thoughts, feelings, the body and such. I'm sure he doesn't believe in form anymore than he does in a permanent self. It just comes across that way to me sometimes.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@robot said:
Right @David. I think we can all agree that self is dependent on form so is empty of real existence.
From what I understand, there is not a self that is dependent on form because form is empty of self.
What we call our individual self is dependent on form so even it is not self.
And form is empty so what is left to talk about?
Form is empty and is not self... That there is no self is wrong but that self is form is also wrong. Because things are empty, they are not self.
I don't remember Buddha saying self is empty exactly.
Chris' insistence that that self doesn't exist seems to reify thoughts, feelings, the body and such. I'm sure he doesn't believe in form anymore than he does in a permanent self. It just comes across that way to me sometimes.
I don't think he thinks anything is real but I don't know what his definition of real is.
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are as empty as self. You really can't set one above the rest as less real. Since everything is equal, in that it's empty, what is the point in insisting that it is self that has no existence?
Form is empty! Nuff said.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are tangible. You can experience your body through your senses.
The self is an illusion, you believe it actually exists. It's a belief, a deep deep hypothesis that can't stand up to direct inquiry.
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Yes but you seem to miss that the illusion is a tool. Nothing wrong with using it as such once we see it for what it is.
Who uses the illusion as a tool? Exactly who are you referring too? it's the same thing! I know it seems there is someone in there but there really isn't.
The story may be seen through but there's no one controlling the story.
Can anybody point to themselves?
Point to? No, but if I only had one hand I couldn't point to my finger either.
Well you can point to fingers, thoughts and feelings... Where is self that has all the problems?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can see a void where you thought you were, you were looking in the wrong place.
Where are "you" then?
It's like trying to find a microscope under its own lens.
So you are that which observes? But not observable? But somehow has control over the self?
But can't control thoughts, feelings, emotions, cell growth, hormone secretion, bone growth, nerves firing... Ad infinity of things this self can't control.
Why? Because it's not there!
And there never was one, that's the cosmic joke! The sufferer is a belief but an energetic belief.
The brain can shift and see this. But nobody does this. Because there is nobody
There are no "things" at all. When you look at a dog, there isn't this thing called a dog, out there.
There is just seeing. The dog/light/lens/retina/nervous stem is one.
There is absolutely no separation anywhere.
The line between "you" seeing the "dog" is imaginary.
You are as much the image of "dog" as you are "you"
That is true compassion, everything is really one but playing as many. It's really completely indescribable. There is no way thought/mind can understand this.
The minute you try and grasp this, "you" and this are imagined to be separate.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are as empty as self. You really can't set one above the rest as less real. Since everything is equal, in that it's empty, what is the point in insisting that it is self that has no existence?
Form is empty! Nuff said.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are tangible. You can experience your body through your senses.
The self is an illusion, you believe it actually exists. It's a belief, a deep deep hypothesis that can't stand up to direct inquiry.
@Earthninja said:
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Yes but you seem to miss that the illusion is a tool. Nothing wrong with using it as such once we see it for what it is.
Who uses the illusion as a tool? Exactly who are you referring too? it's the same thing! I know it seems there is someone in there but there really isn't.
That is rather meaningless. I use the illusion as a tool and so does everybody else that knows it is an illusion but continue to use it.
I know you think it sounds right but what you suggest is illogical.
The story may be seen through but there's no one controlling the story.
That again is meaningless. It sounds nice but it doesn't really mean anything or help in any way.
Can anybody point to themselves?
Point to? No, but if I only had one hand I couldn't point to my finger either.
Well you can point to fingers, thoughts and feelings... Where is self that has all the problems?
The self has no problems as far as I know.
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
No, body parts, feelings and thoughts are empty and not self.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can see a void where you thought you were, you were looking in the wrong place.
Where are "you" then?
I'm right here, silly.
It's like trying to find a microscope under its own lens.
So you are that which observes? But not observable? But somehow has control over the self?
But can't control thoughts, feelings, emotions, cell growth, hormone secretion, bone growth, nerves firing... Ad infinity of things this self can't control.
Why? Because it's not there!
You're still not making any sense. What is this "there" you speak of?
And there never was one, that's the cosmic joke! The sufferer is a belief but an energetic belief.
The brain can shift and see this. But nobody does this. Because there is nobody
So you think you are really a brain shift?
Who is this brain shift that sees this magic nobody?
In your night time dream there is a character called David. David thinks he knows that David is illusory and so "thinks" he controls David and uses David as a tool.
Now David is suffering because he feels there is something wrong with the situation, he feels separate from the dream and follows Buddhism in the hope that one day he will wake up and see he was dreaming.
The problem is that David is just a story in the dream, David will never wake up and realise he was dreaming. Because he is being dreamt! David has also never had any control over anything, he only believes he does through thoughts.
Thoughts wrote the story.
The dream wrote itself.
Now what can happen is the dream wakes up to ITSELF and sees David is complete fiction. He never really suffered because he doesn't exist, it's all one dream.
Nothing David has done has got him closer to realising he was dreaming, because the whole thing IS the dream.
Enlightenment is the dream waking up to itself,
Now this can be terror for David. It means the end of all seeking anything.
See nobody ever controlled David, or ego, or self, or add whatever. It is all a dream, dreampt by the complete unknowable.
The dream is emptiness. And David s intellect can not understand this.
we all believe there is a computer screen in front of us
what do we see? just colors
can we see anything other than colors in front of us?
where is the computer screen then?
if we try to touch the computer screen we feel the hardness or softness of 'something' in front of us
can we touch the computer screen?
where is the computer screen then?
trying to smell, taste and hear is out of the question in this case
take 'anything' that you think an apple, orange, chair, table etc.
see whether you can find the 'thing' that you think 'you know'
to wake up to 'reality' we have to use eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind
only using six sense bases we can wake up to the Truth
@robot said:
Right @David. I think we can all agree that self is dependent on form so is empty of real existence.
From what I understand, there is not a self that is dependent on form because form is empty of self.
What we call our individual self is dependent on form so even it is not self.
And form is empty so what is left to talk about?
Form is empty and is not self... That there is no self is wrong but that self is form is also wrong. Because things are empty, they are not self.
Yes @David. I'm pretty sure you just repeated what I said, right?
The so called individual illusory self, that is dependent on form, has no more or less reality than form itself, which has the appearance of real existence to the illusory self, but is empty.
So the self can't be isolated as empty, from the also empty conditions that gave rise to it.
We are trying to describe the tent we are all in, as if we were on the outside looking in.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Hey, you tried but you're still not making any real sense. It may seem real to you but if you are not real then your logic won't be based on reality. It will be based on whatever story you believe your character runs amok in.
Being a character in a dream doesn't mean anything and no amount of pretending you are not here will aleviate your suffering or confusion. But that's the last I'll say on this thread as we are repeating a pattern which is a waste of time.
@robot said:
Right @David. I think we can all agree that self is dependent on form so is empty of real existence.
From what I understand, there is not a self that is dependent on form because form is empty of self.
What we call our individual self is dependent on form so even it is not self.
And form is empty so what is left to talk about?
Form is empty and is not self... That there is no self is wrong but that self is form is also wrong. Because things are empty, they are not self.
Yes @David. I'm pretty sure you just repeated what I said, right?
The so called individual illusory self, that is dependent on form, has no more or less reality than form itself, which has the appearance of real existence to the illusory self, but is empty.
So the self can't be isolated as empty, from the also empty conditions that gave rise to it.
We are trying to describe the tent we are all in, as if we were on the outside looking in.
Hey, you tried but you're still not making any real sense. It may seem real to you but if you are not real then your logic won't be based on reality. It will be based on whatever story you believe your character runs amok in.
Runs amok? Lol probably a good description! I like it.
Being a character in a dream doesn't mean anything and no amount of pretending you are not here will aleviate your suffering or confusion. But that's the last I'll say on this thread as we are repeating a pattern which is a waste of time.
You don't have to pretend your not here. If you genuinely want to understand Anatta or No Self. Check out Liberation Unleashed.com.
You get one on one with a guide who will show you this. It's completely free. Just volunteers who have seen this abs want to help others.
If you want to listen to some descriptions of what I'm referring too,
Check out Tony Parsons or Lisa Cairns.
These guys have completely woken up.
They don't teach, because they know it's futile. But they do describe this... And in that description, sometimes a shift in perception occurs.
@Earthninja said: You don't have to pretend your not here. If you genuinely want to understand Anatta or No Self. Check out Liberation Unleashed.com.
I had a quick look but I'm not sure I get it. Are they basically saying stop practising and seeking and just live? And if not, what exactly are they saying?
I noticed some lecturing from guides on the familiar theme of "There isn't really a you", but that is basic stuff to a Buddhist and nothing new. It's like they're just telling people they haven't got a self....right, OK.
It all leaves me feeling: "Yeah, so what?"
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
That's what I was thinking when I checked it out the first time it was brought up on forum.
It seems like they are missing a piece of an equation but there are different understandings between different schools and sects so I just leave it at that.
@David said: It seems like they are missing a piece of an equation but there are different understandings between different schools and sects so I just leave it at that.
There seems to be some mindfulness in there and some anatta stuff, but mostly it's intellectual understanding ( ironically! ). Not the best thing since sliced bread anyway.
I had a quick look but I'm not sure I get it. Are they basically saying stop practising and seeking and just live? And if not, what exactly are they saying?
Quick look and not getting it is of limited use.
It is experiental, not intellectual.
When we start behaving from no-self our understanding has made a subtle change.
We can understand enlightenment, realisation, attributes etc but no matter how close, we either get it or not ...
It is like saying 'yeah I understand meditation, you just sit still but what is the point?'
It is a process. You go through it with a one to one guide.
@lobster said: It is a process. You go through it with a one to one guide.
So have you done it, and if so has it made much difference?
Yes I had several kindly mentors. I hope it made a difference to my mentors. A little more subtle awareness hopefully ...
Sadly I am a hopeless case and terminally wikid when realising 'emptiness is form and form emptiness' ... There was nothing new there for my non-self ... but getting them to realise their 'game' ... ah that is another story ...
@lobster said: Yes I had several kindly mentors. I hope it made a difference to my mentors. A little more subtle awareness hopefully ...
Sadly I am a hopeless case and terminally wikid when realising 'emptiness is form and form emptiness' ... There was nothing new there for my non-self ... but getting them to realise their 'game' ... ah that is another story ...
I can see their "method" might be a useful nudge for people with no background in mindfulness or for people confused about their seeking. Beyond that I'm not sure. You were probably just too advanced for them.
I can see their "method" might be a useful nudge for people with no background in mindfulness or for people confused about their seeking. Beyond that I'm not sure. You were probably just too advanced for them.
Extract from one of the guys who came to liberation unleashed.
"Shane: Hello, Elena.
Thank you for your willingness to look at this. I admire and respect your
dedication toward helping others.
A little about my background. I have been practising meditation consistently for over fifteen years and have been teaching meditation and Buddhist principles for seven of those. I am an ordained Buddhist minister, but shy away from the ritualistic practices of Buddhism. I teach three to four times a week to help people ease their troubles."
"I have literally gone through hundreds and hundreds of meditation students. I have written several books on the subject and lead by example by practicing sitting meditation A LOT! But. No one to my knowledge is waking up?
There is no permanent liberation to be found. Nobody, including myself, is getting truly free."
"In my personal practice I have seen improvements in clarity and un- derstanding of selflessness. I have a love for the truth. That is what motivates me. I have the determination to look inside and see what is not there. There are moments of seeing through the illusion, but it does not stick.
There is this self-talk that says “this is a gradual path, just relax and it will come” and then there is the other inner voice that says “you don’t have much time, get this done with, see through the illusion of the ‘I’ now and for ever and really help others.”
I enjoy teaching, but even more, there is the inner drive to help people through their suffering. You have this same drive. I understand that the suffering that is so prevalent in the people I meet is from the false identity of “self”. Although to truly liberate others, I should be first free of the illusion myself"
I'm sure this guy had no experience in mindfulness and is just confused about his seeking not like you. Maybe you could teach him about proper meditation.
This guy is one of many life time seekers who are over the game. with metta and jest! Love you spiny
You can read the whole dialogue on page 25 of the gateless gatecrashers. It's a free PDF.
Interesting, but does he say what practical benefit he got from the "method"? And what experience does he have of mindfulness practice, as distinct from meditation?
Does he say he is "over the game"? And what does that actually mean? Does it mean "I'm fed up with seeking and somebody has given me permission to stop?"
I think if you want to promote this "method" you need to be a lot clearer about what it actually is, and how it differs from Buddhist practice.
Clearly there is a method here. It looks to me like mindfulness practice with a focus on anatta - is this correct, and if not, why not?
@SpinyNorman i don't really want to enter a discussion on this again, I just wanted to point out that very very experienced Buddhists have benefited from this site.
Some others on this forum may as well. You keep doing whatever it is you love doing, I'm not trying to convert anyone.
@Earthninja said:> @SpinyNorman i don't really want to enter a discussion on this again, I just wanted to point out that very very experienced Buddhists have benefited from this site. Some others on this forum may as well. You keep doing whatever it is you love doing, I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Meh. You clearly do want to promote this approach, but you seem unable or unwilling to explain it clearly, or answer relevant questions. We're on a Buddhist forum, so it's entirely reasonable to ask how this approach compares to Buddhist practice. So, is this approach basically mindfulness focussing on anatta, and if not, what exactly is it? A perfectly straightforward question, surely.
From what I've seen it's very unclear who has has gained what kind of benefit, or even what the point is, it's all much too vague. Like "They told me I don't have a self, so I don't have to look for it any more...I was fed up with seeking anyway, so that's good." Yeah, whatever, as if "seeking" is even what Buddhists do.
As for "very very experienced Buddhists", it doesn't mean jack. I've been involved in Buddhism for 35 years and have been teaching meditation on and off for 15 years, also explored a number of other paths. But so what? I've seen people promote all kinds of approaches, Buddhist and non-Buddhist, it's always the best thing since sliced bread...well, at least till you start asking for the detail.
@SpinyNorman I don't mind examining it but I remember I had like a million page thread on this with you and David formerly ourself. I think robot jumped in for some beef and mingle as well.
So I don't really feel like this again.
I'll be here for days.
If your genuinely interested, just listen to the audio files. They will be faster and more entertaining than listening to me waffle on it's free.
Not like your secular buddhist study group that charges 600eu to teach you how to breath. (This is a joke XD)
Metta
Comments
NOTE: Objects and surroundings do not respond to the child's human communication ability. Therefore, an object doesn't count as being 'part of me'. That's why children reach tentatively for things or put them in their mouths. It's an exploratory instinct.
Kids will put everything into their mouths as a means of determining what the object could be....
I don't know. They know how to call out for Mommy and Daddy. I would agree that it gets much more pronounced around 2. They distinguish between different kinds of people pretty quick actually. The sight of one person can elicit squeals of joy while another elicits fearful cries.
My daughter always cries when my mom-in-law comes around but absolutely loves my sister and brother. That's been since about 6 months of age.
This would be hard to prove and doesn't appear to be the case in most kids I've known. I dare say it doesn't take a lot, relatively speaking.
Again I think that's hard to prove because at a little over a year my daughter was able to correctly point out "Mommy", "Daddy" and "Ayla" and we've been told she is behind a bit developmentally speaking.
I get that part.
In my experience though, babies can distinguish not only between their self and another but between others as well.
Not just my daughter but I have over 30 nieces and nephews if you count their kids.
Naming them doesn't define an awareness of separation.
I don't know how else I can explain it.....
Look at it in a 'reverse' situation....Simply because you call your arm 'arm' and your 'leg' leg, doesn't mean they are separate from you, but they can be....
Development is looked at as an aspect of the psychology that is learnt/taught, usually (Though yeah, I know, not always).
There is a difference between 'development' as taught and marked by adults, looking for levels of educational ability.
The psychological development in children is occasionally measured in different ways.
I do understand what you're saying and all I'm saying is the kinds of experiments used to determine these things don't seem very reliable to me.
It kind of seems like you're saying they think other people are an extension of themselves because of dependency (in which case they would kind of be right from my view of inter-being and D.O.) but I don't know how we can actually determine that.
By understanding the different behaviour between children Under the age of 1-and-a-half, to two, when they try to remove the dot from the person in the reflection's nose, and those OVER those ages, seeing the reflection and trying to remove the dot from their OWN nose.
It wasn't just an amateur experiment carried out with just two children.
It's a behavioural trait observed across an enormous range of children.
How many 'experiments' would it take to make it 'reliable'?
You have a single young child, whose experience is the only reliable evidence you've put forward so far. Evidence I have agreed with.
I must have interacted with at least 500 children, over the three years I was actively and repetitively involved with, plus, I also did quite a bit of personal research into child development traits; research funded by and backed up by the school I worked with.
I fail to understand why clinically-approved 'experiments' and statements, seem unreliable to you, and you refuse to accept any form of input that doesn't match your apparently narrow-field observation of your child.....?
Perhaps you'd like to consider changing your name to 'Thomas...?
This has been an interesting discussion.
I wonder if the dot experiment merely show that children are learning about how their mind works with their sense of sight, i.e. they are simply learning how mirrors work. I'm not sure it is an actual barometer of self-awareness.
Dogs can't seem to grasp the concept of mirrors, but there are a few animals that apparently can.
I'm just saying that one experiment involving a single sense faculty may not prove that a human or animal has or doesn't have any sense of self-awareness.
it's part of a barometer; it wasn't the whole of it. I merely mentioned it as an interesting aspect of developmental behaviour....
Dogs eventually DO grasp the concept of mirrors, btw. It takes them some time though.
It may have been ONE experiment, but it wasn't the focus or single factor of research....
That still doesn't mean much except we have a better grasp. It doesn't add up to self awareness and the lack thereof in my opinion.
At least one that doesn't rely on assumptions. What that would be, I cannot say.
It isn't about that, I just don't see the experiment as being very sound or reliable.
Lol. Thomas was right to doubt. I doubt Jesus came back from the dead too. Sadly for Thomas, it only took a sly trick to convince him to believe the absurd.
A dog that finally gets that it's seeing a reflection and not another dog wouldn't seem more self aware to me than one that hasn't gotten it yet if they both know their names.
It's also helpful to realise that when we say self aware, it's an illusion!
Yes I know I harp on about it but it's the basis for everything!
Can anybody point to themselves?
It's just body parts, feelings and thoughts.
And if you investigate further you may see the void where you thought you were.
It's incredible.
Only for a year or two. Then what? Nothing to do? Nowhere to go? Nobody driving?
Tee hee.
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are as empty as self. You really can't set one above the rest as less real. Since everything is equal, in that it's empty, what is the point in insisting that it is self that has no existence?
Form is empty! Nuff said.
Yes but you seem to miss that the illusion is a tool. Nothing wrong with using it as such once we see it for what it is.
Point to? No, but if I only had one hand I couldn't point to my finger either.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can see a void where you thought you were, you were looking in the wrong place.
It's like trying to find a microscope under its own lens.
I thought I completely agreed with you here but as I reread it something went wait.
Form is empty of self but self is not form as I seem to understand it at the moment.
Damn, I think I had something for a second there but the words fail me as it slips away.
I've been up for too long. Almost time to give up night shift I think.
Right @David. I think we can all agree that self is dependent on form so is empty of real existence. And form is empty so what is left to talk about? Chris' insistence that that self doesn't exist seems to reify thoughts, feelings, the body and such. I'm sure he doesn't believe in form anymore than he does in a permanent self. It just comes across that way to me sometimes.
From what I understand, there is not a self that is dependent on form because form is empty of self.
What we call our individual self is dependent on form so even it is not self.
Form is empty and is not self... That there is no self is wrong but that self is form is also wrong. Because things are empty, they are not self.
I don't remember Buddha saying self is empty exactly.
I don't think he thinks anything is real but I don't know what his definition of real is.
Going happens, driving happens. Nobody ever did these. It's a spontaneous happening. Like everything
Bodies, feelings and thoughts are tangible. You can experience your body through your senses.
The self is an illusion, you believe it actually exists. It's a belief, a deep deep hypothesis that can't stand up to direct inquiry.
Who uses the illusion as a tool? Exactly who are you referring too?
it's the same thing! I know it seems there is someone in there but there really isn't.
The story may be seen through but there's no one controlling the story.
Well you can point to fingers, thoughts and feelings... Where is self that has all the problems?
Where are "you" then?
So you are that which observes? But not observable? But somehow has control over the self?
But can't control thoughts, feelings, emotions, cell growth, hormone secretion, bone growth, nerves firing... Ad infinity of things this self can't control.
Why? Because it's not there!
And there never was one, that's the cosmic joke! The sufferer is a belief but an energetic belief.
The brain can shift and see this. But nobody does this. Because there is nobody
In regards to "form"
There are no "things" at all. When you look at a dog, there isn't this thing called a dog, out there.
There is just seeing. The dog/light/lens/retina/nervous stem is one.
There is absolutely no separation anywhere.
The line between "you" seeing the "dog" is imaginary.
You are as much the image of "dog" as you are "you"
That is true compassion, everything is really one but playing as many. It's really completely indescribable. There is no way thought/mind can understand this.
The minute you try and grasp this, "you" and this are imagined to be separate.
That is rather meaningless. I use the illusion as a tool and so does everybody else that knows it is an illusion but continue to use it.
I know you think it sounds right but what you suggest is illogical.
That again is meaningless. It sounds nice but it doesn't really mean anything or help in any way.
The self has no problems as far as I know.
No, body parts, feelings and thoughts are empty and not self.
I'm right here, silly.
You're still not making any sense. What is this "there" you speak of?
So you think you are really a brain shift?
Who is this brain shift that sees this magic nobody?
@David
Hmmm let me try an analogy!
In your night time dream there is a character called David. David thinks he knows that David is illusory and so "thinks" he controls David and uses David as a tool.
Now David is suffering because he feels there is something wrong with the situation, he feels separate from the dream and follows Buddhism in the hope that one day he will wake up and see he was dreaming.
The problem is that David is just a story in the dream, David will never wake up and realise he was dreaming. Because he is being dreamt! David has also never had any control over anything, he only believes he does through thoughts.
Thoughts wrote the story.
The dream wrote itself.
Now what can happen is the dream wakes up to ITSELF and sees David is complete fiction. He never really suffered because he doesn't exist, it's all one dream.
Nothing David has done has got him closer to realising he was dreaming, because the whole thing IS the dream.
Enlightenment is the dream waking up to itself,
Now this can be terror for David. It means the end of all seeking anything.
See nobody ever controlled David, or ego, or self, or add whatever. It is all a dream, dreampt by the complete unknowable.
The dream is emptiness. And David s intellect can not understand this.
Best I can do !
we all believe there is a computer screen in front of us
what do we see? just colors
can we see anything other than colors in front of us?
where is the computer screen then?
if we try to touch the computer screen we feel the hardness or softness of 'something' in front of us
can we touch the computer screen?
where is the computer screen then?
trying to smell, taste and hear is out of the question in this case
take 'anything' that you think an apple, orange, chair, table etc.
see whether you can find the 'thing' that you think 'you know'
to wake up to 'reality' we have to use eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind
only using six sense bases we can wake up to the Truth
Yes @David. I'm pretty sure you just repeated what I said, right?
The so called individual illusory self, that is dependent on form, has no more or less reality than form itself, which has the appearance of real existence to the illusory self, but is empty.
So the self can't be isolated as empty, from the also empty conditions that gave rise to it.
We are trying to describe the tent we are all in, as if we were on the outside looking in.
@Earthninja;
Hey, you tried but you're still not making any real sense. It may seem real to you but if you are not real then your logic won't be based on reality. It will be based on whatever story you believe your character runs amok in.
Being a character in a dream doesn't mean anything and no amount of pretending you are not here will aleviate your suffering or confusion. But that's the last I'll say on this thread as we are repeating a pattern which is a waste of time.
Yes, the illusory self is empty and is not self.
@David
Runs amok? Lol probably a good description! I like it.
You don't have to pretend your not here. If you genuinely want to understand Anatta or No Self. Check out Liberation Unleashed.com.
You get one on one with a guide who will show you this. It's completely free. Just volunteers who have seen this abs want to help others.
If you want to listen to some descriptions of what I'm referring too,
Check out Tony Parsons or Lisa Cairns.
These guys have completely woken up.
They don't teach, because they know it's futile. But they do describe this... And in that description, sometimes a shift in perception occurs.
Hope your well mate,
I had a quick look but I'm not sure I get it. Are they basically saying stop practising and seeking and just live? And if not, what exactly are they saying?
I noticed some lecturing from guides on the familiar theme of "There isn't really a you", but that is basic stuff to a Buddhist and nothing new. It's like they're just telling people they haven't got a self....right, OK.
It all leaves me feeling: "Yeah, so what?"
That's what I was thinking when I checked it out the first time it was brought up on forum.
It seems like they are missing a piece of an equation but there are different understandings between different schools and sects so I just leave it at that.
@Earthninja;
Hey, I hope you're well too.
There seems to be some mindfulness in there and some anatta stuff, but mostly it's intellectual understanding ( ironically! ). Not the best thing since sliced bread anyway.
Quick look and not getting it is of limited use.
It is experiental, not intellectual.
When we start behaving from no-self our understanding has made a subtle change.
We can understand enlightenment, realisation, attributes etc but no matter how close, we either get it or not ...
It is like saying 'yeah I understand meditation, you just sit still but what is the point?'
It is a process. You go through it with a one to one guide.
^^^^ what @lobster said
So have you done it, and if so has it made much difference?
Yes I had several kindly mentors. I hope it made a difference to my mentors. A little more subtle awareness hopefully ...
Sadly I am a hopeless case and terminally wikid when realising 'emptiness is form and form emptiness' ... There was nothing new there for my non-self ... but getting them to realise their 'game' ... ah that is another story ...
I can see their "method" might be a useful nudge for people with no background in mindfulness or for people confused about their seeking. Beyond that I'm not sure. You were probably just too advanced for them.
Extract from one of the guys who came to liberation unleashed.
"Shane: Hello, Elena.
Thank you for your willingness to look at this. I admire and respect your
dedication toward helping others.
A little about my background. I have been practising meditation consistently for over fifteen years and have been teaching meditation and Buddhist principles for seven of those. I am an ordained Buddhist minister, but shy away from the ritualistic practices of Buddhism. I teach three to four times a week to help people ease their troubles."
"I have literally gone through hundreds and hundreds of meditation students. I have written several books on the subject and lead by example by practicing sitting meditation A LOT! But. No one to my knowledge is waking up?
There is no permanent liberation to be found. Nobody, including myself, is getting truly free."
"In my personal practice I have seen improvements in clarity and un- derstanding of selflessness. I have a love for the truth. That is what motivates me. I have the determination to look inside and see what is not there. There are moments of seeing through the illusion, but it does not stick.
There is this self-talk that says “this is a gradual path, just relax and it will come” and then there is the other inner voice that says “you don’t have much time, get this done with, see through the illusion of the ‘I’ now and for ever and really help others.”
I enjoy teaching, but even more, there is the inner drive to help people through their suffering. You have this same drive. I understand that the suffering that is so prevalent in the people I meet is from the false identity of “self”. Although to truly liberate others, I should be first free of the illusion myself"
I'm sure this guy had no experience in mindfulness and is just confused about his seeking
not like you. Maybe you could teach him about proper meditation.
with metta and jest! Love you spiny
This guy is one of many life time seekers who are over the game.
You can read the whole dialogue on page 25 of the gateless gatecrashers. It's a free PDF.
Interesting, but does he say what practical benefit he got from the "method"? And what experience does he have of mindfulness practice, as distinct from meditation?
Does he say he is "over the game"? And what does that actually mean? Does it mean "I'm fed up with seeking and somebody has given me permission to stop?"
I think if you want to promote this "method" you need to be a lot clearer about what it actually is, and how it differs from Buddhist practice.
Clearly there is a method here. It looks to me like mindfulness practice with a focus on anatta - is this correct, and if not, why not?
@SpinyNorman i don't really want to enter a discussion on this again, I just wanted to point out that very very experienced Buddhists have benefited from this site.
Some others on this forum may as well. You keep doing whatever it is you love doing, I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Meh. You clearly do want to promote this approach, but you seem unable or unwilling to explain it clearly, or answer relevant questions. We're on a Buddhist forum, so it's entirely reasonable to ask how this approach compares to Buddhist practice. So, is this approach basically mindfulness focussing on anatta, and if not, what exactly is it? A perfectly straightforward question, surely.
From what I've seen it's very unclear who has has gained what kind of benefit, or even what the point is, it's all much too vague. Like "They told me I don't have a self, so I don't have to look for it any more...I was fed up with seeking anyway, so that's good." Yeah, whatever, as if "seeking" is even what Buddhists do.
As for "very very experienced Buddhists", it doesn't mean jack. I've been involved in Buddhism for 35 years and have been teaching meditation on and off for 15 years, also explored a number of other paths. But so what? I've seen people promote all kinds of approaches, Buddhist and non-Buddhist, it's always the best thing since sliced bread...well, at least till you start asking for the detail.
@SpinyNorman I don't mind examining it but I remember I had like a million page thread on this with you and David formerly ourself. I think robot jumped in for some beef and mingle as well.
it's free.
So I don't really feel like this again.
I'll be here for days.
If your genuinely interested, just listen to the audio files. They will be faster and more entertaining than listening to me waffle on
Not like your secular buddhist study group that charges 600eu to teach you how to breath. (This is a joke XD)
Metta