Noself does not negate oneself

[joedirt]

WARNING: This post (and related link) is about Buddhism and Advaita theory and makes no attempt to be scientifically sound. That doesn't mean we can't have scientific discussion about it, but the primary intent of this post is to discuss a growing movement of noself teachers and what I consider to be a half teaching at best that is potentially very misleading and perhaps quite dangerous.

There has been a push of Neo-Advaita theory in the west for awhile now. To be fair I don't necessarily blame Advaita at all, but more a slight alarm at people stripping Buddhism and Advaita of everything but the noself teaching and then rambling on about how we don't exist. It seems everyone is jumping on the noself bandwagon. My fear/concern of what I'm seeing is people arriving at the conclusion that there is no thinker of thoughts or no doer of action and immediately arriving at the conclusion that there is no accountability for ones actions.. It should be obvious why this is not such a good idea.

From my vantage point when these teachings are stripped to this bare level all thoughts of kindness, compassion and empathy are tossed away as well.

My own experience of the noself state suggests something radically different. What I understand as noself is that that there is no objective being behind the scenes. Humans are a collection of processes that give rise to a sense of self...or a sense of oneself. When I first realized this I immediately understood that there wasn't an 'I' responsible for the thoughts that are immediately arising inside my conscious awareness, but that in no way meant there was nobody accountable or responsible for the response to these thoughts.

For example if thoughts of anger arise and one of those thoughts is to kill another person. It's not like there is a 'me' that produced those thoughts..no being behind the scene is responsible for this. But the response to that thought is very important. This is how I understand Karma. We (meaning the processes defining us) are accountable for our actions/responses to things as they arise. Our actions/responses shape the future and determine what will arise for us heading forward.

This understanding led initially to compassion for myself. I no longer had to beat myself up for disturbing thoughts that arose, but more importantly it also led me to understand how I could begin to have universal compassion for others. Universal compassion is something I was never able to grasp before. I mean how could I (or why should I) have compassion for serial killers or rapists... Well today I understand that the same process that led to my own suffering (and still continues to lead to my suffering) is the same process that leads to everyone's suffering. I have compassion for the charlie Manson's of the world because I understand that their thoughts are also a process without a controller, but this doesn't mean I don't hold him accountable for his actions... He clearly needs to stay in prison for the safety of others.

So to me anyone claiming an understanding of noself and not also growing in kindness, compassion, empathy, and tolerance for others isn't really understanding noself at all from an experiential level and is only intellectualizing about it. It is imperative that this not only be understood, but experienced IMHO.

Below I give one of the most insightful dialogs I've ever read with the Dalai Lama describing this. Here is a small snippet from the link

Pandit: What is the self?
Dalai Lama: The self is sentient being.

Pandit: In its impersonal sense or in the individual sense?

Dalai Lama: Individual. An Atman. There is no self theory. According to certain theories, Atman is permanent. It is oneness, always living, unchangeable. From this life to the next life, permanent Atman is there. Buddhists criticize that theory of Atman. Self is always changing. Not permanent. Self is a combination of consciousness and body. There is no independent permanent entity of self. That does not mean that the Buddhists do not accept oneself. I am here. I am a monk. I am a Tibetan. I am a human being. On that basis we can discuss the self. On that basis we can discuss suffering, problems. If there is no self, then all these questions are meaningless. We are discussing these things quite seriously because there is self, there is a human being.

The full link can be found HERE


I'm curious as to others thoughts about this?

Peace

 

[Jin]

awesome post joedirt

indeed these days things are like this , however i've always believed Noself never negates the Self ,

Noself only tells us that our real Self is not limited to our human bodies , it also tells us our human bodies are not any different from the whole cosmos , everything is in symbiosis working together to create and support life , its all one

i also believe the Self is one ,
there is no myself or yourself
there is only the Self

 

[Non Dua Natura]

Great insight, Joe, and very well expressed. I completely agree with your comments about the current emphasis on no-self over the actuality of non-self, those who have the initial insights into the fabrication of an "I" seem to become fundamentalist non-dualists. How very annoying! :lol: In fairness, there's a small percentage of those who've come from that background who are now learning about the two-fold emptiness and who've been pointed toward dependent origination.

My main gripe with the non-dualist approaches is how they confuse luminosity with emptiness, declare that they've attained enlightenment and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of having to do anything to actually gain insight. It infuriates me that people spout the whole "nothing need be done" thing when they're nowhere near the level of development at which this becomes the practice itself.

 

[Global]

It's actually funny you bring this up joe because I was thinking along similar lines about 3 days ago. Someone I know was trying to be all profound by quoting someone who was espounging noself ideology, but I don't see it as a contradiction to be "somebody" and "nobody" at the same time. It's a linear/binary style of thinking that gives rise to the notion that it must be one or the other, but since the world is not linear, and we are not linear beings, I think it stands to reason that such thinking can be inherently faulty when addressing such profound issues.