Reclusland

April 1, 2010

- Nietzsche on No Self -

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

quotes —

  1. Well, I think his take on this was a bit different. You stated Buddhism isn’t nihilistic. Well, Nietzsche WAS a Nihilist. Over time his stance toward nihilism changed, however.

    He became life affirming, in his stance, but remained a Nihilist.

    Comment by Ted — April 3, 2010 @ 6:48 pm


  2. Yeah, most of my quotes are taking slightly out of life-context. I only mean that the sentiment Nietzsche expresses here can be used to explain my take on no-self. Or maybe more the Tao.. (the way that can be told of is not the true way)?

    Comment by Ian — April 4, 2010 @ 4:20 pm


  3. I guess, I could research this myself but I was wondering what you know about relating Buddhism with the conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel? Seems like No self would = “no Holy Guardian Angel” either. But to me the Holy Guardian Angel seems to correspond with the concept of the Higher self, quite well. Ingram seems to deny a higher self/true self and sees that as the exact opposite of his position, the position of “no self”

    Correct me if I am wrong, you think there is a higher self, but you think in prctice you should assume there isn’t one so as not to mistake it for something else?

    And you think this what Dharma Dan is saying as well in… an “esoteric way?”

    Are you Sure he’s not just being direct and brutally honest? Seems to me more like its his intention to say exactly what he means.

    Comment by Ted — April 5, 2010 @ 12:59 pm


  4. Well, that part of his book I linked to way back at the beginning of our conversation here does say:

    True Self and no-self are actually talking about the same thing, just from different perspectives. Each can be useful, but each is an extreme.

    and

    No-self teachings directly counter the sense that there is a separate watcher, and that this watcher is an “I” that is in control, observing reality or subject to the tribulations of the world. Truly, this is a useful illusion to counter. However, if misunderstood, this teaching can produce a shadow side that reeks of nihilism, disengagement with life and denial. People can get all fixated on eliminating a “self,” when the emphasis is supposed to be on the words “separate” and “permanent,” as well as on the illusion that is being creating. A better way to say this would be, “stopping the process of mentally creating the illusion of a separate self from sensations that are inherently non-dual, utterly transient and thus empty of any separate, permanent self.”

    so no, I don’t think Dan Ingram actually denies a higher self. Just a higher “self” as something somehow separated from what’s going on around you.

    I don’t believe Buddhism has anything like an HGA, although there is a tradition of inherent Buddha Nature that is similar, I think. In the zen group I work with, this is called boddhi-cita, the “mind of enlightenment”. But I don’t know if that definition is common to all Buddhists, is just a Zen thing, or is something found solely in the tradition I’m working within.

    the Holy Guardian Angel seems to correspond with the concept of the Higher self,

    To me, the concept of the HGA is outlined pretty well in this old BH post, in the Ishtadeva description. The way I look at it, any concept of the divine is meant to carry our sense of identification over into the divine. Its a personification of a doorway.

    Commonly, our perceptions consist of (1) sensations that we label as coming from our “self” and (2) sensations that we label as coming from outside that “self”. But really, all sensations that we feel are things happening within our own nervous system. So in a sense, all these sensations come from things outside the true self, consciousness/awareness/whatever, and the true self is the perceiving center within which all these sensations are made-aware-of.

    We just split them up into “self” and “other”, probably as part of a survival/evolution/growth process. But we get caught there, and don’t make the journey back to identifying with our whole awareness. Instead, we seem to identify as our self only the part of our awareness that is being fed information from our “self” sensations.

    The HGA, or any other kind of divine being that brings us back into identification with our whole awareness, is something created in the part of our awareness that is outside our sense “self”. Its like we give this “other” an identity as well, and then we merge with that identity and so are carried over into unity with the divine/our true self/identity with our full awareness.

    As far as a Buddhist version of this is concerned Vajrayana Buddhism has a lot of deity visualization practices, which would certainly count.

    Even basic Buddhism has the idea that its impossible to not have Buddha nature, you can only be unaware of the fact that you do (ie: identify with only a limited portion of your full awareness). But I don’t think they give any identity to “other” part of our self, so the HGA concept isn’t really present there, to my (admittedly quite limited) knowledge.

    Comment by Ian — April 5, 2010 @ 3:06 pm


  5. But as far as what True Self is, or what its like to fully understand our identity as our full awareness, I have no idea. And that’s one of the reasons I value the no-self teaching so much. It stops me from putting forward any “thing” as my true self.

    I think its very easy to assume we have a full grasp on this and to go forward accordingly. And then usually, the way we find out that we don’t is that those things we’re missing trip us up, sometimes pretty badly.

    “No-self” helps build in me an assumption that True Self isn’t a “thing” or a concept. So whenever I think I have a thing or a concept that is true self (like my description above of identifying with our full awareness), I stop myself from identifying it as “the right way, the correct way, and the only way”.

    If I assume there is always more to be discovered and unveiled, it stops me from getting stuck anywhere. And if I assume this lightly enough, with enough finesse, I’m hoping that if I ever do have an experience of True Self, it’ll be obvious enough that the doubt cultivated through “no-self” won’t become a hindrance.

    Comment by Ian — April 5, 2010 @ 3:23 pm


  6. I guess you lost me with this:

    Commonly, our perceptions consist of (1) sensations that we label as coming from our “self” and (2) sensations that we label as coming from outside that “self”. But really, all sensations that we feel are things happening within our own nervous system. So in a sense, all these sensations come from things outside the true self, consciousness/awareness/whatever, and the true self is the perceiving center within which all these sensations are made-aware-of.

    If all sensations originate witin our own nervous system, than why are all of them, then outside the true self? if the True self is where these sensations are made aware of?

    To me that’s totally contradictory.

    Comment by Ted — April 5, 2010 @ 3:46 pm


  7. Are you saying this is how some type of universal concuousness connects with us individually?

    Comment by Ted — April 5, 2010 @ 3:50 pm


  8. Sorry, yeah, that’s kind of jumbled.

    Commonly, our perceptions consist of (1) sensations that we label as coming from our “self” and (2) sensations that we label as coming from outside that “self”. But really, all sensations that we feel are things happening within our own nervous system.

    This is one thought, that all sensations, whether then come from our “self” or from outside that “self” are really just messages our awareness is receiving.

    So in a sense, all these sensations come from things outside the true self, consciousness/awareness/whatever, and the true self is the perceiving center within which all these sensations are made-aware-of.

    And this is another thought, that these sensations somehow arise within our awareness/perceiving center/true self. By “come from things outside the the true self” I meant that if something is observed, it can therefore not be the observer (as Dan Ingram and Kenneth Folk both put it), and so should not be identified as that observer.

    Comment by Ian — April 5, 2010 @ 4:19 pm


  9. Are you saying this is how some type of universal concuousness connects with us individually?

    That’s a part I can’t figure out. What is it that contacts us? Is it our whole and complete individual consciousness that connects with our limited individual consciousness, or is it a universal external consciousness that connects with our limited individual consciousness?

    Comment by Ian — April 5, 2010 @ 4:22 pm


  10. Ok, I was just thinking that if all sensations originate from within our nervous system then they must neccessarily originate from within us, not outside of us.

    But then you get into these various debates regarding solipsism, weather or not you can create your own reality etc. To me I wouldn’t want to distort these sensations in order to change my perceptions in a way that I choose, only insofar as I would make them more accurate, which assumes some type of objectivity I guess.

    As far as the observer not being that wich can be observed, seems like we CAN observe ourself observing things. From what I understand that is the nature of (self) consciousness. We observe thins as well as obseve ourself observing things. I feel like animals don’t have this duality we have. They just react unconsciously with their surroundings I would assume.

    So I am thinking You want a more integrative type of awareness?

    I have a head ache! Oh well, good food for thought, I find I can’t concentrate on this any more for now

    Comment by Ted — April 5, 2010 @ 4:47 pm


  11. Yeah, its been a good conversation.

    I wouldn’t want to distort these sensations in order to change my perceptions in a way that I choose

    That, I think, is very well said, and a noble goal besides. It might be the key to the whole thing. :)

    Comment by Ian — April 5, 2010 @ 7:46 pm


  12. Hey check it out Joe Rogan on no self:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-parent-experiment/joe-rogan-eats-pot-browni_b_519468.html

    Comment by Ted — April 7, 2010 @ 8:41 pm


  13. That’s really great. Seriously. That’s what I’m trying to figure out, how, if consciousness/awareness/wakefulness is something common to every living thing and just filtered through our different biologies, societies, and personal nervous systems, then how can we rearrange the part that we are using to be completely in touch with the wakefulness that is all around us, the light that we refract like crystals (although we seem to prefer to think of ourselves as lightbulbs)?

    How to strike that balance of having a self and being one with the universal consciousness? Its possible, I know it is…

    Comment by Ian — April 8, 2010 @ 8:28 am



Leave a comment»
















Leave a comment





WP