questions and guidance

[fuzzyAaron]

Hello,

Thank you all for making this forum available. I am hoping to get to converse with one of the experienced members here.

For a bit about my background, I was raised Catholic for 20+ years. Within Christianity there is the concept of the soul. This is commonly interpreted as the "you" that persists on after death, and as far as I can tell, is considered the "experiencer". Perhaps this upbringing acts as a further barrier towards finding what you are all pointing at.

I had to get away from Catholic stuff because it was not good for me. I have been a searcher for a while, reading and learning about taoist, hindu, and buddhist concepts. I have practiced different forms of meditation including vipassana, sometimes regularly and intensively, and now not so much. Some searching has recently led me to Ruthless, and now to here.

My Goal here: I want to experience this life in a more truthful way, and I know that there is something wrong about my perception of self. Maybe this is not good but I must admit that I am hoping that improved perception will help me to improve on some of the problems I have in life now.

Following suggestions given in other threads, I looked for an "I" and at first find it quite easily. "I" am the controller and the experiencer.

I then began looking to see if there was any evidence that there is possibly no self. I could see the senses and experiences just happening, the decisions are harder for me to understand. I was able to intellectually force myself to abandon the concept of self and just allow the thoughts and sensations to pass through. The mindspace that I began to enter was quite strange, cold, and a somewhat uncomfortable and forced feeling. It also left me drained and feeling depressed. It was not like an obvious discovery.

I think that I intellectually glimpse what you are saying, and I think that I should try to change this perception (I think that I can with some help). I am also scared though. I have a few questions that hopefully someone could answer.

Life has been tough, but given the constraints that I work within I think that I have done a reasonable job. This leads me to a feeling of self-compassion, kind of like I love myself for being me, and am happy when things go well for me. Does it not seem sad to let that self die? We have been together for so long. I have a fear that the removal of self from the equation seems to be taking something core out of humanity. The term meat-robots seems appropriately glib. Am I way off-base here?

When you love someone for who they are, it is the "you" part of them that I thought was loved. Is it possible to love anyone if you believe that there is no-one there anyway??!?
Do you think that the classic soul concept is very close to what is being refuted here?

I hope that somebody is up for these challenging questions, and perhaps to help me along this journey.

Thanks,
Aaron

[zenkitties]

Life has been tough, but given the constraints that I work within I think that I have done a reasonable job. This leads me to a feeling of self-compassion, kind of like I love myself for being me, and am happy when things go well for me. Does it not seem sad to let that self die? We have been together for so long. I have a fear that the removal of self from the equation seems to be taking something core out of humanity. The term meat-robots seems appropriately glib. Am I way off-base here?

Quite the opposite actually, look at it from the other stand point. The thing that thinks its "doing" something is just reacting to whatever beliefs, concepts, circumstances, and conditioning that has been collected over time. So really the unconscious reaction would be the "meat robot" you are trying to portray the no-self as having, yeah?

I hope this helps with that, when there is no you there, then emotion, life, reality, whatever you want to call it plays out as intended in its most natural state instead of having a "self" to interfere.

When you love someone for who they are, it is the "you" part of them that I thought was loved.

Love comes from seeing that the part you love is you that you're projecting outward. There is no separation between the too. So to love yourself completely and honestly, is to love another completely and honestly.

the "you" part of love you're talking about isn't love, that's just a delusion we sell ourselves, a perversion of love that says, "I love you for who you are, as long as you give me something in return." When non-seperation is seen (or no-self) you see that they are not outside but a part of what is (the you that you think yourself to be is also a part of this).

Is it possible to love anyone if you believe that there is no-one there anyway??!?

This question isn't really important to know the answer of, because love is just happening, just as compassion is just happening, when its seen that all is just always been there this whole time for the sake of love and compassion.

Do you think that the classic soul concept is very close to what is being refuted here?

It's been called a lot of things, in Christianity its called the soul or God or the I Am. All of these words are inadequate to what these words are actually pointing to.



I hope this helps answer some of your questions. Now would you like to get honest with yourself, and find out what no-self is really about? I would be more than glad to help guide you to the place where you get to find out for yourself what its about (as opposed to keeping it on an intellectual level.)

One more question, what is your goal here, what do you truly want out of this? Try and be as honest as you can about your answer.

[zenkitties]

Are you still there or did you just want the arms length answers and not want to actually take a look at it? :)