Sam Harris & Joseph Goldstein - The Path and the Goal.
Seven hours!!
Sam Harris & Joseph Goldstein - The Path and the Goal
Sam Harris & Joseph Goldstein - The Path and the Goal
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Sam Harris & Joseph Goldstein - The Path and the Goal
i try to understand the no-self thing from their perspective.
If you are coming to aware, then they think it is no-self state that there weren't no self to begin with, there isn't anything to destroy.
in short there is no sense of self in nondual no-self mindfulness.
being aware, they use word mindfulness instead. So for them losing awreness is losing mindfulness.
the idea is when being mindful then realize selflesness, and when there is dukkha from emotions then that is not mindfulness yet.
these above are common grounds.
JG talk in terms of self-view as holding onto some rigid view about how kangaroos should jump.
Sam Harris points out more pathological or psychological sense of self than just self view. JG points out the "belief that there is some self existing what is the center".
SH thinks that most people think they have subject what having the experience, both agree on that. When you pay attention consciously then you don't feel like a self the way you used to..have lost this sense of subject riding around the head..JG agrees.
---
enough evidence,
looks like they talk about state where you are aware. But not talk about "who is being aware"(i haven't notice it, i don't listen all only couple hours and something on 5 hours mark), but choose to go on with describe the state what it is that there is no self or subject what is experiencing sensations..it is the disagreeable point..is this where party is split into two?
Does the "when you come mindful, then there is no subject experiencing" automatically defies the question who is being aware?
also
1:23:23
SM:anatta selfnessess that one reaslizes in vipassana has always seem to be for me by virtue anicca, impermanence..so that because of everything is changing that one extrapolates not by thinking about it but one notices that there is absolutely nothing that could be the self because there is just this (..) flow.
But the selflesness of dzogchen has nothing to do with impermanence, it has to do with felt center what was your self drop out of consciousness.
1:26:30
JG: one of the reasons why recognizion selfless empty quality of mind may not emphasized in vipassana tradition as much as it is dzogchen tradition right form the beginning,
is that it goes back to this notion of certain experiences uprooting the view of self and i think for some teaches is that some experience of having defilements be uprooted
which is the main focus of that teaching and so the experiences along the way then unnecessarly emphasized..
--
when becoming aware is falling into hole, then their description that there is no self is describing based on being in hole, as of not seeing the Self anymore?
If you are coming to aware, then they think it is no-self state that there weren't no self to begin with, there isn't anything to destroy.
in short there is no sense of self in nondual no-self mindfulness.
being aware, they use word mindfulness instead. So for them losing awreness is losing mindfulness.
the idea is when being mindful then realize selflesness, and when there is dukkha from emotions then that is not mindfulness yet.
these above are common grounds.
JG talk in terms of self-view as holding onto some rigid view about how kangaroos should jump.
Sam Harris points out more pathological or psychological sense of self than just self view. JG points out the "belief that there is some self existing what is the center".
SH thinks that most people think they have subject what having the experience, both agree on that. When you pay attention consciously then you don't feel like a self the way you used to..have lost this sense of subject riding around the head..JG agrees.
---
enough evidence,
looks like they talk about state where you are aware. But not talk about "who is being aware"(i haven't notice it, i don't listen all only couple hours and something on 5 hours mark), but choose to go on with describe the state what it is that there is no self or subject what is experiencing sensations..it is the disagreeable point..is this where party is split into two?
Does the "when you come mindful, then there is no subject experiencing" automatically defies the question who is being aware?
also
1:23:23
SM:anatta selfnessess that one reaslizes in vipassana has always seem to be for me by virtue anicca, impermanence..so that because of everything is changing that one extrapolates not by thinking about it but one notices that there is absolutely nothing that could be the self because there is just this (..) flow.
But the selflesness of dzogchen has nothing to do with impermanence, it has to do with felt center what was your self drop out of consciousness.
1:26:30
JG: one of the reasons why recognizion selfless empty quality of mind may not emphasized in vipassana tradition as much as it is dzogchen tradition right form the beginning,
is that it goes back to this notion of certain experiences uprooting the view of self and i think for some teaches is that some experience of having defilements be uprooted
which is the main focus of that teaching and so the experiences along the way then unnecessarly emphasized..
--
when becoming aware is falling into hole, then their description that there is no self is describing based on being in hole, as of not seeing the Self anymore?