"I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And in this a question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and the fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved. The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or “beingness,” just observing and watching." Eckhart Tolle.

Given the previous posts this seemed quoting. I often wonder however if Tolle's conversion experience isn't a result of a micro-stroke or some other pathology. He become homeless shortly after this because everything seemed pointless in the face of such bliss.

Jill Bolte Taylor, a neurologist, also developed an interest in religion after experiencing a stroke and the peace that this state gave her. She wrote a book called My Stroke of Insight about her experiences.

I readily admit that the self is a concept but it seems a necessary one. The past and future may be only accessible now, but surly that doesn't negate planning and history. Perhaps they are "necessary illusions."

Perhaps I need to do more meditation

Last edited by Harpagornes (2011 November 27, 11:30 am)

Harpagornes wrote:

Given the previous posts this seemed quoting. I often wonder however if Tolle's conversion experience isn't a result of a micro-stroke or some other pathology. He become homeless shortly after this because everything seemed pointless in the face of such bliss.

Thanks for the quote.

AFAIK, it is a transition period. It has many names. Soon before and after enlightenment there are "no mountains" as in the Zen parable that Amset mentionned. I think that means during this time there are no more problems, but also no more desires. It's only a phase though. Jed McKenna goes further and says you should be ready to give up your marriage, career and whatnot... if you really want to go down that path. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's very hard to shatter all your beliefs and maintain a relationship at the same time...

Harpagornes wrote:

The past and future may be only accessible now, but surly that doesn't negate planning and history. Perhaps they are "necessary illusions."

True. It's very odd though if you come, through self observation, to the conclusion that the brain does the job perfectly fine without "you"... then life seems to go just fine without much planning. I've only had few moments of clarity like that though.

I guess... the main issue with the self is it gets in the way of planning or fearing based on wonky beliefs. So it's not so much planning is wrong in itself, but most planning end up "coloured" by the self's perception. "Oh I will be like X", "Oh this or that will happen", "Oh I must succeed in this career because..." etc.

EratiK wrote:

Perhaps you mean "there is no immanent self (are you talking about the atma?) as in Hinduism". I'm pretty sure there's a transcendental self somewhere. I remember an essay by D.T. Suzuki where he explained the satori to be "the realization of the self, in itself, by itself", but maybe we must understand this as the Self.

I have not read him, but I have doubts about whether D. T. Suzuki is a very reliable source for Buddhism.  According to wikipedia, he was a member of the Theosophical Society.  They tend to see all religions as having the same message, and thus tend to blur Buddhist ideas with those of other traditions.

Or perhaps he was talking about the Buddha nature?  According to the Wikipedia page on Buddha-Nature:

wikipedia wrote:

the tathāgatagarbha/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and is the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices

Apparently there is some debate about this.  But if this is taken as some sort of essentialist "real self" then:

wikipedia wrote:

According to Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya Noriaki, essentialist conceptions of Buddha-nature are un-Buddhist, being at odds with the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination.

So at least some Japanese scholars think that the Buddha nature has some non-Buddhist interpretations.  Whew.  :-)

CJ