Daniel Ingram - Experiencing No Self: Part One

[@adventuresinawareness]

DISCUSSION TOPICS 2:18​ Daniel’s personal journey to realising there is No-Self - a clockwork universe means there is no free will 7:50​ Resonance between science and Buddhist teachings 9:00​ Meditation reinforces both the sense of free will and no free will. 14:57​ Things know themselves where they are THE MECHANICS OF PERCEIVING NO-SELF 17:25​ Half perceiving versus fully perceiving is what creates a sense of Self 21:30​ You can train your mind to hardwire the perceiving of No-Self 25:00​ Raw sensate information 30:00​ Speed reading and ‘Magic Eye’ as an example of dramatic cognitive shift 34:25​ The illusion of a real past, future or doer becomes absurd 35:00​ NLP as a paradigm for how the illusion of past and future is constructed. DEALING WITH EXISTENTIAL TERROR & TRAUMA 41:50​ The benefits of perceiving the transient nature of reality 42:32​ Comforting the parts that are freaked out by the implications of ‘No-Self’ 47:58​ Depersonalisation, dissociation and existential crisis 50:20​ Willoughby Britton and data on dealing with challenging experiences 52:00​ Meditative terror as a form of pleasure 54:10​ The great debate: How much suffering is required on the spiritual path? IS THIS ABOUT TRUTH OR BLISS? 59:00​ Is it about truth, or feeling good? 1:02:50​ A complete ontology is not required for the perceptual shift to occur

[@johnnywlittle]

❤️🙏🏼

[@richardbond4496]

In the realm of shadows I dwell, A seeker seeking truth to quell. I see the light, it seems so bright, I’m lured by wisdom’s appetite. A vision of enlightenment gleams, A dance of colors, an endless stream. Elation, serenity, wrapped in a daze, To touch the sky, to be amazed. From the surface, one might believe, I’ve grasped the truth, that I’ve achieved. In awe of the dazzling, ethereal sights, I cling to this, my newfound light. But a sage from the heights would see, The illusion that now envelops me. For true enlightenment’s not confined, To pretty hues or a peaceful mind. It transcends the surface, it goes far beyond, Embracing the shadows, our connection to the bond. The unenlightened soul must learn, That true light burns as the world turns.

[@blakejon]

Thank you for this interview! Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha helped me immensely to bring my idea of awakening down to earth. He set me on a more clear-headed, practical path. Much gratitude!

[@isabelsmith7638]

It's impressive to me how daniel continues to do these interviews over the years with presence and compassion despite often saying the same thing over and over. Thank you daniel and thank you to this host for taking the time to really thoroughly explore this topic with daniel and to take the time to parse out the different topics in the details.

[@davidmoore2699]

Thank you. I had never seen that our lack of control of our thoughts was a sign of no self.

[@adventuresinawareness]

great observation Most people think that their actions stem from their thoughts If it's seen that no one is 'doing' the thoughts, they just come from no where, then it is seen that no one is doing actions either From one perspective, Its all just happening

[@lyall52]

Like getting messages on messenger but never having a page of your own. Love the teaching. Quite simple and easy to apply. Ive done it and do it with no great study

[@taylorhorne6645]

Wow, listening to this actually enabled me to see some things in experience I'd never seen before. Thanks for uploading :-)

[@clairedot657]

So much to take in here! Also no matter what, I think ‘cat videos’ on KZbin will always help.

[@adventuresinawareness]

Trustworthy cat videos!

[@futures2247]

its quite worrying to think that 'mindfulness' or Mcmindfulness as some think of it has been rolled out to so many people on mass with ZERO awareness of the potential dark side of any of this - especially with people often with limited resources and chronic stress.

[@Ndo01]

This is one of the best interviews ever

[@SamRoff]

Excellent interview mate, always a pleasure listening to Daniel.

[@terminvar8254]

Wow such an awesome interview. Only half way in but this is really helping me finally connect the dots

[@callistomoon461]

Thank you for this great upload. Good interviewer who lets his guest talk!

[@lioninvesting4676]

Dan Ingram is a cool dude

[@jseymourguenther6527]

And a total nerd

[@vikidprinciples]

Wonderful interview. I can relate to much of this.

[@LightandJoyDesigns]

There is so much “I” talk - how does a person live without agency and also talk about choices such as getting help under certain circumstances?

[@danielche2349]

Many nagging questions answered and validated. Thanks Dr. Ingram

[@Lizarus.un-sane]

*On the past/ future/ self correlation … the “you” experience is constructed as if through a periscope coordination imagined to be tied to the self which is purely relational and largely given to us FROM “ the other “ as a basis for predicting threat Space, time, and motion are mutually inclusive and interdependent so to experience them there has to be differential contrast or a line of separation (no matter how vague or abstracted).. As far as agency and self they can be not there at all or deconstructed TO you BY you But What you can’t do is eliminate them being seen and constructed projected and almost egregious consensus entity So It’s actually beneficial to be in touch with what that is conceptual or not Real or not At some level that doesn’t matter at all

[@bananachew4736]

Fantastic clip and is good especially for those whom confuse and being attached with idea of I. and the amount efforts put in and sincereness making the clip I hereby appreciate and gain from it and rejoice Anumodana....

[@siddhartha-1-4-u]

good job running the interview

[@adventuresinawareness]

thank you!

[@ismaelmarksteiner]

Thank you.

[@dancingoneness8348]

such a release, no self, no one is here

[@jseymourguenther6527]

As to Daniel’s sense memory anecdote at 28:15, the classic reply to the city-slicker is of course, “smells like money!”💰💷🏦🐷💩

[@provocativehypnosis843]

Great interview, thanks guys

[@andthereisntone3454]

Fantastic! Thanks.

[@danielche2349]

Wow amazingly scientific explanations thanks for this

[@synsynsy]

Hmmm, that is cool! (Indeed)

[@Buddhism4Happiness]

There's no anything, but it all matters

[@cambarth8603]

"thats enough of that"

[@LightandJoyDesigns]

Dan would you describe yourself as a materialist? It seems like you might be?

[@Lizarus.un-sane]

Like the ego thing or the no thought thing?

[@alonzotate3436]

Namaste, there is no personal self there is no personal God but there is the presence of existence, in which is the only the self. Meaning, there is only God.

[@esall1617]

All the answers to these questions. Are 1)unsatisfactory 2) impermanent 3) not mine

[@adventuresinawareness]

lol :)

[@nadadenadax4903]

How can there be an experience of no self? Or is it a no- self-identity? Because there is no self that you could experience as no self

[@adventuresinawareness]

One proposition is that awareness doesn't need a 'self' in order to experience So there isn't an experience of no self, there is the seeing that there never was one. Another perspective is that there may be a temporary experience of self, but there is no enduring, permanent fixed self. In any case, on investigation, the nature of self is not what is commonly assumed

[@nadadenadax4903]

@@adventuresinawareness what we thought, self was, was just a bundle of bad memories through which we were observing. But some who have overcome the observer system stay in a no-I identity or in a no-position position. A very subtle form of the reflexive mind. so anyone who claims to experience no self has a self that is experiencing a no self. And that self is a Fantasy. It is a stuck position you have to realize in order for it to dissolve. Even the identification with awareness is still identification. Once you leave these concepts, you are free.

[@paulnewman3253]

No Self Theory There would be no hierarchy There wouldn’t exist light or dark, differences There would be no point of karma, reincarnation, afterlife Universe would be total chaos, confusion….. You would go crazy literally, no way around it, you wouldn’t be able to function. Should I go on ?

[@esall1617]

I can say I went crazy when I saw the truth. That there was no “I” “You want the truth!!! You can’t handle the truth” - Jack Nicholson Truth is sometimes we get in the way With “no-self” comes the release of karma. Karma is a continuous cause-effect. A continuous action. How can “you” act on something that is actually non-controllable? Even if you say you have control you don’t truly. Just the illusion of control. If I told you I knew if there was a god or not doesn’t matter really because even if I knew what you wanted to hear both sides of the coin would lead to a dissatisfaction with the answer. All perceptions loop back to 3 observable laws pertaining to how we view our “absolute” reality

[@paulnewman3253]

@@esall1617 You didn’t see the truth, you just went crazy, because of a Indian,Buddhist philosophy that makes no sense, and is dangerous to even be considered, when your higher mind, self is telling you all the signs that it’s wrong. Here’s what you do, and should do, ignore people that disprove the philosophy, and just double down, calling it truth,with a weird quote. This is what turns people off from spirituality in general, they have this crazy thing called common sense. Good luck to you man, I sure you and the rest of the crew have definitely found enlightenment. ❤🌎

[@esall1617]

@@paulnewman3253 who are you saying went crazy? Who is telling you I am crazy? Who is telling you I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about and who is telling you I kinda know what I’m talking about… You say I’m wrong and “I don’t know” How can any one being know all perceivable perceptions… “no one can” Any one person or identification that says “I know all perception” means he knows if there is a god. And since god contains all…… if you knew all then you would be at the same plane as god. And if you said “I know all” regardless of what subject would appear there would be “no concept on unknown….” God is eternal loop of creation even though the concept of god is 1) impermanent 2) unsatisfactory 3) not me or under control a rabbit hole to which I say how can “I” understand the concept of there being an ultimate reality that even “I” see is a dream that all I view is perceived as 1)unsatisfactory 2)impermanent 3) no identification of me or anything I can call me and I have no true control. Two people will get together and debate god it’s relative truth because both of them don’t know and both have a different filter with the concept of “god” as well as where they perceive it in their field but no matter what answers both people arrive at a similar obvious exact same“truth” even though relatively different in experience share an exact sameness. How can you say anything around you is actually different when all arises exactly at the same (space point) time at the Big Bang…. Doesn’t matter what I say just search for the thing that says “I” dont know what’s what. Any word I say is a misdirection in the right way.

[@Dharmapagan]

In my experience, Daniel is the perfect example of what happens when the intellect misappropriates the Dhamma. All the Buddha Dhamma is in service of abandoning craving, who is the architect of this matrix

[@user-fg3fv9hl3b]

In your experience or opinion? Because I don't believe you can experience that with any certainty given you're not him. If you want to go there then in my experience he is the perfect example of what happens when a practitioner really puts effort into the path.

[@Dharmapagan]

@@user-fg3fv9hl3b My opinion based on my experience. I could be wrong but I use the Buddha’s Criteria for evaluating the knowledge of a teacher or teaching as he laid it out in the Kalama sutta. He said we could know for ourselves whether or not to accept a teaching by how it affects us. If a teaching leads us to abandoning craving, realizing its cessation (Nibbana), and to harmlessness and compassion-that is, if a teaching makes the mind happy (free from craving), it’s a true teaching. If it leads to more seeking, more craving, more competition and comparison, then it’s not a true teaching. Daniel doesn’t lead people to realize the cessation of craving, he sells intellectual concepts and practices for his audience to seek after (aka spiritual materialism). I’m fine with skilled meditators like Daniel sharing these techniques as long as they are honest about it. He claims to be an arahat though, who by definition would be completely void of craving and conceit. An arahat has no self, not because they can intellectually dissect the personality , but because realization of reality has dissolved the craving that fabricates self, world, and the cycles of seeking. Craving fabricates everything. Non self is only one perceptual tool to dissolve craving. What we call self is the sensation of craving. Time is the distance between the arising of craving and the acquisition of the object of that craving. Space, time, and physical objects, all are fabricated by craving. A mind free of craving looks nothing like what we see in Daniel. It has nothing to sell. It’s completely empty of birth and death and full of life. I know because I spent months without any apparent craving arising in the mind. But as a trace remained, it recreated the whole fiction that had been dissolved. Daniel is welcome to peddle meditation skills. He is excellent at them, but he damages the Dhamma and misleads people by claiming he is liberated from ignorance and craving, as an arahat is. Just my humble opinion

[@tylerpantalone8470]

For me, simply put, too many words here(and this is part one of three!!!). Overcomplicating something that while not easy, is quite simple. Fine for some people, I suppose, but not accessible to most, I wouldn't think. He does touch on this, though, which is nice.

[@tobiaszb]

"Hmnn... That is cool."

[@tlduker]

I kept being distracted by the interviewer’s distraction with his phone.

[@adventuresinawareness]

I'm just making or referring to notes

[@dancingoneness8348]

his eyes really NO self

[@yoananda9]

he is talking about predictive coding without knowing it :-)

[@michaelcannon4835]

Man, I really wished he would’ve just answered the guy’s fucking questions from the start. A fucking slathering of wave particle distinction to make Anatta easier to understand?? Great. Thanks.

[@primordialarchetypes2927]

Agree, even with a science background myself, I still prefer down-to-earth explanations upfront, and THEN delve into how science connects with spirituality. I suggest Rupert Spira for simpler (not simplistic) explanations

[@5piles]

very mistaken explanation of noself. noself is not a denial of persons.

[@looseunit9180]

The interviewer has got a nice place. Homeboy must be rich. When you’re rich you have time to think Buddha stuff. Me I can’t even finish this vid. Gotta work now. Bye

[@ernestodavilia364]

I thought the Buddha was talking about not-self, he never attributed any importance to the self or not self as these were a bunch of views that stops the whole process.

[@adventuresinawareness]

not sure I understand your comment... can you elaborate? 🙏

[@markartist8646]

If you are trying to deal with trauma or other personal issues, this material is not helpful because you must engage a "self" and recognize that you need a self/ego/personal story/etc. in order to heal. This is spiritual bypassing to deny a self. You need your self's thoughts and feelings in order to understand who you are and how to relate to others in a healthy satisfying way. This, Eastern religion is not a path to healing or improving your relationships. You need your personal narrative in order to navigate the world and relationships; that gets diminished by developing the attitude that you are not a separate self. It is bypassing your very essence as a person.

[@sage5416]

It worked well for me son

[@user-fg3fv9hl3b]

Couldn't be more wrong about this not being helpful. There are two sides to practice, you are on the other side of it thinking it's better, when Daniel speaks of integrating both. Try it some day, or be more aware of your opinion not being based on complete information.

[@marksmith1779]

The Dancing Wu Li masters is inspired by Tao and Particle Physics. The Tao Te Ching is not Buddhism! In Buddhism, non self (Anatta) is one of the three marks of existence. Please note the difference though! All things are not Self. The Buddhist teaching is not that there is No Self. Therefore the premise of this video is wrong on two counts; - The Tao is not Buddhism The Buddhist idea of Anatta is about Non Self not No Self. Apart from that, of the other egregious errors in your video which betrays its naivete is this idea that 'the Self' can experience Non Self!!!! The Self is an illusion. It cannot experience a non illusion even if such a thing were to be possible which it is not. Basic errors!

[@alohm]

"sponsored by The Psychedelic Society" ? Very weird.

[@adventuresinawareness]

I know it initially might seem weird, but The Psychedelic Society has evolved from an activist organisation campaigning for legalisation of psychedelics in the UK, to being a space where conversations and learning happen about the nature of self, reality and our connection with nature, (irrespective of the use of any psychedelic substances.) For many people, psychedelics are a common catalyst for this kind of enquiry. Many of the most well known meditation teachers in the USA for example attribute the beginning of their journey to the psychedelic experience, including Ram Das, Deepak Chopra, Jack Kornfield and Joan Halifax. I don't personally advocate or condemn psychedelics, but the folks there were kind enough to see the value in these conversations and helped finance some of the production. Hope that makes it seem a little less weird! For Daniel's view on psychedelics check out kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5qnnJSvZrCNsMk

[@alohm]

​@@adventuresinawareness Not the Psychedelics silly. If it is sponsored there are rules so the audience isn't left wondering the creative control exercised or if it is an AD? This is the first I have experienced this. I know Daniel, but even I was left wondering about the authenticity of the content. There are clear and defined rules for sponsored content - this is three episodes now, I would not have mentioned on one video alone. The rules are to protect the audience sure, but also to protect your credibility. Just thought I'd point it out as you are a small channel, with big ambitions. * I am aware of the other episodes. Well done content indeed, this is why it left me wondering about this issue? * I watched the first two and did not notice the sponsored in the description till the third. That is what made me wonder and investigate further. The sponsorship and the nature of the sponsorship must be clearly defined for the audience, they must not have to find these answers themselves. There are guidelines online.

[@adventuresinawareness]

@@alohm Thanks for clarifying - have now updated the language to 'supported by' and explained in an upcoming video that the support was a small financial sum to help cover production costs, without any editorial input or creative control over the content. Thanks!

[@nascorob]

No self= subject object collapse= no experience..., an “experience” means subject object split ,No self means no world no others no objects no experience.....basically if quote on quote direct experience is of No Self there can be no self perception only other people will experience you, you will no longer experience yourself or anything or any one else, there is no contrast in No self consciousness, which is the default state of whatever you want to call it. Only in illusion is Self perception or experience constructed, there is no experience in No Self Consciousness........You cannot have a experience of No Self....

[@mellowsunrays]

Self (non localized expansive awareness of a person) is aware of no-self (ego identification). The term self is used differently in different traditions. (My example adveta vs buddism).

[@chadkline4268]

It's better to say 'non-self' or 'not-self'. Consciousness is 'non-self'. The 5 aggregates are 'not-self'. Self is eternal and zero dimensional. See my other comments for a fuller explanation. Also, the poster here is incorrect in the experience of cessation where the only object is pure emptiness. In that case, only the spirit/citta remains. Ingram is a nice guy and very intelligent but he has some major problems. He is about as anti-arahant as one can be. I will not call him a fraud, but I warn him that he will pay a severe penalty if he leads people improperly under claims of arahantship. That is in the class of greatest sin/crime in Buddhism.

[@esall1617]

What is saying you can’t have no-self. Cant have a Self without No-Self being present in the field. If we said that there is no experience of “no self” then it would mean we always would be. The Self would be looking for perceptions of Self. (Which is occurring) but it wouldnt contain impermanence because it couldnt. Reality wouldn’t be currently what it is. All perceptions are impermanent. Even the perception: you or “any other person” cannot have an experience of “no self”. All the talking is pointless too because no matter what “I” say it all leads to Unsatisfactoriness, a searching to understand when no thing needs to be understood. Because with even the concept of knowing and not knowing comes the perception of grasping at knowledge “unknown” which we also see we have no control over. All perceptions in reality just occur without identification and that follows until the thing you say is “you” is just tired at reaching the exact same conclusion over and over again……. That there isn’t a identifiable you there is no direct inherent choice in anything in the perceptual field. Dissatisfaction arises with this truth We have no say in truth. Just saying to my”self” I have reached the pinnacle of “all perceptions” makes You as well as me question endlessly our perceptional reality but “I” see and you continually will search. My perception of my “self” is feeling just discovered and I’m a toddler on a high chair but I’m not testing gravity of dropping a spoon. Im testing the nature of perceptual reality moment to moment.

[@chadkline4268]

@@esall1617 you are too confusing. The sense of 'i am here' always remains. That is eternal. I call it 'self' or 'spirit' or 'citta'. Call it what you want. It is composed of 3 things: 1) the glow of awareness, which reads the field of consciousness, 2) conscience, or an instantaneous non brain knowing, and 3) the power of intent, which can write to a field of consciousness. Any sensual intents bind to a field of sensory consciousness. That's the way it is. I tell you from direct experience. It's time to leave this silly topic behind and move ahead.

[@esall1617]

@@chadkline4268 thanks for “guiding” me I’m sorry I “felt” crazy… I guess I’ll just look till I find my answer.

[@AlexKellyArtUK]

Not-self or no-self? If you check the Buddhist Suttas, the Buddha when asked point blank if there was a sef or no-self would not answer that question. Taking either side or view point as a fact of ultimate reality or truth: that there is a self or that there is no-self, is to side either with eternalism or annihilationism. This Buddha rejected both of these positions as not enabling an escape from dukkha (which is whole point of the Buddha's teachings). He did teach that regarding the body (this is expanded to include what are called the 5 aggregates of experience - essentially mind and body) as being a self is a cause for trouble, stress and suffering (dukkha). Hence anatta, is probably more usefully translated as a not-self perception ie. don't look at these activities (of mind and body) as self or belonging to a self. I found Daniel's analysis of perception of thoughts and experience interesting. If you look at the teaching on dependent origination (paticca samuppada), perception appears twice in the list of conditioning factors. In fabrications (saṅkhāra) - bodily, verbal (thinking), mental (perception and feeling), which are conditioning factors for sense consciousness (seeing, hearing etc). Sense consciousness is the conditioning factor for mind and body (namarupa) which again includes the activities of (perception, intention, feeling and attention). Namarupa is in turn the conditioning factor for the six senses (the mind is considered a sense base in addition to the usual five). So perception (or recognition, labelling etc comes before sense consciousness which is usually considered to be a 'clean slate' as it were - pure sensory experience before mental proliferation. But teaching on dependent origination is saying that there is no clean slate that we are already have agendas before there is sense contact. So in a sense we are hard-wired to experience in certain ways (which cause problems - summed up as dukkha). Fortunately the Buddha discovered a way we can 'reprogramme' our self (or the activity of 'selfing') so that we can lessen dukkha and actually escape from the process completely (nibbana).

[@dicsoncandra1948]

we really can't take him seriously... without any ill will that i'm saying this, no arhat is liable to passion, aversion and delusion while daniel ingram experiences anger, engage in sexual intercourse, proud (conceit) of having a 'dr.' title from completing his phd and sells the 'dhamma' for money. he can claim to have experienced profound meditative states and so on which exist before the Buddha but in no way can his being be considered a Buddhist enlightenment, and not even a sotapanna (first stage of four) since according to the suttas he would have 'wrong view'

[@mellowsunrays]

@@dicsoncandra1948 He is not PHD. He is ER doc.

[@dicsoncandra1948]

@@mellowsunrays ok, i figured that mistake but didnt bother to change.. what i found was on a forum when someone questioned hima nd called him a 'mr' and he said 'dr.'.. Arhats are free from clinging esp on worldly things like title, wealth or power

[@mellowsunrays]

@@dicsoncandra1948 I think you are only looking at it from early canon perspective. There is so much more outside it, still considered Buddism. Mahayana, in its course, was heavily contributed by lay people (who had sex!). You find plenty of Buddist Sanga and monastry who charge for the courses they provide. Everybody has to eat! Budda did too. That is why the convinient reality is as real as the absolute in our lifetimes.

[@dicsoncandra1948]

@@mellowsunrays well i understand that people water down what the Buddha actually taught into convenient means, which I personally don't agree. regardless, Daniel Ingram uses the Theravadin framework (which I'm not saying is the true teaching because it does have additions) but he's conveniently using terms from one tradition, changes definitions and then labels himself as one. that's gross dishonesty and exactly why Theravadin scholars and monks criticise him because what he does isn't right. if he wants to claim as a bodhisattva as taught by Mahayana then sure, but bodhisattvas aren't enlightened beings just yet, and Mahayanas do have Vinayas too where they abstain from sexual intercourse. no school of Buddhism in this sense would ever regard the qualities that he possesses as someone who is enlightened.